Proposed new MFT accreditation standards eliminate vague religious exemption

by

If adopted, the draft COAMFTE standards would require all programs to teach LGBTQ-affirmative practices.

W-classroomThe public comment period closes Wednesday on the draft version of new accreditation standards for graduate programs in marriage and family therapy. The Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education (COAMFTE) is proposing some major changes from current standards:

  • The draft standards would restore the 500-client-contact-hour requirement for practicum. Under the current, version 11.0 standards, programs can require fewer hours as long as they have evidence to show that their practicum results in students being competent to practice at the master’s level. This vague standard has left different accredited programs using different experience requirements, which can be confusing to state licensing boards who want to know how much practical experience they can reasonably expect to be included in graduate degrees.

  • The draft standards separate accreditation requirements into “eligibility standards” and “accreditation standards.” As it is now, the Commission makes its decisions based on the full scope of information presented to them. Programs that meet most but not all standards may still be granted accreditation, with stipulations — requirements that the program comes into full compliance with the standards within a year. This proposed split into eligibility and accreditation standards arguably makes the accreditation bar a bit higher: Programs that fail to meet even one of the eligibility standards would not be eligible for accreditation, regardless of their performance on the other standards.

  • The draft standards would go back to a singular, mandatory core curriculum for all accredited programs. Of course, programs would remain free to add on to this core curriculum as they see fit, but all accredited programs would be required to have the same core set of coursework.

  • Perhaps what is most notable in the draft standards is what is missing: The draft standards remove COAMFTE’s current vague, blanket exemption for religious programs. The exemption, present in the current COAMFTE standards (p. 3), says

    Religiously affiliated institutions that have core beliefs directed toward conduct within their communities are entitled to protect those beliefs.

    It has never been clear to me what that is supposed to mean in practice, but the way I read it, any religious-based program that wants COAMFTE accreditation but isn’t in tune with any part of the standards was free to ignore that part of the standards, as long as they could tie their objection to their religious beliefs. Under the proposed new standards, not only would that clause go away, but the required curriculum would include at least three semester units on

    diversity, power, privilege and oppression as they relate to race, age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, disability, health status, religious and spiritual practices, nation of origin or other relevant social categories throughout the curriculum. It includes practice with diverse, international, multicultural, marginalized, and/or underserved communities, including LGTBQ affirmative practices. [emphasis in original]

    It is much clearer what the new standards would mean: Every COAMFTE-accredited program would need to teach its students how to work with LGBTQ clients in a positive, affirming way, and an appreciation for the harm such clients suffer from living in a heterosexist society.

To me, these are all good and necessary changes. First, as to the hours and curriculum changes: I hear chatter among MFTs around the country that licensing boards haven’t known what to do with the current COAMFTE standards. Those current standards are so flexible that licensing boards don’t necessarily know what they’re getting when someone comes to them with a COAMFTE-accredited degree. The draft standards, if adopted, would bring back greater consistency in content across programs and could restore state boards’ confidence in maintaining COAMFTE accreditation as the standard educational requirement for licensure.

Second, as to the removal of the religious exception: I’ve written previously about the struggles some religious therapists face when trying to work with LGBT clients, and the debate there is far from settled. But accredited programs can and should teach affirmative practices. The debate here should be restricted to how a therapist balances their values with client needs in the therapy room, not about whether the therapist can be exempted from exposure to affirmative techniques or to the suffering LGBTQ clients genuinely experience.

There’s only one thing COAMFTE didn’t included that I wish they would: Require MFT programs to be more transparent about cost.

COAMFTE will be reviewing comments on the proposed changes this fall. If adopted, the new standards would likely take effect in 2014 for new accreditations and be phased in for those programs already accredited.

