South Dakota Social Work Licensure Guide

Over the past several years, the Counseling Compact has emerged as one of the most significant developments affecting licensure portability for professional counselors in the United States. Designed to allow licensed professional counselors to practice across participating states without obtaining full licensure in each jurisdiction, the compact represents a major shift in how counseling practice may operate across state lines. Interstate licensure compacts have already been implemented in several other professions, including nursing and psychology, and the Counseling Compact represents the counseling profession’s effort to address long-standing barriers to interstate practice (National Board for Certified Counselors [NBCC], 2024). Although the legislative adoption of the compact has spread rapidly across the country, the transition from legislation to operational implementation has been slower than many counselors anticipated. Passing compact legislation in a state legislature represents only the first step. States must also complete regulatory alignment, background check procedures, and secure data-sharing integration before issuing interstate practice privileges. Over the past several months, however, several meaningful developments have occurred that counselors should understand. These developments indicate that the compact is gradually transitioning from a legislative framework to an operational system that will affect clinical practice in the coming years. Operational Launch of the Counseling Compact One of the most important developments since the end of 2025 is that the Counseling Compact is now operational in several states. As of early 2026, three states have completed the technical and regulatory requirements necessary to begin issuing privileges for interstate counseling practice: Arizona, Minnesota, and Ohio. Ohio officially became operational on January 5, 2026, joining Arizona and Minnesota as the first jurisdictions able to issue interstate practice privileges under the compact framework (Counseling Compact Commission, 2026a). This milestone represents the first time counselors have been able to actively use the compact to obtain authorization to practice across state lines. Counselors who live in one of these operational states and hold an independent, unencumbered counseling license may apply for privileges to practice in the other operational compact states. For example, counselors licensed and residing in Arizona may apply for privileges in Minnesota and Ohio, while counselors residing in Minnesota or Ohio may apply for privileges in the other operational states (Counseling Compact Commission, 2026a). Although the system currently includes only three operational states, the launch demonstrates that the compact infrastructure is now functioning and capable of supporting interstate practice privileges. The Rapid Legislative Expansion of the Compact While operational implementation remains limited, the legislative adoption of the compact has expanded rapidly. As of March 2026, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation joining the Counseling Compact, representing a significant majority of U.S. jurisdictions (Counseling Compact Commission, 2026b). The states that have enacted compact legislation include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, along with the District of Columbia (Counseling Compact Commission, 2026b). This widespread legislative adoption reflects a growing recognition among policymakers that mental health professionals require greater mobility in order to meet increasing demand for services. Interstate compacts allow states to maintain regulatory authority over professional licensing while also enabling clinicians to provide services in multiple jurisdictions without navigating the burdensome process of obtaining full licensure in each state. Implementation Is Occurring in Phases Despite the large number of states that have enacted compact legislation, most are still working through the steps required to activate the system. According to the Counseling Compact Commission, thirty-six additional states and the District of Columbia are currently progressing toward operational readiness (Counseling Compact Commission, 2026a). Operational readiness requires the completion of several technical and regulatory processes. These include establishing FBI background check compliance, integrating licensing databases with the compact’s national data system, adopting rules consistent with compact requirements, and connecting to the CompactConnect platform used to process interstate privilege applications. Because these processes involve coordination between state licensing boards, regulatory agencies, and the national compact commission, implementation timelines vary significantly from state to state. As a result, the compact will likely continue expanding gradually as additional states complete the required steps. Michigan’s Current Status Michigan is not currently a member of the Counseling Compact, but legislative activity related to the compact has taken place in the state. Michigan House Bill 4591, introduced during the 2025–2026 legislative session, proposes adopting the Counseling Compact within Michigan law (Michigan Legislature, 2025). The bill was introduced in June 2025 and passed the Michigan House before being transmitted to the Michigan Senate on October 30, 2025 (Michigan Legislature, 2025). As of March 2026, however, Michigan has not yet enacted