TPC-Journal-V1-Issue3

The Professional Counselor \ Volume 1, Issue 1 193 Previous to the post-modern era, the counseling profession was based on Eurocentric models and was almost exclusively a U.S. profession (Corey, 2009; D’Andrea & Arrendondo, 2002). Since the late-1980s, however, multicultural considerations have become mainstream, and counseling is becoming an international profession. Often called the fourth force in counseling (D’Andrea & Arredondo, 2002) multiculturalism has had a profound impact on the profession, especially regarding culturally and linguistically diverse populations (Arthur & Pedersen, 2008). Since the late 1980s multicultural task forces have been set up and special editions of various counseling journals have addressed issues such as culture, ethnicity, gay, lesbian and transgender issues. Counseling Today , a monthly magazine published by ACA, also features a regular column on diversity. Multicultural competencies developed by Sue, Arrendondo and McDavis (1992) were adopted in the early 1990s by the Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development (AMCD) and adopted by all 19 ACA division affiliates. CACREP identifies diversity as one of the eight core counseling areas (CACREP, 2009) and coursework in multicultural counseling is a staple in counselor education curricula. Although debate regarding its parameters continues (Dunn, Smith, & Montoya, 2006; Weinrach, 2003), multiculturalism will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping the counseling profession, particularly given the globalization of the field (Arthur & Pedersen, 2008). The Current Situation: Success and Strife The counseling profession has achieved numerous goals (e.g., name recognition, licensure, third party billing, emerging international presence, etc.) in nearly 60 years of existence. Nevertheless, concerns loom large over the counseling horizon. One of the most pressing issues is the counseling profession’s attempts to achieve marketplace parity with their mental health colleagues (Gladding, 2009; Remley & Herlihy, 2007). In the U.S., the first significant steps on this long journey towards parity were the profession’s successes in achieving state licensure. Historically, achieving rights coincides with long-term struggle against established forces who seldom abdicate power and privilege willingly (Marx & Engels, 1985). The counseling profession’s experience has been no exception to this maxim, as psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers have vigorously opposed the counseling profession with regard to licensure, third-party billing, Medicare reimbursement, use of psychological tests and many other areas. Undaunted, the American Counseling Association, American Mental Health Counselors Association (AMHCA), American School Counselors Association (ASCA), and the National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC) have pressed forward in the aforementioned areas. Such efforts have yielded considerable success (e.g., licensure and third-party billing) while leaving some major privileges unachieved (e.g., Medicare billing rights). Although ACA and its affiliates’ lobbying efforts have witnessed a Medicare reimbursement bill for counselors passing both houses of Congress at separate times, Medicare reimbursement remains unachieved, though well within reach. TRICARE, the U.S. military’s version of Medicare, recognizes licensed counselors as reimbursable providers, and recently has agreed to waive requiring physician referral for soldiers and their dependents desiring to access services of a licensed counselor (Barstow & Holt, 2010). The Veteran’s Administration also has approved licensed counselors to work in VA hospitals, although the VA has been very slow to hire counselors. Challenges from Within the Counseling Profession: A Commentary As indicated above, the counseling profession has struggled with many “turf” battles, namely with psychology and social work. But perhaps the counseling profession’s most serious challenge is the splintering of membership and resources among the various counseling organizations. For most of its existence, ACA required members to join one affiliate divisions. For example, applicants desiring membership in, say, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA), also were required to join ACA. For years the requirement to join the flagship organization was the source of controversy, bickering and threats of disaffiliation (B. Collison, personal communication, June 4, 2008). ACA’s membership numbers had already been reduced in the early 1990s when the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) disaffiliated, taking more than 10,000 members from ACA (B. Collison, personal communication, June 4, 2008). The case of ASCA illustrates an important question for counselors: does the identity and loyalty of a school counselor lie with the flagship organization (i.e., ACA), or with the division/professional organization for school counselors (i.e., ASCA)? This splintering among the professional organizations operating under the counseling umbrella creates the possibility of further reduction, division, and disaffiliation. While ASCA and AMHCA remain divisional affiliates, each collects separate membership dues, holds separate national conventions, retains their own lobbyists and publicizes themselves as primary organizations representing their respective counseling specialties. From an outside perspective, ASCA and AMHCA’s relationship with ACA appears tenuous and one can only speculate whether they will remain