I am currently in Washington state, so I speak from a perspective within these borders. Here, there is no legal protection for the use of the terms “counselor”/”counseling” or “therapist”/”therapy” in and of themselves. Meanwhile, terms such as “social work”/”social worker” (see RCW 18.320), “psychologist,” and related titles and terms are protected by law (see RCW 18.83.020). Because of this, no explicit distinction has been made in law or regulation, that I am aware of, distinguishing “counseling” or “therapy.”
Rather, the scope of practice for particular credentials is deferred by states to the national bodies that accredit graduate counseling programs and provide guidance for standards of professional practice for mental health professionals with specific credentials (LCSW, LPC, LMHC, LMFT, LCPC, etc.). Examples of these accrediting entities include CACREP, COAMFTE, and the APA. Examples of organizations providing guidance for standards of professional practice include NBCC, NASW, AAMFT, AMHCA, and, again, the APA.
Beyond that, states treat these varying master’s-level clinical practitioners with legal parity, or equivalence, in scope of practice and legal protection.
In Washington state’s new credentialing law, passed in 2008 and rolled out in 2009, “psychotherapist” and “psychotherapy” were more clearly defined, but let’s be clear that the kind of regulatory accountability provided by these defined uses in the law does not apply to the terms “therapy” or “therapists.” I should note that the law also restricts the use of the term “private practice counseling” to sole use by two new categories of unlicensed providers, certified advisors (CA) and certified counselors (CC) (see RCW 18.19.020 and WAC 246-810-010). Can you imagine a law reserving such a term for unlicensed practitioners and placing licensed practitioners in legal limbo for using it?
Further, that 2009 law in and of itself did not explicitly regulate beyond providing new credentialing categories. It did result in executive recommendations in 2011 for scopes of practice, disclosure statements to be provided to people receiving services, and continuing education standards, but these recommendations still have not been translated into regulation (or even a great deal of clarity).
For instance, agency-affiliated counselors (AAC) are credentialed to provide counseling (see RCW 18.19, WAC 246-810), but Washington State Department of Health regulation does not require any academic degree as a minimum educational requirement for this particular credential, so the term “counseling” remains loosely defined and diluted (though not nearly as much as it was in the era of the state’s “registered counselor” credential).
And, whereas some regulatory bodies and insurance companies associate “counseling” with such services as skill-building, coaching, and varying forms of behavioral modification, all I have seen in the language of regulatory code and most insurance coding language are terms such as “skills training,” “psychoeducation,” “rehabilitation,” and the like, and a steering clear of the word “counseling” by itself whenever possible, due to its multitude of uses rendering it nearly descriptively meaningless.
One might think it best, then, to limit the words “counseling” and “counselor” to referring to non-degreed or bachelor’s-level mental health practitioners. Keep in mind, though, that the nature and scope of clinical practice for those credentialed as LPCs (licensed professional counselors), LMHCs (licensed mental health counselors), and LCPCs (licensed clinical professional counselors) has legal parity with master’s-level professions that prefer the terms “therapy” and “therapist” (such as LMFTs, or licensed marriage and family therapists). So while I think it’s fair to say the use of the term “therapy” is more limited, I’d bet LPC, LMHC, and LCPC boards would contend it is unfair to elevate it to a higher educational or professional plane in usage, which may result in viewing such clinicians as less qualified or as providing a less specialized treatment service than, for instance, LMFTs.
While it’s true that there are not, similarly, examples of bachelor’s-level clinicians who are credentialed under the terms “therapy” or “therapist,” it seems to me the terms are used so interchangeably as to be nearly synonymous from a regulatory perspective. Ultimately, I think calling a treatment service “psychotherapy” or “therapy” versus “counseling” has less to do with the methodology used or, in most cases, diagnoses rendered and more to do with permissions related to an as-yet-insufficiently defined scope of practice.
The terms “therapist” and “counselor” are often used interchangeably but are also sometimes used to highlight level of education or credentialing. A credentialed therapist may have had more extensive training and be more broadly credentialed. A counselor may not be credentialed, and may have a bachelor’s degree but no master’s. Of course, a counselor may indeed have a graduate degree and independent license yet simply prefer the words “counselor” and “counseling” to “therapist” and “therapy.”
For these reasons, I do not think there is a necessary distinction between “counseling” and “therapy” unless clear direction is provided for their usage by a local governing entity or other regulatory body that makes it so. Still, some are adamant that “therapy” is the realm of clinicians with a master’s-level education and above, while “counseling” is the realm of clinicians with a bachelor’s or below.
In many places, authorization to diagnose sets apart master’s- and doctoral-level clinicians from bachelor’s-level clinicians, although within the community mental health system in Washington, a master’s degree alone is insufficient for diagnosis. According to Washington state’s Access to Care Standards (2015) for Medicaid enrollees, one must also meet the state’s legal definition of MHP, or mental health professional (WAC 388-865-0150). Nearly every linguistic distinction and practice limitation has been forged into regulation in order to provide consumer protections requiring that practitioners practice reasonably within their scope of education and training.
The terms “therapist” and “counselor” are often used interchangeably but are also sometimes used to highlight level of education or credentialing. A credentialed therapist may have had more extensive training and be more broadly credentialed. A counselor may not be credentialed, and may have a bachelor’s degree but no master’s. Of course, a counselor may indeed have a graduate degree and independent license yet simply prefer the words “counselor” and “counseling” to “therapist” and “therapy.”
If you have any questions about a practitioner’s level of education, credentials, or experience, ask them. When I was in private practice, I periodically received phone calls to consult about the nature of the services I provided as well as to inquire about my background and qualifications. I was grateful for these opportunities to provide people with helpful information ensuring that if they did choose to see me, for counseling or for therapy, they would do so with eyes wide open.
A few questions: Do you differentiate between “counseling” and “therapy”? Does your state? Especially if you’re a master’s-level practitioner, do you value one term over the other? Please share your thoughts below.
References:
The preceding article was solely written by the author named above. Any views and opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by GoodTherapy.org.
