Standardized Education
Final step to define substance use disorder counseling as a profession

What qualifies one to provide addiction counseling and how one attains those qualifications is a key theme that has been present throughout the history of addictions treatment. Time was the only requirement to become a counselor was to have been or be in recovery from one’s own addiction. The field has evolved and grown through the years, requiring mandated education and training.

Historically, those in similar areas of clinical practice have questioned the professional identity of addiction counselors. Addictions counseling can be defined as a profession as it is comprised of:

• A function specific jargon
• A scope of practice
• A canon of ethics that guides practice
• A body of empirical knowledge that guides practice

A next step will be to develop a standardized education process; which is the remaining criteria that defines a profession.

The addictions treatment field may be viewed along a historical continuum, beginning with simplistic qualification standards and practice guidelines, to increasing levels of complexity. This evolution is a natural process that occurs as any field moves from lay person driven toward professional practice.

While the field of addictions counseling may conceptually meet the definition of a profession in practice it lacks unity around the above referenced criteria. The outcome of this reality is that the field does not have commonly accepted standards.

Today we recognize that a person does not have to be in recovery to be a counselor. Similar areas of human service have institutionalized agreements; such as accreditation standards. For example, the public perception of trust in the medical profession is one that is built on recognition of the stringent educational requirements of this profession. The public is generally aware of the above –identified professional criteria that define the medical profession. These same criteria define the addictions counseling profession because they are both professions.

One element that holds true throughout the history of the addictions treatment industry:

Counselor competency development has been primarily defined by the individual.

A review of today’s world wide counselor development oversight bodies reveals that counselor competency development remains an individual defined process. The perspectives of the oversight bodies are tied together through the common goal of counselor competence. Competence is subjectively defined and presented by each of the oversight bodies. A final unifying concern is that none of the perspectives advocate for the integration of learning theory into workforce development practice. Current competence development systems are not grounded in learning theory.

State and federal governments have become the entities that define the industry through credentialing and regulation. Governmental bodies have a role in protecting consumers of services. Their qualifications, bureaucratic structures, and primary responsibilities impede their effectiveness as leaders. While we currently have credentialing standards, they are not universally accepted. Credentialing standards do not mandate how one develops competency. They are not designed to act as competency development processes. Credentialing regulations provide minimum compliance standards for individuals to earn the privilege of being credentialed.

The state cannot effectively shape and define substance use disorder counseling as a profession. Social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists also cannot fill this role as they are trained as generalist practitioners and not individuals who have devoted themselves to the primary cause of treating addiction.

There is a need to unify the field as a professional practice for the twenty-first century. The science behind the practice has evolved; yet the field remains mired by the identity of the subordinate “para-professional.” Toward this end, recognition of the need for continuous purposeful evolution is critical. This evolution should likely involve development of industry specific standards and competency development systems.

At its essence, competency development may be understood as a research based strategic process that provides a relative assurance of competency through systematic education, regulatory provisions, and supervision. The idea is to increase the validity and integrity of credentialed counselors by providing uniform standards and competence development systems that are grounded in both education and substance use disorder best practice research.

The process is built upon three major elements: Core competencies, an education process, and qualification criteria.

Professional practice is based on best practice research which ids developed into field specific core competencies. Core competencies, associated skills, and attitudes can be taught and adopted as institutionalized industry standards and values. Research from the field of education provides best practice guidelines that can be refined to specifically focus on our profession. Systems and organization management theories further illustrate the path for developing a unified workforce.

Currently no standardized frame or method exists; which would function as a tool to develop the work force in a unified and measurable manner. The terms standardized and process are critical in that they define fundamental elements of workforce development. After establishing a baseline, standardization provides consistency and measurable benchmarks. Core competencies, and job specific knowledge, skills and attitudes further define educational benchmarks.

The term process, by definition, describes a proscribed systematic mechanism that moves an individual from novice or developing practitioner to a master level or exemplary practitioner.

Development of a supervision framework further assures effective workforce development. However supervisors must be trained to provide all three elements of supervision: administrative, educational, and clinical.

Administrative supervision ensures legal and regulatory compliance.
Educational supervision involves developing a working knowledge of the philosophy and theoretical constructs; which drive effective clinical practice.

Clinical supervision involves the development of core skills and attitudes.

The workforce development model I present in the book entitled Orientation to Experience, would require each individual to engage in a learning system that would empower he/her to develop a mastery of the knowledge, skills and attitudes behind each of the core competencies.

A unique function of my addictions specific educational framework is a focus on effective learning. Affective learning involves the individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and values and how they impact h/her behavior. The education process is best served when it is synchronized with state specific operating regulations. Thus, the individual’s educational process would consist of basic-level, context-specific, and advanced-practice competencies.