Want to know how much that MFT degree will cost? Good luck

by

Many family therapy programs make it surprisingly difficult to plan for your graduate education budget.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

US Currency; public domain imageIn my research for California Family Therapy Program Rankings, where I offer a roundup of information and rankings on 34 of California’s biggest marriage and family therapy (MFT) graduate programs, I was determined to get readers the most objective information on cost possible. The amount of money students invest in their graduate degrees is significant, and sometimes has to be a factor in choosing programs.

I figured gathering this information wouldn’t be easy, necessarily, but that most programs would publish some way of estimating total tuition cost on their web sites. For example, I might have to multiply a per-unit tuition cost, usually given on one page of a university’s site, with the total number of units in the MFT program, which typically would be on a separate page.

If only it were that simple.

Whether by accident or by design, MFT programs in California are often less than fully transparent in letting prospective students know how much they can expect to pay for their graduate degrees.

Consider San Diego State University as an example. Theirs is a very well-regarded, COAMFTE-accredited program. They’re probably pretty inexpensive, as master’s programs go, since they’re a state school. They even advertise themselves as the most affordable MFT program in San Diego, and I suspect that’s probably true. But if you want to know how much the program actually costs, you’re out of luck. The university web site provides tuition costs for a nine-month academic year ($8,032 for California residents, if you’re wondering), which puts SDSU right in line with the other state schools. But as the program web site notes, two summers are also needed to complete their two-year program, and if you want to know how much those cost, you have to start by fishing your way here, to a 2013 summer tuition document that tells you the cost of summer tuition depends on how many units you take. And how many summer units are required for the MFT program?

I never could find that.

The information just isn’t there, or at the very least, it isn’t easy to locate. Do those two summers add up to six units, or more like 20? At up to $644 per unit in the summer, that’s a pretty big blank space in a prospective student’s budget. I know universities need to put all kinds of cautionary notes on their program plans — classes may be full, scheduling and tuition are subject to change, and on and on — but how hard would it be to tell prospective students how the program is designed, such that they can reasonably estimate how much the whole thing will cost?

My point here isn’t to single out SDSU. Again, theirs is a good program; no matter how much their summers cost, SDSU’s program will still be cheaper than private institutions; and they are hardly the only school to make cost information on their MFT program opaque. (Several programs even provide a sort of illusion of transparency in tuition cost, openly stating how much they charge per semester or per year, but not saying how many of those it takes an average student to finish the program. A $15,000-per-year program designed to be completed in two years looks a lot less attractive — and a lot less affordable — if it turns out that it takes most students four years to actually complete it.) Of the 34 programs I reviewed for the book, there were several where it was not possible to even estimate the total tuition cost of the program based on information available on the program’s web site.

My point instead is this: Prospective MFT students need more and simpler disclosure of graduate program costs. And that means more than just stating tuition and fees, especially for programs that charge by semester or by quarter: it means providing clear estimates of how long the program will take to complete. Ideally those estimates would come with graduation data to back them up; join me if you will in gasping at Phoenix’s abysmal 10% completion rate 30 months after enrollment, but at least they publish it.

Perhaps programs are concerned that making cost information too front-and-center will lead to the same kind of race to the bottom we have seen in airline fares, where consumers’ cost-driven decision-making has led to declining service, crowded planes, airline bankruptcies, and even more opaque pricing. If so, I don’t think we’re giving prospective MFT students enough credit. They’re choosing where to get years of education that will set the stage for their whole careers, not a two-hour bus-ride-in-the-sky to Toledo. Let’s give them the information they need to budget wisely, and trust that they know cost is only one of many factors to consider when choosing a graduate MFT program.

# # #

Your comments are welcome. You can post them in the comments below, by email to ben[at]bencaldwell[dot]com, or on my Twitter feed.

