The Revised BBS Disciplinary Guidelines: What Changed on July 1, 2026
A Guide to the Guidelines, and to What Changed
The Disciplinary Guidelines are the document the Board of Behavioral Sciences and an administrative law judge work from once a violation has been found, so they do not decide whether misconduct occurred but what follows when it has. For each category of violation they set out what the Board considers an appropriate range of penalty and what terms of probation should accompany it, which makes them the clearest published statement of what a particular finding carries.
A revised version took effect on July 1, 2026, and the Board's stated purpose was to reflect changes since the last update in December 2020. The changes are not cosmetic. In its statement of reasons for the package, the Board described shortening four minimum suspension periods, adding a new violation category, restructuring the treatment of drug and alcohol violations around a presumption, and moving a probation reporting form into the regulation itself.
What follows covers what the guidelines are, how binding they are, and what the Board said it was changing and why. The separate question of what a licensee must report to the Board in the first place, and what became named unprofessional conduct in January 2025, is covered in the guide to what a California therapist must report to the BBS.
The revised guidelines took effect on a set date, and they are not the only California rule that has changed recently. California Therapist Rules & Deadlines lists the dated changes and sunsets alongside the deadlines that recur every cycle.
This guide summarizes published statutes, regulations and agency guidance, and it is not legal advice. Anyone who needs to know how a rule applies to a particular practice should consult their own attorney. Rules verified as of September 20, 2026.
What Are the Disciplinary Guidelines, and How Binding Are They?
The guidelines are incorporated by reference into section 1888 of title 16 of the California Code of Regulations, which is what gives them regulatory force. They consist of a penalty guidelines chart organized by violation category, with a minimum and a maximum penalty for each, together with standard terms and conditions of probation and the Uniform Standards Related to Substance Abuse.
Their binding force is qualified in the document itself. The guidelines state that "Except as provided in the Uniform Standards Related to Substance Abuse, the Board recognizes that the penalties and conditions of probation listed are merely guidelines and that individual cases will necessitate variations which take into account unique circumstances."
What follows that sentence is the part that gives them practical weight. The guidelines provide that "If there are deviations or omissions from the guidelines in formulating a Proposed Decision, the Board requires that the Administrative Law Judge hearing the case include an explanation of the deviations or omissions, including all mitigating factors considered by the Administrative Law Judge in the Proposed Decision so that the circumstances can be better understood by the Board during its review and consideration of the Proposed Decision." A departure is permitted and must be justified on the record, which makes the chart the starting point in every case.
The carve-out at the front of that first sentence matters too. The Uniform Standards Related to Substance Abuse are not described as mere guidelines, and the 2026 revision makes the route into them easier to trigger.
Substance Use: A New Name and a New Presumption
The Board's initial statement of reasons describes the terminology change as global. It proposed "a global change throughout the Uniform Standards to change substance 'abuse' disorder or disorders to substance 'use' disorder or disorders to conform the phrase to the actual name of the diagnosis used by mental health professionals." A second terminology change replaced "controlled substance" with "drugs," on the stated reasoning that "The term 'drugs' is more accurate, as some drugs that are not controlled substances can be abused, such as certain over-the-counter products."
The structural change sits underneath the vocabulary. The statement of reasons describes specifying "that if the conduct found to be a violation involves drugs or alcohol, then the violation is 'presumed to be' a substance abuse violation for the purposes of BPC section 315," and continues that "if the licensee does not 'successfully' rebut the 'presumption' that the violation is a substance abuse violation, then the Uniform Standards shall apply."
That is a shift in who has to establish what. Under a presumption, a violation involving drugs or alcohol enters the Uniform Standards track by default, and the licensee carries the burden of showing that it should not. Given that the Uniform Standards are the one part of the guidelines the Board does not describe as merely advisory, the practical consequence of failing to rebut is a set of conditions with much less room for variation.
The Board also proposed replacing gendered terms throughout with gender-neutral language, for consistency with Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 260 of 2018.
Shorter Minimum Suspensions in Four Categories, as the Board Described Them
The statement of reasons identifies four categories in which the minimum length of suspension was reduced.
- Sexual Misconduct. "Reduce the minimum length of suspension from 120 days to 60 days."
- Commission of an Act Punishable as a Sexually Related Crime. "reduce the minimum length of suspension from 120 days to 60 days."
- Chemical Dependency or Use of Drugs or Alcohol With Client While Performing Services. "Reduce the minimum length of suspension from 120 days to 60 days."
- Intentionally or Recklessly Causing Physical or Emotional Harm to Client. "reduce the minimum length of suspension from 90 days to 60 days."
A reduction in the minimum suspension is not a reduction in the penalty overall, and reading it that way would be a mistake. The minimum penalty for the sexual misconduct category in the published guidelines is a stayed revocation accompanied by a long list of conditions, including the minimum suspension and such additional time as may be necessary to obtain and review a psychological or psychiatric evaluation and implement its recommendations, seven years of probation on standard terms, supervised practice, psychotherapy, education pertaining to the violation, a law and ethics course, retaking and passing the licensure examinations, reimbursement of probation program costs, a rehabilitation program with abstention and testing, and restricted practice. The maximum penalty remains revocation or denial of license with cost recovery.
