Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB251

Wisconsin 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/8/23
• Refer: 5/8/23
• Report Pass: 11/9/23
• Refer: 11/9/23
• Engrossed: 11/14/23
• Refer: 11/21/23
• Enrolled: 2/16/24
• Chaptered: 3/25/24
• Passed: 3/25/24

Caption

A tier I license issued by the Department of Public Instruction and modifying administrative rules promulgated by the Department of Public Instruction.

Impact

The introduction of AB251 is expected to have significant implications for the regulations surrounding marriage and family therapy in Wisconsin. By formally establishing a license category, the bill would ensure that practitioners in this field adhere to specific educational and professional standards. The bill aims to promote accountability and professionalism, ultimately benefiting the public by ensuring that those providing mental health services have the necessary qualifications. Enhanced licensing requirements could also facilitate better collaboration between educational institutions and mental health agencies in preparing future therapists for the profession.

Summary

Assembly Bill 251 seeks to establish a tier I license for clinically trained marriage and family therapists through the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). To qualify for this license, applicants must possess a master's degree in marriage and family therapy and hold a valid certification or license from the relevant examining board. The tier I license is valid for one year and is renewable as long as the therapist continues to meet the established eligibility criteria. This legislative move is intended to regulate and enhance the standards for practicing marriage and family therapists in the state of Wisconsin, paralleling existing licensing structures for social workers.

Contention

While generally seen as a step forward for the recognition of marriage and family therapists, AB251 could encounter resistance from various stakeholders. Concerns may arise regarding the sufficiency of the proposed regulations, potential barriers for individuals seeking licensure, and the impact on existing practitioners. Some may argue that the additional licensing requirements could limit access to mental health services in underserved areas where trained professionals are already scarce. Another point of contention could revolve around the bureaucratic implications of licensing and the manner in which it is administered by DPI, raising questions about efficiency and effectiveness.