Ben Caldwell

Call for Change group offers non-rebuttal rebuttal

by

MFT Call for Change group responds to my previous post, where I highlighted several of their erroneous statements about California.                                                                                                                                                                                     

The group calling themselves “MFTs Call for Change” (CFC) has posted a lengthy rebuttal to my earlier post criticizing CFC misstatements about California, specifically in areas related to the LPCC license and its development here.

Notably, they rarely, if ever, challenge my statements of fact. They claim that my post included “misinformation,” but their arguments are more often of the moving-the-target (“yes, but”) variety than they are factual disagreement. And they add at least one to the list of factual errors of their own.

  • CFC criticizes my statement that “When CAMFT was negotiating changes to various versions of the LPCC bill, they sought to make MFTs and LPCCs as indistinguishable as possible.” They would prefer I label this as my own belief, or an opinion of AAMFT-CA. But there’s no need. I saw, firsthand, CAMFT’s opposition to language supporting distinctiveness of professions during the negotiation process. Remember, CAMFT wanted grandparenting to be automatic for licensed MFTs based just on coursework (this version of the bill allowed exactly that), and indeed, CAMFT has continued to argue there are no meaningful differences in practice between the MFT and LPCC professions (as CAMFT themselves said, they believe “LMFTs and LCSWs may do in practice everything LPCCs may do“) — which would make the licenses effectively indistinguishable. That’s not my belief, that’s an argument CAMFT itself is continuing to make and act upon.
  • Along similar lines, CFC calls my discussion of CAMFT’s lawsuit against the BBS “patently irresponsible” because… well, I can’t tell why, exactly. I’m not even sure which part they’re taking issue with. CAMFT sued the BBS to try to make the “gap exam” for MFT grandparenting go away, based on their belief that the practices of the professions are indistinguishable. They have very clearly said so. That the lawsuit attempted to use technical means (like the BBS’s failure to consult with a state agency on exams, the one point of three in the lawsuit on which CAMFT won) to reach their desired ends (no gap exam) does not change those desired ends or the publicly-stated rationale behind them.
  • AAMFT-CA and AAMFT have not been “against the LPCC bill since its inception,” as CFC newly and falsely claims. Primary sources here tell the tale. California counselor legislation was first introduced in February 2005. In November 2005, nine months later, I first spoke to a legislative committee about AAMFT-CA’s concerns with bill language. Even then, AAMFT-CA took no formal position, as we understood the bill would be further amended. AAMFT-CA only formally opposed LPCC legislation in 2007 (this legislative committee analysis is the first mention of AAMFT-CA opposition), after it became clear that the legislation was moving in a direction that would hurt the MFT profession. Furthermore, in 2009, once we worked out the compromise language that became the LPCC law, AAMFT-CA’s opposition was removed [page 2], helping the bill pass. The larger AAMFT never took any formal position at all on the bill.
  • In discussing Kim Madsen, the BBS Executive Director, the CFC rebuttal suggests that in my post, “The reader has been lead [sic] to believe Ms. Madsen would be less than forthcoming” when discussing licensure issues. Nonsense. Ms. Madsen has been, in my experience, extremely professional, highly ethical, and very forthcoming, even when we have disagreed on policy. In my earlier post, what I suggested was that CFC, not Ms. Madsen, was being less than forthcoming by leaving out important details. This should have been evident in my preface “I suspect what Ms. Madsen said was…” Given my experiences with each of them, I trust her to be complete and forthcoming much more than I presently trust CFC to do so.

As I said previously, the CFC group seems to be well-meaning. I just don’t understand their dogged pursuit of this line of criticism. It is not supported by facts, and makes CFC look more interested in finding fault with AAMFT than actually supporting or developing the profession.

# # #

If I did make any errors of fact — there or here — I would like to correct them. Email me at ben[at]bencaldwell.com, post a comment, or call for a change to my Twitter feed.

Call for Change group erroneously calls California licensure threat “unsubstantiated rumor”

by

A group of well-meaning MFTs has been trying to make AAMFT more transparent and accountable. But their latest report about the LPCC license in California, which claims to have found deception by AAMFT, gets the important facts wrong.
          