the compact legislation, meaning counselors licensed in Michigan are not currently eligible to participate in the compact system. The existence of pending legislation suggests that Michigan may still consider joining the compact in the future, but participation would require passage of the legislation and subsequent implementation steps before counselors could apply for interstate privileges. States That Have Not Yet Joined the Compact Although the compact has expanded rapidly, several large states have not yet enacted the legislation. As of early 2026, some of the most notable states outside the compact include California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Oregon (Counseling Compact Commission, 2026b). These states represent large populations of both counselors and clients, meaning their eventual participation could significantly expand the reach and impact of the compact. However, legislative priorities and regulatory considerations vary widely among states, and the timeline for potential adoption in these jurisdictions remains uncertain. Understanding the Privilege-to-Practice Model One important feature of the Counseling Compact is that it does not create a national counseling license. Instead, it uses a privilege-to-practice model that preserves state regulatory authority while allowing counselors to obtain permission to practice in multiple states. Under this model, counselors maintain their primary license in their home state, defined as the state where they reside. If the home state is a member of the compact, the counselor may apply for privileges to practice in other compact states. Each remote state grants a privilege that allows the counselor to practice within that jurisdiction while remaining regulated by both the home state and the remote state licensing authorities (Counseling Compact Commission, 2026c). To qualify for compact participation, counselors must hold an independent counseling license at the highest level available within their state, maintain an unencumbered license, meet educational requirements established by the compact, and complete an FBI background check (Counseling Compact Commission, 2026c). Fees Associated With Compact Privileges The Counseling Compact Commission has established a standardized administrative fee structure for interstate privileges. Counselors applying for a privilege must pay a $30 administrative fee to the compact commission for each privilege issued. In addition, each remote state may charge its own administrative fee for granting the privilege to practice (Counseling Compact Commission, 2026c). As a result, the total cost of obtaining a privilege varies depending on the state issuing the privilege. For example, Ohio’s current fee structure results in a total cost of approximately $55 for an initial privilege, although fees may differ in other jurisdictions (Counseling Compact Commission, 2026c). Privileges generally expire when the counselor’s home state license expires and must be renewed accordingly. Implications for Telehealth Practice One of the primary motivations behind the Counseling Compact is expanding access to mental health services through interstate practice, particularly via telehealth. Under traditional licensing rules, counselors must hold a license in the state where the client is physically located during the counseling session. This requirement can create significant barriers for clients who move between states, travel temporarily, or live near state borders. The compact addresses this issue by allowing counselors to obtain privileges in multiple states without completing the full licensure process in each jurisdiction. Once more states become operational, the compact may significantly expand the availability of interstate telehealth services (NBCC, 2024). However, because only three states are currently operational, the immediate impact on telehealth remains limited. As additional states complete the implementation process, the practical effects of the compact are expected to expand considerably. What Counselors Should Expect Moving Forward The next phase of the Counseling Compact will likely focus on expanding the number of operational states. Because most states have already enacted the legislation, the primary barrier to broader implementation is now technical and administrative rather than legislative. Over the next several years, additional states are expected to complete the requirements necessary to activate their compact systems. As more states become operational, counselors will gain greater flexibility to provide services across state lines, particularly in telehealth settings. For counselors following these developments, the most important takeaway is that the Counseling Compact has moved beyond the legislative stage and is now entering the operational phase. Although implementation remains gradual, the infrastructure necessary for interstate counseling practice is now in place. References Counseling Compact Commission. (2026a). Compact implementation updates. Counseling Compact Commission. Counseling Compact Commission. (2026b). Compact member states. Counseling Compact Commission. Counseling Compact Commission. (2026c). Compact participation requirements and fees. Counseling Compact Commission. Michigan Legislature. (2025). House Bill 4591 (2025–2026): Counseling compact legislation. State of Michigan. National Board for Certified Counselors. (2024). The counseling compact: Interstate licensure portability for professional counselors. NBCC.

