A new Arizona law, and a similar bill proposed in Michigan, would allow students in psychology, counseling and social work to discriminate based on their religious or moral beliefs.
Uncategorized
Iowa State MFT program closing; Saint Louis U. may do the same
While some family therapy graduate programs fight to survive, others open or expand.
The Iowa State Daily is reporting on the pending closure of the university’s marriage and family therapy program and associated clinic. While there are only four students remaining in the program, the Daily reports that the clinic continues to serve a beneficial role in the community, as one of very few low-cost service providers in mental health.
Meanwhile, the Saint Louis Beacon is reporting that Saint Louis University’s COAMFTE-accredited MFT PhD program could stop accepting new students as early as next year, with plans to close completely in 2015. A document the newspaper described as a “draft memo” circulated to a faculty retreat outlined the proposed changes, which would also include the shuttering of several other programs. The university responded to the newspaper by saying the recommendations were preliminary, and faculty would have the opportunity to respond to them before final decisions are made by the university’s board of trustees. Last week, the Beacon reported that the trustees took no immediate action, which could leave the door open for the targeted programs to survive.
If both MFT programs do ultimately close (and the Iowa State closing appears certain, while Saint Louis is more in the air), they would join a small but significant list of MFT program closures in recent years. Although accreditation in MFT is growing, with more than 100 programs around the country now COAMFTE accredited (hey Californians, COAMFTE accreditation matters), even these programs are sometimes threatened with closure. Last year, the University of Nevada Las Vegas threatened to close its MFT program, though the program survived after a reorganization.
Saint Louis and Iowa State would make at least the third and fourth closures of COAMFTE-accredited MFT graduate programs in recent years. Syracuse and Purdue both shuttered their MFT doctoral programs, though both continue to have strong masters degree programs. In addition, the MS in Clinical Psychology program at San Jose State University, which was not COAMFTE-accredited but had been producing graduates headed for MFT licensure, is on at least a two-year hiatus. According to its web site, the program will reopen as an LPCC program if it reopens at all.
It would be a mistake, though, to presume that means that opportunities for high-quality education in MFT are decreasing. As I mentioned above, COAMFTE accreditation is growing, and as some programs close, others open or expand. Alliant International University (where I teach) will be expanding its COAMFTE-accredited PsyD program in Couple and Family Therapy to my beautiful new hometown of Los Angeles this fall.
Proposed Ethics Code revision would remove MFTs’ social responsibility
The proposal would eliminate three sections of the AAMFT Code of Ethics that currently call for service and responsibility to larger systems. Members have until January 31 to weigh in.
The AAMFT Board of Directors is proposing an incremental change to the marriage and family therapy profession’s Code of Ethics, the guiding document that defines professional standards in the field. At least one of the proposed changes would drastically redefine what it means to be an MFT.
Some quick background: The AAMFT Code of Ethics was last updated way back in 2001, and much has changed in the profession since then. In particular, the emergence of new technologies for both marketing and service delivery has raised concerns about how to best manage confidentiality and informed consent. The AAMFT Board has known the Code was in need of updating, but did not want to engage in a full-scale overhaul of the Code at this time; that would be about a two-year undertaking. So, they instead are looking at smaller-scale changes. (Full disclosure: I chaired a Task Force, at the Board’s request, looking at possible changes to the Code over the summer. The Task Force was just one of several sources of input for the Board as they developed the current proposal.)
One element of the proposed revised Code is shocking to me. It would change what it means to be a marriage and family therapist. The Board is proposing removing each of the following sections from the AAMFT Code of Ethics:
6.6 Marriage and family therapists participate in activities that contribute to a better community and society, including devoting a portion of their professional activity to services for which there is little or no financial return.
6.7 Marriage and family therapists are concerned with developing laws and regulations pertaining to marriage and family therapy that serve the public interest, and with altering such laws and regulations that are not in the public interest.
6.8 Marriage and family therapists encourage public participation in the design and delivery of professional services and in the regulation of practitioners.
Together, these are the sections that place MFTs in a position of larger social responsibility and make us accountable to the communities we serve. The removal of these sections would have far-reaching implications: If MFTs no longer need to have a place at the table when laws are being developed or altered that are not in the public interest, do we simply allow others to set for us the legal standards that govern our profession? Do we now need to stay out of the same-sex marriage debate? Is it OK for us to be ignorant of major legal issues in our field, from the fight for Medicare reimbursement to the Texas lawsuit over MFTs’ ability to diagnose?
Perhaps on an even more fundamental level, we can look at the proposed removal of 6.6. Is contributing to a better community and society no longer a value of this profession? If so, I would be a lot less enthusiastic about being a part of it.
