Kansas MFT advisory committee leans to retain high bar for MFT supervision while noting access concerns

Members of the Marriage and Family Therapy Advisory Committee reviewed supervision policy and expressed broad support for retaining the existing MFT supervision standard and the board‑approved supervisor designation, even as they acknowledged access and cost barriers for some supervisors.

Chair Mary Jones reopened the supervision discussion after hearing that professional counselors had recommended statutory language to permit up to 50% of supervision hours to be provided by qualified supervisors from another BSRB profession. Members debated whether to mirror that approach or keep the current higher bar for marriage and family therapy. Several members argued that MFTs should be supervised by other MFTs to preserve systemic focus and training quality.

Chris Havan and other committee members noted that the AMFT (AAMFT) approved‑supervisor credential provides rigorous training; some members said that AMFT approval plus the BSRB board‑approved supervisor process provides a useful pathway for maintaining standards. At the same time, members acknowledged that time and expense deter some supervisors from seeking additional designations and that availability of trained supervisors has improved in recent years.

David Fye explained operational benefits of the board‑approved supervisor list (helps the agency maintain a current pool of supervisors and refer licensees) and noted that attempts to add a board‑approved supervisor status for social work had previously been removed in the Legislature after opposition from NASW Kansas.

The advisory committee did not adopt a new position that would mirror LPC recommendations; the chair characterized the outcome as a “hold tight” approach — preserving the committee’s earlier recommendation to maintain current language while capturing concerns about access and training.

Next steps: the chair will report the advisory committee’s perspectives to the full board as part of legislative planning; committee members suggested continued outreach to expand supervisor training opportunities and to consider administrative steps (such as adding a renewal question about willingness to supervise) to build a more accessible supervisor list.