          
          
          
          

Nuvola apps error* See updates below.

If you’re a member of AAMFT or have been connected in any way with the “Call for Change,” you may have received an email with an unsettling headline:

Unsubstantiated Rumor Influences AAMFT’s Strategic Plan

The email goes on to say that this “unsubstantiated rumor” was the notion that there was a threat to MFT licensure in California connected to the development of the state’s Professional Clinical Counselor (LPCC) license. You can read the CFC’s complete report online: CA LPC Deception Revealed.

Because the threat posed by LPCC licensure was all “unsubstantiated rumor,” the CFC logic goes, perhaps someone at AAMFT knowingly ginned it up for political reasons:

What could be the motives behind generating such rumors, fear, and speculation within our membership in relation to a document and process as significant as a long range Strategic Plan? Since the truth of this matter was already known by AAMFT leadership, could the reason be political?

For anyone unfamiliar, the CFC group is made up largely of well-meaning MFTs who want a more open, accountable professional association. That’s a laudable goal, and they have pushed AAMFT into making some much-needed changes, especially around organizational transparency. There is surely more work to be done on that front, and for that reason, a subgroup like CFC can sometimes ultimately be a positive thing for the larger association they criticize.

In this case, though, CFC gets the important facts wrong, and loses a great deal of its own credibility in the process. It starts by reporting that Kim Madsen, the California Board of Behavioral Sciences Executive Director, told them “there had been no current or past discussions regarding replacing the LMFT license in California with the LPC license” (I’m quoting the CFC’s paraphrase of Ms. Madsen). I of course was not in on this phone call, but I suspect what Ms. Madsen said was that no such discussion took place at the BBS. And, with that kind-of-important detail, that’s true — the BBS never had a public meeting or vote where replacing the MFT license was discussed or voted on.

For the CFC to extrapolate that to the notion that no one in California ever discussed eliminating the MFT license, however, is a rather significant error. CAMFT (which is not affiliated with AAMFT or its California Division) specifically discussed replacing the MFT license. You can see it in page 14 of this California legislative committee report, and the same text was in an email to members that CAMFT sent in May 2007 (emphasis mine):

CAMFT states, “At some time in the future, we project that there will only be one masters level profession in California, with individuals specializing within that license. Thus, those who wish to specialize in systems work will do so; those who wish to specialize in art therapy will do so, etc. The current system with a variety of acronyms is confusing for consumers who just want to be helped and do not perceive greater value from one professional compared to the next.”

When CAMFT was negotiating changes to various versions of the LPCC bill, they sought to make MFTs and LPCCs as indistinguishable as possible. And without distinctiveness between professions, it becomes much harder to argue that distinct licensure should be maintained. Sure enough, the following language was inserted into a version of the 2008 LPCC bill (which ultimately failed; again, emphasis mine):

The Department of Consumer Affairs and the Board of Behavioral Sciences shall collaboratively evaluate the licensing requirements and scope of practice for licensed professional
counselors, licensed clinical social workers, licensed educational psychologists, and marriage and family therapists. The evaluation shall include a recommendation on whether or not these licensed professions should become a general license category, and if such a recommendation is made, how it is proposed to occur.

CAMFT projected a one-license future, and that proposal found its way into proposed legislation. These are facts on the public record. They are indisputable. That legislation may have become law had AAMFT-CA and the California Psychological Association not worked diligently in opposition. For CFC to dismiss the threat to California MFT licensure as “unsubstantiated rumor” is clearly and demonstrably incorrect.

CFC goes on to question how CAMFT could possibly have any influence over license transitions, since it is the BBS and not any professional association that enforces licensure standards. This is shockingly naive. CAMFT does a tremendous amount of work (often very good and beneficial) on state legislation, and the licensure standards the BBS exists to enforce are written in state law; the BBS has no right or authority to refuse to enforce a law once it takes effect. Almost every major piece of state legislation that has impacted California MFTs in a generation has had CAMFT’s fingerprints on it. If CAMFT wanted MFTs to become LPCs, they wouldn’t politely ask the BBS to make it happen. They would seek to change the law, and they have the resources to do so. As you can see above, a change in the law is precisely what could have happened.

