Southern California MFT practicum guide
Compare MFT practicum agencies through structured, anonymous ratings—without naming supervisors or publishing client-sensitive stories.
Live rating standard
Better information for a high-stakes decision.
Designed around trainee privacy.
Clear signals, not callouts.
Why this exists
MFT training asks us to notice power imbalances, question harmful dynamics, and create conditions where people can speak honestly. That same attention should not disappear when the subject is our own labor, supervision, or path to licensure.
When “professional development” becomes a polished label for uncompensated labor, inaccessible supervision, unstable expectations, or fear of retaliation, silence protects the system—not the trainee.
Placement Compass is not a callout board. It is a structured way to make agency-level patterns visible without turning individual people into targets.
Read why I built thisHistorical practicum dataset
The 2023–2024 workbook supplies agency names and consented, non-identifying category responses. Personal contact information, names, comments, exact addresses, and raw narratives are excluded.
How historical ratings become scores: Clearly positive, easy, or recommended responses map to 5; mixed or conditional responses map to 3; difficult or demanding responses map to 2; clearly negative or not-recommended responses map to 1. Each card shows the exact number of ratings behind its score.
Explore MFT practicum placements
Live scores reflect anonymous, structured responses from trainees who attest to a direct placement relationship.
Historical category responses use the disclosed conversion rubric; personal narratives are never displayed. Every new live rating updates the agency’s score and count. One to four ratings carry an “early signal” label while remaining in rankings and matching.
What this search covers: Placement Compass searches its own growing directory—it does not search Google or the wider internet.
No current Placement Compass listings match that search.
Wider-web discovery
This searches the open web in a new tab. Results are not verified, rated, ranked, or matched by Placement Compass unless trainees add and rate the agency here.
Personalized placement fit
Choose up to three things that matter most. Matching compares rated agencies inside Placement Compass; it does not search the wider internet.
Matches use consented historical categories plus new live structured ratings.
Coverage without gaps
“SoCal” should not mean four oversized buckets. The live directory is designed around exact agency locations, with search across cities, counties, valleys, coastal communities, desert communities, and multi-site or remote placements.
Public beta safeguards
The beta collects structured agency-level ratings only. It does not request names, contact information, written narratives, supervisor identifiers, or client information.
Every reviewer confirms that the rating reflects their own current or former placement experience.
No open text or personal detailsThe site stores a one-way browser identifier to prevent the same browser from rating the same agency twice.
No email account requiredEvery score shows its exact review count. One to four reviews remain visible and are labeled as an early signal.
No five-review gateHow it works
Rate the placement organization—not an individual supervisor or colleague.
Answer the same seven questions on access, feedback, expectations, and support.
Every published score shows its review count and comes from the same required structured form and direct-experience attestation.
Designed safeguards
Placement Compass is designed to surface agency-level trends while reducing the chance that one trainee, supervisor, or client can be singled out.
No public text box means fewer accidental allegations, threats, or client details.
Names, initials, specialties, and exact placement dates stay off public profiles.
Scores based on one to four eligible reviews stay visible in rankings and matching, but carry an early-signal label. Every score shows its exact review count.
The same browser cannot rate the same agency twice. The rule applies equally to positive and negative ratings.
The rating standard
New ratings use the same seven-category average. Historical scores use the disclosed four-band conversion above. The two sources are weighted by their exact rating counts. There are no paid boosts, editorial “best” lists, or pay-to-remove options.
Questions, answered
The beta does not claim independent verification. Reviewers self-attest that they had a direct placement relationship. Scores remain subjective perceptions, not proven facts.
The first version is intentionally agency-level. This provides useful placement insight while reducing identification, retaliation, privacy, and defamation risks.
No. Agencies may request corrections to objective profile information or report suspected manipulation, but payment never changes, hides, or removes a rating.
Yes. Structured ratings are saved without a name, email address, written review, supervisor identifier, or client information and are immediately included in public agency aggregates.
No. Search and matching use only the growing Placement Compass directory. If a practicum site is missing, a trainee can add its public organization or program name while submitting a structured rating. Community-added listings are labeled and become searchable after that first rating.
Legal & privacy notes
These notices reduce confusion; they do not replace careful operations, secure data handling, or review by a California attorney before broad public promotion.
Scores reflect individual perceptions of a placement experience. They are not findings of fact, professional discipline, or a determination that an agency violated any law or ethical rule.
A reviewer’s direct-experience attestation does not prove that every perception is accurate. Placement Compass does not independently verify each opinion.
Placement Compass is an independent concept. A listed agency would not be a sponsor, partner, or endorser merely because its public business information appears here.
Submissions must not include client information, clinical narratives, supervisor names or initials, threats, or allegations about identifiable individuals. The first version does not provide a text field.
The site would not replace a school grievance process, employer report, licensing-board complaint, legal consultation, or emergency service. Serious concerns should go to the appropriate qualified channel.
Agencies may request correction of objective profile information or report suspected manipulation. Negative sentiment alone would not justify removal, and payment would never change a score.
Agency listings are real. Consented historical category responses are converted through the disclosed rubric and shown with exact sample counts; personal and narrative fields are excluded. New structured ratings are anonymous, self-attested, and immediately included in public aggregates. The site does not collect rating comments, names, email addresses, supervisor identifiers, or client information. A California attorney should review the Terms of Use, privacy disclosures, moderation process, and agency response process before broad public launch.
Help shape the pilot