The History and Development of Prof

The History and Development of Professional Preparation Standards
Unfortunately, the United States is cluttered with bogus “institutions of higher learning” that issue master’s and doctor’s “degrees” that are not worth the paper they are printed on and that can even get you into legal trouble if you attempt to proffer them as legitimate credentials. . . . Avoid these rip-offs as you would the plague. (Keith-Spiegel & Wiederman, 2000, p. 53)
Mental health professionals often have responsibilities that heavily impact the lives of others, many of whom are exceptionally vulnerable. Shoddy or inept training could cause you, even inadvertently, to harm people. One mechanism of ensuring good training is through accreditation of programs. Some of the fi rst programs to offer training standards that would eventually lead to accreditation were in social work during the early part of the twentieth century—soon to be followed by psychology programs in the mid-1940s (Morales, Sheafor, & Scott, 2012; Sheridan, Matarazzo, & Nelson, 1995). Few then realized that today there would literally be hundreds of accredited programs offering graduate training in counseling, social work, couples and family therapy, and psychology. Although starting a little later than the fi elds of psychology and social work, within the past 30 years the counseling fi eld has made great strides in its efforts toward accreditation.
The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP): A Short History
The acronym CACREP is a mouthful to say. . . . In fact, without the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, counseling would be far less credible as a profession compared to other human service fi elds that have such an agency. (Sweeney, 1992, p. 667) Although the idea of having standards for counselor education programs can be traced back to the 1940s (Sweeney, 1992), it was not until the 1960s that such standards began to take form with the adoption of training standards for elementary school counselors, secondary school counselors, and student personnel workers in higher education (Altekruse &
CHAPTER 3 Standards in the Profession 81
Wittmer, 1991). Soon, ACES began to examine the possibility of merging these various standards into one document entitled the Standards for the Preparation of Counselors and Other Personnel Service Specialists (Altekruse & Wittmer, 1991; Sweeney, 1995). Although the Standards were being unoffi cially used as early as 1973, it was not until 1979 that APGA (now ACA) offi cially adopted them, and in 1981 APGA created the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), a freestanding incorporated legal body that would oversee the accrediting process (Brooks & Gerstein, 1990). Adoption of the CACREP standards started slowly, and they have gone through a number of revisions prior to taking on their most recent form, which went into effect in January of 2009. Today they are considered to be the standard to which all counseling programs should strive (see CACREP, 2010a). Considering the vast number of changes that most programs have to make and the amount of time that it takes to implement such changes, it is a tribute to CACREP that 242 of the approximately 500 institutions that offer counseling programs oversee 579 accredited programs in a number of specialty areas (Urofsky, personal communication, March 5, 2010). An additional 35 programs are now applying for accreditation (CACREP, 2010b), and with New York State and California fairly recently obtaining licensure for counselors, it is likely that there will be a push in those states to accredit additional counseling programs. As you might guess, all evidence seems to indicate that the there will be continued expansion of the number of CACREP accredited programs. It is probably not surprising that accreditation of counseling problems has quickly spread, as the benefi ts are many (Bahen & Miller, 1998; McGlothlin & Davis, 2004; O’Brien, 2009; Schmidt, 1999): • Students who graduate from accredited programs study from a common curriculum, are generally more knowledgeable about core counseling issues, and usually participate in more intensive and longer fi eld work experiences. • Accreditation often becomes the standard by which credentialing bodies determine who is eligible to become certifi ed or licensed. • Accreditation bodies offer the impetus for setting and maintaining high standards. • Accreditation almost always results in improved programs. • Administrators and legislators are often more willing to provide money to maintain the high standards of accredited programs. • Those who graduate from accredited programs generally have better job opportunities. • Accredited programs will often attract better faculty. • Accredited programs will often attract better students. Although some have argued that accredited programs can limit creativity, are too costly, and delimit what can be offered, it is clear that CACREP is here to stay.