Even after the final version of the LPCC law passed in California, CAMFT has continued to work hard at making MFTs and LPCCs seem indistinguishable. When even the relatively minor barrier of a “gap exam” for MFTs seeking grandparenting into LPCC licensure arose, CAMFT not only fought it, they sued the BBS — a suit that could have, among other things, led to a court ruling that the professions are not distinct.

Thankfully, CAMFT largely lost that suit. There will be a gap exam, and the BBS is supporting distinctiveness between MFTs and LPCCs in other ways. But for CFC to suggest that there never was a threat to the MFT license in California — or indeed, to even suggest that threat has fully abated now — is simply out of line with reality.

===

Full disclosure: I have served as a consultant to AAMFT in the past (not currently), and still volunteer regularly for the California Division, though I hold no official role there. I was part of the AAMFT-CA negotiating team on California LPCC legislation. I’m a former CAMFT member; their lawsuit against the BBS led me out the door.

===

Updated 3-16-2011: The Call for Change folks have posted a rebuttal to my post here. See: CFC rebuttal // My response

# # #

The image above is the semaphore sign for “error.” Think I’m out of line with reality? Post a comment below or email ben[at]bencaldwell.com. Follow my Twitter feed.

In “Gap Exam” and supervision rulings, California licensing board says MFTs and LPCCs are different

by

In a unanimous vote, the California Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS) today determined that a Gap Exam will be necessary for marriage and family therapists (MFTs) seeking licensure as professional clinical counselors (LPCCs). A separate ruling on supervision has similar themes.                                            

JudgesTools IconThe “Gap Exam” for currently-licensed MFTs seeking to grandparent into LPCC licensure will be shorter than regular licensing exams, and will focus on the differences in practice between MFT and LPCC.

In a separate vote, the BBS also agreed to move forward with a legislative proposal that would require LPCCs to complete additional coursework and experience in couple and family work in order to supervise MFT interns and trainees.

===

Gap Exam

Today’s vote was the fourth the Board has taken on the Gap Exam issue, which has become controversial because of its broader implications about the distinctiveness of the professions. (For some of the history, see “CAMFT sues California licensing board” and “Ruling mixed in CAMFT-BBS gap exam lawsuit.” Full disclosure: I resigned CAMFT membership in response to their actions on this issue.) Earlier votes had been set aside for a variety of reasons; the most recent prior vote was set aside after CAMFT sued the BBS, and won on their argument that the BBS had not first consulted with the state’s Office of Professional Examination Services, as required in the law. The court ordered the BBS to set aside its prior vote and do the required consultation.

In that required consultation, OPES said they believed a Gap Exam was indeed necessary (last pages of PDF), and the BBS today voted to move forward with the Gap Exam. The exam development process will start immediately. Today’s hopefully-final vote supports the notion that while mental health professions have much in common, there are still meaningful differences between the practices of the specific professions.

===

Supervision

Similar themes arose in discussion on supervision in mental health care. In current law, LPCCs must complete additional coursework and experience to be able to legally assess or treat couples and families. The question at hand was whether LPCCs who had not met those requirements should be able to supervise MFT trainees and interns who would be providing direct services to couples and families.

I argued the AAMFT-CA perspective, that one should not be legally able to supervise an activity that is outside of one’s own scope of practice. The BBS voted in agreement. Unlike the exam ruling, however, this vote was by no means a final determination. It merely moves forward proposed legislation that would allow LPCCs to supervise MFTs only if the supervisor has completed those additional requirements. The proposal still must go through the legislature and be signed by the Governor to become effective. CAMFT indicated they will oppose that provision during the legislative process. If CAMFT moves to simply kill the proposal, and is successful in doing so, LPCCs will be left with what is in current law — which prevents them from supervising MFT interns or trainees at all.

California’s complex plan to save mental health funding by slashing it

by

To balance the state’s budget, Governor Jerry Brown has proposed raiding a state fund set aside to transform public mental health care. In return, he’s promising long-term fixes to the structural underfunding of public mental health. Is it a fair trade?