Why cultural competence matters in MFT – and how to build yours

by

Mental health professionals need to understand a variety of cultures (and, ideally, languages) to assess and diagnose properly.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Globe image [public domain] via Wikimedia CommonsIf you are a mental health professional (or are in the process of becoming one), developing cultural competence will help ensure that you don’t mistakenly diagnose a culturally-appropriate behavior as some kind of mental illness. It will enable you to recognize the difference between a client who is ashamed and one who was simply taught to avoid eye contact. And most importantly, it will enable you to provide treatment within a client’s cultural context without imposing your own values, either intentionally or by mistake.

Cultural competence — that is, the ability to provide effective services to people from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds — gets built in a variety of ways. It is important to understand traditions and practices across a wide range of cultural groups, and you can’t possibly go to every single one of the places your clients will be from. In short, whether you ever travel or not, you need to internationalize your thinking.

But to really develop your cultural competence, you need to experience different cultures, both within and outside of your local area. To this end, many universities are ramping up their offerings (and their requirements) when it comes to truly experiencing the diversity of our world.

I teach in the Couple and Family Therapy Programs at Alliant International University in Los Angeles. To be sure, we are in one of the most diverse cities in the nation. Our student body reflects that, with students from a wide range of cultural, national, religious, and other traits that allow them to learn a great deal from one another when they share a classroom. Many of the benefits of study abroad can be achieved in classrooms just like ours. But a classroom is a controlled environment, and Alliant’s mission centers largely on both multiculturalism and internationalism, so we offer much more than just the classroom experience. We also offer cultural immersion experiences for our students in Mexico City, China, and India; we also have had students and faculty take part in a past Cambodia immersion.

The students who take advantage of these opportunities describe them as much more than professional development. They often describe them as life-changing.

Naturally, it is tough for faculty to teach from a fully-informed perspective if they have not travelled themselves. The need for cultural immersion is not limited to students, nor is it limited to a certain phase of one’s career. Times change and cultures change, and as professionals we need to stay in contact with these changes to best serve the clients with whom we work. In the past several years, I’ve been to Mexico City, Hong Kong, Costa Rica, and Europe, and many in our Alliant faculty have their own long list of recent travels. (As a group, we rack up a lot of frequent-flyer miles.) I can happily say that on each trip, I’ve learned far more about the local cultures than I ever could have understood from a book.

If you’re considering a career working in mental health, and are interested in developing your international and multicultural competence, I would strongly encourage you to check out Alliant’s programs. We have programs in six cities around California and in Mexico City, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. And many programs — including mine — are still accepting applications for this fall.

# # #

Your comments are welcomed. You can post them in the comments below, by email to ben[at]bencaldwell[dot]com, or on my Twitter feed.

There will never be a lab test for some mental health disorders

by

Because they aren’t really “disorders” when you consider the “symptoms” in context.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

USMC-050124-N-1810F-562

One of the first things any new student in family therapy learns about is the genius of the acting-out child. Children are keen observers of the world around them: If they learn that one kind of scream or cry or tantrum gets their parents’ attention where another kind does not, they are quick to do what works and give up on what doesn’t.

Children are also, for obvious reasons, incredibly observant of their parents’ relationship (whether to each other, or in blended or single-parent families, to the new partner). For kids, seeing their parents fighting can be utterly terrifying.

Some kids, in the midst of a parental argument, learn to stay out of the way. Other kids learn, even by accident, that a very good way to get the parents to stop arguing with each other is to break rules, scream, or otherwise behave inappropriately. Here is where acting out is so smart: if both parents get angry at the kid for misbehaving, at least they stop arguing with each other for a while.

For a child, the pain of having your parents angry at you may be far preferable to the terror experienced when watching them fight each other.

Of course, parents are often reluctant to see this. They may instead perceive such a child as “hard to handle,” “defiant,” or otherwise broken. In the worst cases, health care professionals buy into the parents’ descriptions, slapping diagnostic labels on the child. Labels like “attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder” or “oppositional defiant disorder” may accurately describe a child’s behavior, but they ignore the cause, and tend to focus attention on the child as the problem.

