The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) presents a promising solution to the global shortage of mental health professionals. However, their alignment with essential counseling competencies remains underexplored. We introduce CounselingBench, a novel NCMHCE-based benchmark evaluating 22 general-purpose and medical-finetuned LLMs across five key competencies. While frontier models surpass minimum aptitude thresholds, they fall short of expert-level performance, excelling in Intake, Assessment & Diagnosis but struggling with Core Counseling Attributes and Professional Practice & Ethics. Surprisingly, medical LLMs do not outperform generalist models in accuracy, though they provide slightly better justifications while making more context-related errors. These findings highlight the challenges of developing AI for mental health counseling, particularly in competencies requiring empathy and nuanced reasoning. Our results underscore the need for specialized, fine-tuned models aligned with core mental health counseling competencies and supported by human oversight before real-world deployment. Code and data associated with this manuscript can be found at: https://github.com/cuongnguyenx/CounselingBench

Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) from psychiatric medications are the leading cause of hospitalizations among mental health patients. With healthcare systems and online communities facing limitations in resolving ADR-related issues, Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to fill this gap. Despite the increasing capabilities of LLMs, past research has not explored their capabilities in detecting ADRs related to psychiatric medications or in providing effective harm reduction strategies. To address this, we introduce the **Psych-ADR** benchmark and the **A**dverse **D**rug Reaction **R**esponse **A**ssessment (**ADRA**) framework to systematically evaluate LLM performance in detecting ADR expressions and delivering expert-aligned mitigation strategies. Our analyses show that LLMs struggle with understanding the nuances of ADRs and differentiating between types of ADRs. While LLMs align with experts in terms of expressed emotions and tone of the text, their responses are more complex, harder to read, and only 70.86% aligned with expert strategies. Furthermore, they provide less actionable advice by a margin of 12.32% on average. Our work provides a comprehensive benchmark and evaluation framework for assessing LLMs in strategy-driven tasks within high-risk domains.