442 The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 4 The Western region had the largest ratio of population to doctoral programs, at 31.8 million people per doctoral program. This ratio was more than four times greater than the next largest ratio (North Atlantic, 7.2 million per doctoral program) and 10 times the ratio of the other three regions (North Central, 3.1 million; Southern, 2.6 million; Rocky Mountain, 1.8 million). It was therefore evident that the Western region was most underrepresented in the number of CES doctoral programs per region inhabitant. The Relationship Between CACREP-Accredited Doctoral and Master’s Programs A linear multiple regression (random model) was computed to better understand the relationship between the number of CACREP-accredited master’s and doctoral programs per state. Other predictor variables included state population size, state population density, number of colleges and universities per state, and number of APA-accredited counseling psychology programs per state. The sample size of 51 exceeded the requirement for 80% power at the .05 alpha level (i.e., n = 39). Data conformed to homoscedasticity and did not show multicollinearity (A. Field, 2013). Residuals (errors) were equally distributed, and no significant outliers were found (A. Field, 2013). Because these assumptions were met, parametric statistics could be performed without adjustments (A. Field, 2013). The linear multiple regression (random model) variables significantly predicted the number of CACREP doctoral programs: F(5, 44) = 18.55, p < .05, R2 = .68. This represented a large effect size. Notably, only CACREPaccredited master’s programs were a significant predictor variable, with a standardized β coefficient of .85 (p < .05). The other predictor variables were not significant predictors and did not contribute to the multiple regression model. Thus, the presence of CACREP-accredited master’s programs accounted for 68% of the variance in doctoral programs by state. Data in Table 1 help to elucidate the relationship between CACREP-accredited doctoral and master’s programs. The Southern region by far had the largest number of CACREP-accredited master’s programs (n = 162) and doctoral programs (n = 45). The second largest number of master’s programs was in the region with the second largest number of doctoral programs (North Central; 104 and 23, respectively). Some differences between doctoral and master’s program representation were found; the Rocky Mountain region had the smallest number of master’s programs at 24, which was three times less than the North Atlantic region, despite having the same number of doctoral programs (n = 8). Figures 1 and 2 further clarify that although a relationship exists between the number of CACREPaccredited doctoral and master’s programs, there are important regional differences. In the West, several states had a relatively high number of master’s programs (e.g., California, Oregon, Washington) despite having one or even zero doctoral programs per state. In the North Atlantic region, New York and Pennsylvania had among the highest number of master’s programs by state, though these two states had relatively fewer doctoral programs. There were no CACREP-accredited doctoral programs and relatively few CACREP-accredited master’s programs in the entirety of New England (i.e., Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont), which is noteworthy because the area is known for the high number of colleges and universities, as well as high population density. When reviewing ratios of master’s programs to population in Table 1, the Western region showed a far smaller representation of master’s programs compared to other regions. There were 1.8 million inhabitants per master’s program in the Western region. The Western region had more than double the ratio of the other four regions, who themselves have a fairly equivalent ratio of inhabitants per master’s program, ranging from 597,000 to 770,000.