As counseling increasingly occurs through telehealth, many people assume that mental health care is no longer tied to geography. In reality, counseling in the United States remains a state-regulated profession, meaning that where a client is physically located during a session still matters legally and ethically (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2025). Even when counseling happens online, practitioners must follow the laws and professional regulations of the state in which the client receives services. To improve access to care, many U.S. states have adopted the Counseling Compact, an interstate agreement that allows licensed professional counselors to practice across participating states through a “privilege to practice” model (Counseling Compact Commission, 2025a). This system helps reduce barriers for clients who move, travel, or live in underserved areas. However, the Compact does not eliminate differences in ethical standards, legal obligations, or scope of practice across states (DeDiego et al., 2023). Why State Laws Still Apply Each state establishes its own laws governing counseling practice, including requirements related to confidentiality, documentation, informed consent, and safety reporting. Under the Counseling Compact, counselors must comply with the laws of the client’s location at the time services are delivered, not just the counselor’s home state (ACA, 2025). This is why ethical counselors often begin sessions by asking where the client is located. This practice ensures that services are provided legally and helps protect both the client and the counselor. If a client travels to a state where the counselor does not have legal authority to practice, services may need to pause temporarily while referrals or alternative arrangements are made (DeDiego et al., 2023). Ethics Are Similar—but Not Identical—Across States Although most counselors are trained using national ethical frameworks, such as those promoted by professional organizations, states differ in how ethics are codified and enforced. Some states adopt national ethics codes directly, while others incorporate ethical requirements into state law or licensing regulations (DeDiego et al., 2023). As a result, ethical counselors practicing across state lines typically follow the most restrictive or protective standardwhen differences arise. This approach prioritizes client welfare and reduces the risk of ethical violations. For clients, this may appear as clearer boundaries regarding communication, gifts, dual relationships, or confidentiality. These boundaries are not a lack of care but a reflection of ethical responsibility. Documentation and Record-Keeping Responsibilities Documentation requirements also vary across jurisdictions. States set different rules regarding how long counseling records must be retained, what information must be included, and how records must be secured. Ethical counselors practicing across state lines commonly retain records according to the longest applicable retention requirement to ensure compliance and protect continuity of care (Healthcare Providers Service Organization [HPSO], n.d.). Clients may notice that ethical counselors are careful about how records are created, stored, and shared. These practices reflect legal obligations and ethical commitments to confidentiality, not unnecessary bureaucracy. Informed Consent in Interstate Counseling Informed consent is a foundational ethical requirement and is often specifically mandated for telehealth services (Center for Connected Health Policy [CCHP], n.d.). Ethical informed consent involves more than signing a form; it includes ongoing communication about the nature of services and the client’s rights. In interstate counseling, informed consent should clearly explain: Where the counselor is licensed That counseling laws vary by state The benefits and limitations of telehealth How emergencies are handled when counselor and client are in different locations The limits of confidentiality, including mandated reporting and safety-related disclosures Providing this information allows clients to make informed decisions and fosters trust within the therapeutic relationship (DeDiego et al., 2023). Safety, Confidentiality, and Mandated Reporting All states require counselors to report certain situations, such as suspected child abuse, and many states impose legal duties related to threats of serious harm to others (National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], n.d.). These laws vary in their specific requirements, but their purpose is consistent: protecting life and safety. When counseling occurs across state lines, ethical counselors must follow the safety and reporting laws of the client’s jurisdiction. This is why counselors explain at the outset that confidentiality has limits. These limits are not designed to punish clients, but to ensure protection in situations involving serious risk (Gorshkalova & Munakomi, 2023). Why Ethical Interstate Counseling Matters When practiced responsibly, interstate counseling increases access to care, supports continuity during life transitions, and connects clients with appropriate expertise. When ethical and legal boundaries are ignored, however, clients can be exposed to confusion or harm. Ethical counseling across state lines requires preparation, transparency, and a commitment to professional integrity (DeDiego et al., 2023). Read the Full Professional Article For a detailed, clinician-focused analysis of ethical practice under the Counseling Compact—including documentation standards, informed consent requirements, and duty-to-warn variations—read the full article here: Ethical Practice Under the Counseling Compact: Multi-State Standards & Scope of Practice https://www.remnantcounselorcollective.com/resources/95818/ethical-practice-under-the-counseling-compact-multi-state-standards-scope-of-practice A Note on Following and Going Deeper If you value ethical mental health care, thoughtful analysis, and faith-informed wisdom, consider joining the Remnant Counselor Collective Family. RCC is a community of counselors, educators, and leaders committed to integrity, clinical excellence, and moral clarity in a rapidly changing mental health landscape. Members gain access to in-depth writing, professional dialogue, training opportunities, and supportive community engagement. References American Counseling Association. (2025). Interstate compacts for professional counselor licensure (Counseling Compact). https://www.counseling.org/advocacy/counseling-compact Center for Connected Health Policy. (n.d.). States with telehealth consent requirements.https://www.cchpca.org/topic/consent-requirements-medicaid-medicare/ Counseling Compact Commission. (2025a). Counseling Compact. https://counselingcompact.gov/ DeDiego, A., Maurya, R. K., Rujimora, J., Simineo, L., & Searls, G. (2023). Counseling and the Interstate Compact: Navigating ethical practice across state lines. The Professional Counselor, 13(3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.15241/ad.13.3.177 Gorshkalova, O., & Munakomi, S. (2023). Duty to warn. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542236/ Healthcare Providers Service Organization. (n.d.). Record retention guidelines.https://www.hpso.com/Resources/Documentation/Record-Retention-Guidelines National Conference of State Legislatures. (n.d.). Mental health professionals’ duty to warn.https://www.ncsl.org/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-warn