There is a lot of confusing information on who can and cannot do forensic evaluations for Emotional Support Animals and Psychiatric Service Dogs. There have been different organizations issuing their official statement on who is qualified and who is not; what type of training is required and if the “counselor” can do the evaluation or if a separate forensic evaluation has to do them.
The American Counselor Association ACA and HUD both have issued statements regarding “online evaluations” and their legitimacy. As with anything, one (or in this case A LOT) of bad apples ruins it for the rest of the people who truly need and qualify for an ESA or PSD. Notice I said need. I did not say want. The need is the minimum requirement in these forensic evaluations. Just because somebody needs them does not mean they qualify.
Wihtin the ACA there is a division called Human-Animal Interactions in Counseling (herein referred to as HAIC). The HAIC, I believe is modeled after the American Psychology Association Division 17( Society of Counseling Psychology) Section 13 (Human Animal Interaction.) ACA is a great organization and I am a member of ACA. I am not a member of HAIC but I am a member of APA division 17 Section 13 Both divisions have the recommendation that before a person does evaluations they receive training in the Human Animal Bond. To satisfy this I have received education beyond my graduate degrees and am certified by the Human Animal Bond Research Institute. This certificate can be found HERE.
According to the National Board of Forensic Evaluators (nfbe.net), conducting an evaluation for an Emotional Support Animal or Psychiatric Service Dog is considered a forensic evaluation.
Typical when somebody hears forensics they think of criminals and things such as CSI or other TV shows. Although that is part of the definition, another part is “relating to courts of law”. So based on this an evaluation for an ESA or PSD would be forensics because it “related to the courts of law”; federal laws in this case.
Snippets of Ethics from both ACA and APA.
The 2014 ACA Ethics has a section about forensic evaluations:
E.13. Forensic Evaluation: Evaluation for Legal Proceedings
E.13.a. Primary Obligations
When providing forensic evaluations, the primary obligation of counselors is to produce objective findings that can be substantiated based on information and techniques appropriate to the evaluation, which may include examination of the individual and/or review of records.
E.13.c. Client Evaluation Prohibited
Counselors do not evaluate current or former clients, clients’ romantic partners, or clients’ family members for forensic purposes. Counselors do not counsel individuals they are evaluating.
E.13.d. Avoid Potentially Harmful Relationships
Counselors who provide forensic evaluations avoid potentially harmful professional or personal relationships with family members, romantic partners, and close friends of individuals they are evaluating or have evaluated in the past.
This is from the APA…
3.05 Multiple Relationships
(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person.
A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.
Multiple relationships that would not reasonably be expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or harm are not unethical.
(b) If a psychologist finds that, due to unforeseen factors, a potentially harmful multiple relationship has arisen, the psychologist takes reasonable steps to resolve it with due regard for the best interests of the affected person and maximal compliance with the Ethics Code.
9.01 Bases for Assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments .)
(b) Except as noted in 9.01c , psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions.
9.02 Use of Assessments
(a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques.
(b) Psychologists use assessment instruments whose validity and reliability have been established for use with members of the population tested. When such validity or reliability has not been established, psychologists describe the strengths and limitations of test results and interpretation.
(c) Psychologists use assessment methods that are appropriate to an individual’s language preference and competence, unless the use of an alternative language is relevant to the assessment issues.
There are some states that require you must be seeing a mental health provider for a set amount of time before they can conduct an evaluation. California is an example of this.
This contradicts the above ethical guidelines. This contradiction is not a new thing. Mental health and medical providers have struggled with finding the balance between ethics and laws for a very long time. So in the states that require the above mentioned relationship these are required…even if it creates a dual relationship. Dual relationships are not “illegal” they are just discouraged.