A Quick Overview of the CACREP Standards Today, CACREP offers standards for the doctoral degree in counselor education and for the master’s degree in clinical mental health counseling (54 credits until July 1, 2013, thereafter 60 credits), school counseling (48 credits), student affairs and college counseling (48 credits), career counseling (48 credits), addiction counseling (60 credits), and marriage, couple, and family counseling (60 credits) (CACREP, 2010c). In some counseling programs you will find accredited master’s degrees in counseling listed under related names (e.g., community counseling) as those programs were accredited under previous standards. As their accreditation periods run

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Sejarah dan perkembangan standar Persiapan ProfessionalSayangnya, Amerika Serikat berantakan dengan palsu "institusi pendidikan tinggi" yang mengeluarkan master dan doctor's "gelar" yang tidak sebanding dengan kertas mereka dicetak pada dan yang bahkan bisa mendapatkan Anda ke dalam masalah hukum jika Anda mencoba untuk menawari mereka sebagai sah kredensial.... Hindari rip-off ini seperti wabah. (Keith-Spiegel & Wiederman, 2000, halaman 53)Profesional kesehatan mental sering memiliki tanggung jawab yang sangat mempengaruhi kehidupan orang lain, banyak dari mereka sangat rentan. Pelatihan yang buruk atau tidak kompeten dapat menyebabkan Anda, bahkan secara tidak sengaja, untuk menyakiti orang. Salah satu mekanisme memastikan pelatihan yang baik adalah melalui akreditasi program. Beberapa program rst fi untuk menawarkan standar pelatihan yang akhirnya mengarah ke akreditasi berada dalam pekerjaan sosial selama bagian awal abad kedua puluh — segera untuk diikuti oleh psikologi program pada pertengahan 1940-an (Morales, Sheafor, & Scott, 2012; Sheridan, Matarazzo, & Nelson, 1995). Sedikit kemudian menyadari bahwa hari ini akan benar-benar ada ratusan program terakreditasi yang menawarkan pascasarjana pelatihan dalam konseling, kerja sosial, pasangan dan keluarga terapi, dan psikologi. Meskipun mulai sedikit lambat elds fi psikologi dan kerja sosial, dalam 30 tahun konseling fi eld telah membuat langkah besar dalam usahanya menuju akreditasi.Dewan Akreditasi konseling dan program pendidikan terkait (CACREP): sejarah singkatSingkatan CACREP adalah seteguk mengatakan.... Pada kenyataannya, tanpa Dewan Akreditasi konseling dan program pendidikan yang terkait, konseling akan jauh lebih dapat dipercaya sebagai sebuah profesi dibandingkan dengan lain elds fi pelayanan manusia yang memiliki lembaga tersebut. (Sweeney, 1992, ms. 667) Meskipun gagasan memiliki standar untuk program pendidikan konselor dapat ditelusuri kembali ke tahun 1940-an (Sweeney, 1992), itu tidak sampai tahun 1960-an yang standar tersebut mulai mengambil bentuk dengan adopsi standar pelatihan untuk konselor sekolah dasar, sekolah menengah konselor dan mahasiswa personil pekerja dalam pendidikan tinggi (Altekruse & Bab 3 standar dalam profesi 81Wittmer, 1991). Soon, ACES began to examine the possibility of merging these various standards into one document entitled the Standards for the Preparation of Counselors and Other Personnel Service Specialists (Altekruse & Wittmer, 1991; Sweeney, 1995). Although the Standards were being unoffi cially used as early as 1973, it was not until 1979 that APGA (now ACA) offi cially adopted them, and in 1981 APGA created the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), a freestanding incorporated legal body that would oversee the accrediting process (Brooks & Gerstein, 1990). Adoption of the CACREP standards started slowly, and they have gone through a number of revisions prior to taking on their most recent form, which went into effect in January of 2009. Today they are considered to be the standard to which all counseling programs should strive (see CACREP, 2010a). Considering the vast number of changes that most programs have to make and the amount of time that it takes to implement such changes, it is a tribute to CACREP that 242 of the approximately 500 institutions that offer counseling programs oversee 579 accredited programs in a number of specialty areas (Urofsky, personal communication, March 5, 2010). An additional 35 programs are now applying for accreditation (CACREP, 2010b), and with New York State and California fairly recently obtaining licensure for counselors, it is likely that there will be a push in those states to accredit additional counseling programs. As you might guess, all evidence seems to indicate that the there will be continued expansion of the number of CACREP accredited programs. It is probably not surprising that accreditation of counseling problems has quickly spread, as the benefi ts are many (Bahen & Miller, 1998; McGlothlin & Davis, 2004; O’Brien, 2009; Schmidt, 1999): • Students who graduate from accredited programs study from a common curriculum, are generally more knowledgeable about core counseling issues, and usually participate in more intensive and longer fi eld work experiences. • Accreditation often becomes the standard by which credentialing bodies determine who is eligible to become certifi ed or licensed. • Accreditation bodies offer the impetus for setting and maintaining high standards. • Accreditation almost always results in improved programs. • Administrators and legislators are often more willing to provide money to maintain the high standards of accredited programs. • Those who graduate from accredited programs generally have better job opportunities. • Accredited programs will often attract better faculty. • Accredited programs will often attract better students. Although some have argued that accredited programs can limit creativity, are too costly, and delimit what can be offered, it is clear that CACREP is here to stay.A Quick Overview of the CACREP Standards Today, CACREP offers standards for the doctoral degree in counselor education and for the master’s degree in clinical mental health counseling (54 credits until July 1, 2013, thereafter 60 credits), school counseling (48 credits), student affairs and college counseling (48 credits), career counseling (48 credits), addiction counseling (60 credits), and marriage, couple, and family counseling (60 credits) (CACREP, 2010c). In some counseling programs you will find accredited master’s degrees in counseling listed under related names (e.g., community counseling) as those programs were accredited under previous standards. As their accreditation periods run