CACREP Accreditation Intentions

Abstract

The ;iuthors discuss results of a national survey, conducted by the AACD Committee for Standards Review, of counselor preparation programs regarding their intentions related to (:ACRE€' accreditation. Programs were separated into four groups: Group 1 -programs that held CACREP accreditation; Group 5-programs with definite intentions of seeking CACREP accreditation; Group %-programs that were uncertain whether they would pursue CACKEP accreditation; and Group 4-programs that did not anticipate seeking CACREP accreditation. Data were analyzed for patterns of response across groups. Size and type of program and reasons central to program decisions concerning accreditation provided fortis for the study. Implications of the findings are discussed. Steinhauser and Bradley (1983) presented an excellent chronology of the development and implementation of the accreditation movement in counselor education. Preliminary efforts directed toward the establishment of preparation standards, accreditation efforts by the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES), and, finally, the formation of the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) were carefully outlined. Concluding that "accreditation and other professionalization methods" (p. 106) may be a necessary component for the survival of the counseling profession, these authors described the response to the movement as enthusiastic. Jran II. Cecil is professor and chair of Counselor Educataon at The University of Alabama. Robert (Pete) Haz~rns b projessor of Counselor Education at the University of Wisconran, Oshkosh. John C. Moracco i\ prafP.\sor of Counselor Education at Auburn University. Nancy A . Scott ZS vice-president for Student AffiLir.7 at the Univer.yity of Northern Colorado. Sue E. Spooner is associate professor of Colkge Studrnt Perwnnel Adminutration at the Unioersity of Northern Colorado. Grata M . Vaughn z.\ ns.si\~ant udrnznistrator for Courueling in /he School District of Philadelphia.

1994 CACREP Standards: Will We Make the Grade?

“…Curriculum problems. Establishing 100 hours for practicum and 600 hours for internship supervision has been identified as the most pressing problem in meeting CACREP's standards (Bobby & Kandor, 1992;Cecil et al, 1987;Engels, 1991;Kandor & Bobby, 1991;Pate, 1990;Vacc, 1985;Weinrach, 1991;Weinrach & Thomas, 1993;Wilcoxon, Cecil, & Comas, 1987). This standard has resulted in the CACREP board creating a new working definition of internship to address the widespread concern that many school counselor programs have enrolled school teachers who could not afford to leave positions of full-time employment while completing the internship requirement.…”

“…The third curriculum concern involves the impact on course requirements to establish a common core curriculum Cecil et al, 1987;Weinrach, 1991;Weinrach & Thomas, 1993;Wilcoxon, Cecil, & Comas, 1986). In general, this entails increasing the number of required credits, changing elective courses to required courses, dropping others,, and using adjunct appointments and doctoral students in supervisory or teaching roles.…”

“…Identifying enough faculty to meet the required faculty-student ratio is a major administrative problem for those seeking accreditation (Bobby & Kandor, 1992;Cecil et al, 1987;Kandor & Bobby, 1991;Weinrach, 1991;Wilcoxon et al, 1986). The requirements of 10 FTE students to 1 FTE faculty, the 20:1 student-to-advisor ratio based on head count, and the minimum of 3 full-time faculty within the academic unit are particular problems for the smaller part-time programs.…”

Assessment of Selected CACREP Standards by Accredited and Nonaccredited Programs

“…Once CACREP was established, several articles related survey results focused on specific accreditation concerns. Data have been generated on the quality and types of entering graduate students' concerns (Stickle & Schnacke, 1984) related to increases in program requirements (Cecil & Comas, 1986;Vacc, 1985), accredited program faculty characteristics (Miller & Sampson, 1984), and program intentions for seeking CACREP accreditation (Cecil et al, 1987). Because these early surveys were limited by the relatively low number of CACREP programs available for response, low response rates, or both, generalizations for use by CACREP have been avoided.…”

An Assessment of the Perceived Relevance of the CACREP Standards

“…R esearchers have concluded that CACREP (Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs) accredited programs are in a more advantageous and competitive position regarding such factors as increased student and faculty pride, university support, faculty involvement, and increased student enrollment (Cecil & Comas 1986;Cecil et al, 1987;Stickle & Schnacke, 1984;Vacc, 1985). Yet, the quintessential issue for counselor educators to consider when applying for accreditation by CACREP is whether the Standards for the Preparation of Counselors are relevant to counselor education.…”