“If clinical mental health professionals refuse to see peer support professionals as either equals or as working professionals of value or worth, then what’s the point of offering peer credentialing?” So writes the estimable Rev. Dr. Phillip Fleming on LinkedIn, suggesting that “there should not be any peer certifications!” (https://tinyurl.com/LinkedIn-credential-Dec-2025)
Having served as consultant to the New York Certification Board (NYCB) for nine years, I have an opinion – and I hope it’s helpful. (NYCB offers a range of non-clinical certifications in the SUD field.)
Credentialing providers flatter themselves that “public protection” is their mission. Sounds good, but what does it mean? Quite simply, credentialing “protects” the public through confirming practitioner competence in a defined role. (For example, I’m certified as a recovery coach, not as a peer advocate; different roles.) Confirmed competence is, naturally, valued by both potential clients and the general public. For practitioners, credentials advertise this competence and constitutes an important value statement about their professional commitment.
Additionally, credentialing by a reputable provider offers a path, through profession-specific ethical codes, for imposing practitioner accountability via a formal and transparent complaints process. A process which may include stripping certificants of their credentials, temporarily or permanently, a significant consequence for professional misconduct.
Thus, per the lofty claims of credentialing providers, confirmed competence and accountability are important protections and are, in turn, the point and purpose of credentialing in any field.
Or, as a credentialed professional herself might summarize: “My credential confirms that I’m a competent and ethical professional with a transparent and accountable practice in the delineated and credentialed role.”
As professionals, what’s not to love?