          
          
          

Side View Sacramento CapitolCalifornia Governor Jerry Brown has inhereted a budget deficit estimated at $25 billion, which everyone agrees will require significant changes in state services. One fix the Governor has proposed is raiding Mental Health Services Act (MHSA, originally known as Proposition 63) funds, an idea voters rejected as a budget fix in 2009.

This time around, Brown is proposing a novel compromise: let the state raid the MHSA fund on a one-time basis, and in return mental health services will get a longer-term, structural fix to chronic underfunding. It’s an intriguing proposal.

===

Thanks to a the MHSA, a voter-approved tax on millionaires*, California currently has about $2 billion set aside specifically for the improvement of its public mental health system. This money is meant to be used to provide new and expanded services, train public mental health workers in current research-supported approaches, and generally transform the system to one that is modern, client-centered, and accountable. (By law, the money specifically cannot be used to pay for existing services, which are chronically underfunded.) Many marriage and family therapists are employed in public mental health in California, often in clinics funded by Medi-Cal.

Of course, in a budget crisis, it is easy to see how elected officials could view $2 billion sitting in the bank as a budget-solution-in-waiting. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed raiding this fund in 2009, asking voters to shift $460 million from MHSA funds into the state’s General Fund. The proposal was defeated by a landslide.

In contrast to the failed 2009 proposal, Governor Brown proposes a scheme that — at least in theory — could help the state budget in the short term and preserve mental health funding in the long term. It includes several moving parts:

  • Shifting $861 million from the MHSA reserve account to the General Fund. The shift would pay for current mental health services for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. Net impact: Bad. But could be worse. Obviously, this is a setback for planned MHSA-funded new and expanded programs, but the money would still be used to pay for mental health services, and would be a one-time shift.
  • Shifting responsibility for three mental health programs from the state to counties. The programs include Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT); Medi-Cal mental health managed care; and special education mental health services (known to professionals as AB3632). Net impact: Unclear. “Local control” is sometimes better in concept than in reality; state administration ensures careful auditing to ensure money is being spent wisely, and consistency in program standards. County control of these services may lead to some cost savings, but those are often overstated.
  • Changing how the state funds mental health. Starting in the 2012-13 fiscal year, mental health services would be given an additional dedicated portion of state sales tax and vehicle license revenues. These are projected to grow at approximately a 6% annual rate. Net impact: Good. Currently, mental health programs are funded through a mechanism that grows at about 2% a year, according to the California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies — lower than normal inflation, and certainly not enough to account for any growth in patient population. This is a prime example of structural underfunding, which leads to ever-increasing caseloads and access-to-care problems.

All of this adds up to a proposal that has public mental health leaders more cautious than optimistic. The California Mental Health Directors Association asks a long list of good questions about the proposal, most of which are presently unanswered.

But the fact that a proposed $861 million raiding of public mental health funds is not being met with noisy protests from the agencies that rely on those funds is telling. It suggests that the proposal may have merit.

In the state’s current budget environment, we know lots of cuts will need to be made. Some of those cuts are likely to impact public mental health workers, including marriage and family therapists. Weathering the storm with a minimal amount of damage to public mental health, and even a potential long-term improvement to how it is funded, could be a very good outcome. Maybe.

===

* Background on MHSA: As Governor Brown notes in his budget proposal,

To provide additional resources for county mental health services, voters passed the Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63) in 2004. The intent of Proposition 63 was to reduce the long‑term adverse impact of untreated mental illness by developing services or expanding existing services at the local level. To fund these resources, Proposition 63 imposed a one‑percent surcharge on personal income over $1 million.

That tax brought in $2 billion more than expected in its first four years. (The budget proposal fails to mention that since then, the MHSA has brought in less than expected due to the worsening economy.) Counties have engaged in a long-term planning process for how they would use MHSA money to transform their mental health systems; by law, MHSA money was not to be used as simply a replacement funding stream for existing services. So while the MHSA currently has about $2 billion in reserves, counties have been planning for — indeed, counting on — that money to be available.