And that’s the rub. A Code of Ethics is more than just a list of behaviors that can get you in trouble in a profession; it also serves as a vital statement of what it means to be an MFT. It reflects our values and desires as a professional group. One of those values, historically, has been responsibility to the communities we serve. If nothing else, devoting some of our professional activity to services with minimal return is a clear way of demonstrating through our behavior that we truly understand systems and our role, as professionals, in those larger communities.
The Board did not provide its rationale for this proposed change (or any others). But the reasons are likely not important. These subprinciples are key to my identity as a marriage and family therapist. They set AAMFT, as an association, and MFTs as professionals apart from other professional groups. Serving the community through pro bono work and involvement in policy discussions is part and parcel to being an MFT. Isn’t it?
Members can review the full proposal of changes to the AAMFT Code of Ethics through the AAMFT web site (you will need to log in). Members can submit comments through January 31 via email; the address to send feedback can be found here. Whether you agree with me on this issue or not, if you are a member, please do weigh in on the full proposal. The more feedback AAMFT gets from members on the proposed changes (most of which are really quite good!), the better.
# # #
If you’re wondering, the CAMFT Code of Ethics encourages (but does not require) pro bono work. It also has language nearly identical to AAMFT’s 6.7 above, about influencing laws.
The myth of the portable license
California’s new LPCC isn’t any more of a “national license” than the MFT license is: not at all. Why do rumors persist that it is?
Here in California, we’re currently in the middle of the grandparenting period for licensed MFTs and LCSWs who want the state’s new Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor (LPCC) license. One of the most common reasons I hear from MFTs for wanting the LPCC is the notion that it, unlike the MFT, is a “national license.”
Except it isn’t.
For clarity: An LPCC license is no more of a national license than an MFT license, which is to say, neither is a national license at all. Both are state licenses only. Both professions now have licensure laws in all of the 50 United States (and DC), but for both, the licensing laws from state to state differ. How portable your license is — that is, how easily you could get licensed in a new state once you move — depends on a number of factors, including which state you move to. (For more on this, see my earlier post on MFTs and license portability.) But neither license has true reciprocity, which is automatic recognition of another state’s license.
The only reason I know of that could explain the myth of a portable LPCC license is that California’s Board of Behavioral Sciences is recognizing the National Clinical Mental Health Counselor Exam for LPCCs, while for MFTs, we use state-based exams. Admittedly, that can make moving into or out of California with an MFT license slightly more challenging: If you move into California, even if you have been licensed elsewhere for decades, you will need to take California’s MFT licensing exams. And if you move out of California, even if you have been licensed here for decades, you will need to take the National MFT Exam (many states also require a state-based law and ethics exam) to get licensed in your new home state. But the BBS has already gotten legislative approval to restructure the MFT license exam process, and is working with the folks who develop the National MFT Exam to have that exam offered and recognized in California. So that difference between the professions will hopefully be vanishing in the not-too-distant future.
There are good reasons for some MFTs to pursue the California LPCC license. Unfortunately, the ones I hear most often from MFTs as their motivators are falsehoods, and this portability issue is a great example.
To ease stress, and maybe save your marriage, try doing nothing
When it comes to making a healthier self and a happier family, doing nothing may be the next big thing.
One of the hardest things for many of us (myself included) to fathom when we dedicate our careers to solving problems is that sometimes the best solution is no solution at all — just do nothing. Refraining from action can be just as vital a problem-solving strategy as taking action.
Michele Weiner-Davis, the author of Divorce Busting, offers a touching blog entry about how doing nothing helped her own marriage. And there’s the website that challenges you to do nothing for two minutes, which is harder than it sounds if you’re used to moving at a fast pace.
Best of all: Doing nothing can be surprisingly effective.
“Taking a moment to do nothing can be very centering and calming. It allows you to slow the entire experience down and get back to a place of rational thought,” says my good friend and Caldwell-Clark cofounder Aimee Clark. Indeed, doing nothing can be a surprisingly useful treatment for depression, which fairly quickly improves on its own in as many as 1 in 5 untreated cases. (Naturally, if you’re experiencing depression, talk it over with a doctor or mental health professional — just keep “no treatment” on the table as an option.) And doing nothing can improve family life; the tendency for kids to be over-scheduled has been widely covered. The impact of that hyperscheduling may actually be good for kids, but at the same time, studies routinely show that families do better when they simply spend time together… even if they aren’t actually doing anything in that time.
How does one go from doing a lot to doing nothing, even if for just a few minutes a day?
“Commit to one 5-minute practice per day that invokes the nothingness. You can do a simple exercise I call Choosing Your Thoughts, which engages the breath and mind to help you do just that. As you inhale and exhale through your nose, say to yourself, ‘I am aware that I’m doing nothing,'” says Clark. “You can even add a smile, which will help you to enjoy the exercise.”