The separate category of engaging in sexual contact with a client or former client is not among the four. Its minimum penalty is revocation or denial of license and cost recovery, and the published guidelines state under maximum penalty that the law requires revocation or denial of license.
A New Violation Category
The statement of reasons describes adding a category to the penalty guidelines chart: "Add New Violation Category to Penalty Guidelines Chart: Engaging in Sexual Orientation Change Efforts with a Patient Under Age 18." It explains that the amendment "adds a violation category to the Penalty Guidelines for engaging in sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) with a minor client," and that "Revocation or denial of license was selected as the recommended penalty due to the serious and lasting harm that sexual orientation change efforts have on clients."
What the new category changes is the starting point. A named category with a recommended penalty of revocation gives the Board and an administrative law judge a place in the chart to begin from, rather than a finding that has to be placed somewhere the chart did not contemplate.
The Quarterly Report Moves Into the Regulation
The quarterly reporting duty sat among the standard terms and conditions of probation, and the 2026 revision moves it up a level. The statement of reasons describes incorporating the Quarterly Report Form by reference into the section, and states that the proposal "will require all probationers to submit this form to the Board into CCR section 1888 as a new subsection (d) (a requirement that is currently within Standard Term and Condition no. 18 'File Quarterly Reports')." The Board explains that "The quarterly reporting requirement and form is used by the Board as an important enforcement tool to monitor and evaluate a respondent's progress while on probation."
The form is identified in the published guidelines as Quarterly Report Form No. DCA BBS 37M-443, and what it asks for runs well beyond a statement that probation is being complied with, reaching the current state of the respondent's practice and employment as well as intervening criminal and licensing events. The current form and the current guidelines are the place to read the specifics, because the requirement now sits in the regulation rather than only in the terms of an individual decision.
What Did Not Change
The architecture is the same, and it consists of a penalty guidelines chart organized by violation category, a minimum and a maximum penalty for each, standard terms and conditions of probation, and the Uniform Standards. A licensee who knew the 2020 version would recognize the 2026 one.
The Board's stated purpose for the revision was maintenance rather than redesign. The statement of reasons gives it as being "to reflect recent updates to statutory law and other changes that have occurred in the probationary environment since the last update in December 2020."
The guidelines also continue to govern only what happens after a violation is found. They say nothing about whether conduct amounts to a violation, which is the question the Board's unprofessional conduct provisions in Business and Professions Code section 4982 and the parallel sections answer.
What This Means for Your Practice
For most licensees this document is never reached, and the reason to know it exists is that it is the clearest published statement of how the Board weighs categories of conduct against each other. A reader who wants to understand what the Board treats as most serious can read the chart rather than infer it.
For a licensee already on probation, the quarterly report is the item that changed in practical terms, because a requirement written into the regulation is enforced differently from one carried only in the terms of a decision. The form is published and its content is extensive.
For a matter involving drugs or alcohol, the presumption is the change that carries the most weight. The Uniform Standards are the part of this document that admits least variation, and the revision as the Board described it makes entry into them the default rather than a conclusion to be reached.
A Closer Look at One Program: Sentio University's MFT Track
The following description of one specific MFT program is offered as a concrete example of how a program can prepare students for the legal and ethical demands of practice, not as a recommendation against evaluating other programs. Students should research multiple options and ask each one direct questions about how clinical skill is built and measured.
Sentio University, a nonprofit graduate school based in Los Angeles with a hybrid delivery model that serves students throughout California, offers a Master of Arts in Marriage and Family Therapy that meets the Board of Behavioral Sciences educational requirements for the LMFT. The program runs 20 months across 60 units at $1,120 per unit, with weekly online classes and one intensive in-person residency at the start of each semester, in cohorts capped at 24 students at a 4:1 student-to-faculty ratio. It is designed around deliberate practice methodology and is described in peer-reviewed work as the first graduate psychotherapy program to thoroughly integrate deliberate practice, with roughly half of nearly every class session dedicated to active skills training rather than lecture (Rousmaniere and Vaz, 2025, p. 2).
Professional conduct is taught early and then practiced under observation. The 2026-2027 Academic Catalog places Ethical and Legal Issues (MFT542) in the first semester and Person of the Therapist (MFT561) later in the program, and students see clients at the Sentio Counseling Center during practicum, which provides more than 400 hours of supervised clinical experience during the degree. Because roughly half of nearly every class session is given to active skills training, faculty observe students working rather than only hearing about it afterward. Sentio also integrates AI literacy training through its AI certification program for therapists.