A skillful family therapist will assess not just the child but also the child’s entire social environment, including their family, to see whether the acting-out behavior is actually smart. If it is, then therapy focuses not on “curing” the acting out, but instead on making it no longer necessary. The family therapy field is rife with stories of children diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder, childhood bipolar disorder, or other mental illnesses who are rapidly “cured” once their parents start coming in to therapy sessions — especially if the parents are willing to work on their relationship with each other.)

Of course, we don’t stop being impacted by our social worlds when we become adults. Just as the acting-out child is often behaving in a way that is quite smart given their environment, adults who appear to have mental illnesses may be responding intelligently to the world around them. This may mean their behavior is a response to the work environment, social circle, family, or even larger society. For example, William Glasser suggests that at least some of the higher prevalence of depression among women might actually be a wise response to the impossibly high demands placed on women to be successful at work, at home, and socially, always with a smile on. For women who experience that pressure intensely, and do not feel they have a reasonable way of escaping or easing it, depression can be a quite reasonable way of checking out of that chase without having to actively fight social norms. (For clarity, Glasser is not suggesting blaming the depressed for their depression; he does argue that depressive behaviors are sometimes chosen, but goes on to say these choices are often not conscious. Depression may be an adaptive response to difficult circumstances, Glasser says, but it certainly is not ideal.)

Ultimately, whether we are talking about children, adolescents, or adults, it is often true that behavior that might look troubling or even “ill” in one context is actually quite helpful in another. In fact, sometimes taking on behaviors that appear crazy to others is actually the smartest thing to do. It’s evidence of good health and adaptability, not an underlying problem with the brain or body that any lab test could detect.

That’s why, for as much as I support the National Institutes of Mental Health’s effort to usher in a new era of hard science in mental health diagnosis (and usher out the behavior-based diagnoses of the DSM-5), I wonder who it will leave out in the cold. The simple fact is that many people who now (appropriately!) receive diagnoses and are eligible for insurance-covered treatment for mental disorders are not, in any physiologically-testable way, disordered. They are actually quite healthy. Their behavior makes perfect sense when understood in context.

# # #

Your comments are welcomed. You can post them in the comments below, by email to ben[at]bencaldwell[dot]com, or on my Twitter feed.

National Institutes of Mental Health abandons DSM-5

by

Just weeks before the new diagnostic manual is released, NIMH cites “lack of validity” and says “patients with mental disorders deserve better.”
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

PET-imageIn a surprising announcement just weeks before the scheduled release of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the US government’s mental health research arm has announced plans to stop using DSM categories in its work.

The National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) is the single largest funder of mental health research in the world. In his announcement last week explaining the decision, NIMH Director Thomas Insel wrote that “Symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment.” While diagnositic categories based on clusters of symptoms — like the categories in the DSM — provide a common language that mental health care providers and researchers can use, these categories are more about that consistency in usage (i.e., reliability) than they are about clinical or research validity. Such symptom-based diagnosis, Insel argued, is now outdated in most other areas of medicine.

So NIMH is scrapping DSM categories when funding future research and is developing its own framework to “transform diagnosis by incorporating genetics, imaging [such as the PET scan pictured above], cognitive science, and other levels of information to lay the foundation for a new classification system,” according to Insel. For now, the new classification system is just a framework for research. But the clear intention is to make the DSM obsolete.

As a family therapist, I find the DSM-5 categories to be both useful and limited in the ways Insel described. They are a good tool for communicating with other professionals, but not especially useful for clients, beyond establishing that others may have similar suffering. I like the idea of a new classification system for mental disorders based on biology and verifiable laboratory tests (indeed, I think it’s overdue), and think it quite likely that such a system will strongly support systemic and relational therapies. The brain is a social organ, after all, and therapy creates verifiable physiological changes in the brain.

# # #

Your comments are welcomed. You can post them in the comments below, by email to ben[at]bencaldwell[dot]com, or on my Twitter feed.