Sentio is a small, newer institution, admits only applicants who are California residents or willing to relocate to California and who intend to license in California, and its alumni network is still developing. Prospective students weighing Sentio alongside larger or older programs should factor that into their decision. Learn more at the Sentio MFT program overview, the tuition and fees page, and the Sentio FAQ page.
Making Your Decision
Read the penalty guidelines chart once, at a calm moment, and note which categories carry a presumption of revocation. If you supervise, know that the document exists and where it is, since a supervisee facing a matter will ask. If you are on probation, get the current Quarterly Report Form and read what it asks for before the first one is due. If you are still choosing a graduate program, ask how professional conduct is taught, whether faculty observe students working with clients, and what happens when a student's clinical judgment needs correcting. Program websites describe clinical training in similar language regardless of what is actually happening in classrooms and supervision rooms. Ask every program you are seriously considering whether you can attend a live or online class session before enrolling, and ask to speak with current students and recent graduates about how supervision and skill development function in practice. Reputable programs should welcome the request. Hesitation or refusal is informative on its own. Trust what you see in a classroom over what you read in promotional copy.
Frequently Asked Questions
When did the revised BBS Disciplinary Guidelines take effect?
The Board's notice of approval states that the regulatory action becomes effective on July 1, 2026, following approval by the Office of Administrative Law on October 29, 2025. The published guidelines document carries the revision date July 1, 2026.
Are the BBS Disciplinary Guidelines binding on an administrative law judge?
Not absolutely. The guidelines state that except as provided in the Uniform Standards Related to Substance Abuse, the Board recognizes that the penalties and conditions of probation listed are merely guidelines and that individual cases will necessitate variations taking account of unique circumstances. Where there are deviations or omissions, the Board requires the administrative law judge to explain them in the proposed decision, including all mitigating factors considered.
What terminology changed in the 2026 revision?
The Board's initial statement of reasons describes a global change throughout the Uniform Standards from substance abuse disorder to substance use disorder, to conform the phrase to the name of the diagnosis used by mental health professionals. It also describes changing controlled substance to drugs, on the reasoning that some drugs that are not controlled substances can be abused, and replacing gendered terms with gender-neutral language.
What is the presumption for drug and alcohol violations?
The Board's statement of reasons describes specifying that if the conduct found to be a violation involves drugs or alcohol, then the violation is presumed to be a substance abuse violation for the purposes of Business and Professions Code section 315, and that if the licensee does not successfully rebut the presumption, the Uniform Standards apply.
Which minimum suspensions were shortened?
The Board's statement of reasons describes reducing the minimum length of suspension from 120 days to 60 days for Sexual Misconduct, for Commission of an Act Punishable as a Sexually Related Crime, and for Chemical Dependency or Use of Drugs or Alcohol With Client While Performing Services, and from 90 days to 60 days for Intentionally or Recklessly Causing Physical or Emotional Harm to Client.
Did the revision add a new violation category?
Yes. The statement of reasons describes adding a violation category to the penalty guidelines chart for engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under age 18, and states that revocation or denial of license was selected as the recommended penalty due to the serious and lasting harm that such efforts have on clients.
What changed about quarterly reports on probation?
The Board's statement of reasons describes incorporating the Quarterly Report Form by reference into the regulation and requiring all probationers to submit it, moving the requirement into 16 CCR 1888 as a new subsection rather than leaving it only in the standard terms and conditions of probation. The Board describes the form as an important enforcement tool for monitoring a respondent's progress while on probation.
Is sexual contact with a client still a revocation offense?
The published guidelines list revocation or denial of license and cost recovery as the minimum penalty for engaging in sexual contact with a client or former client, and state under maximum penalty that the law requires revocation or denial of license. The shortened minimum suspension described in the 2026 revision applies to the separate sexual misconduct category rather than to that one.
References
California Board of Behavioral Sciences. (2024). Initial statement of reasons: Disciplinary guidelines, 16 CCR 1888 (October 10, 2024). https://www.bbs.ca.gov/pdf/regulation/pending/disciplinary_guidelines_isor.pdf
California Board of Behavioral Sciences. (2025). Notice of approval of regulatory action: Disciplinary guidelines (approved October 29, 2025, effective July 1, 2026). https://www.bbs.ca.gov/pdf/regulation/pending/disciplinary_guidelines_approval.pdf
California Board of Behavioral Sciences. (2026). Disciplinary guidelines (revised July 1, 2026). https://www.bbs.ca.gov/pdf/publications/dispguid.pdf
California Legislature. (2026a). Business and Professions Code section 315. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC§ionNum=315.
California Legislature. (2026b). Business and Professions Code section 4982. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC§ionNum=4982.
Rousmaniere, T., & Vaz, A. (2025). Sentio's clinic-to-classroom method: Bridging deliberate practice and clinical training. Society for the Advancement of Psychotherapy. https://societyforpsychotherapy.org/sentios-clinic-to-classroom-methodbridging-deliberate-practice-and-clinical-training/
Sentio University. (2026). Academic catalog 2026-2027. https://sentio.org/academic-catalog-1
