Online MFT programs

by

Are you interested in getting your marriage and family therapy degree through an online program? Here are five MFT programs that are mostly or fully online.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Computer and screenOnline education holds the promise of extending the reach of marriage and family therapy training. Champions of these programs argue that they make advanced education available to those who otherwise might not have access to it, due to scheduling, geographic, or other barriers. It is possible that the growth of online MFT programs will particularly help bring cultural diversity and rural practitioners into our community of licensees.

Of course, there are also general concerns about online education, including dropout rates, profit motives (as many online schools are for-profit), and overall effectiveness.

In the MFT field, online education seems to be an especially challenging proposition: We need to train practitioners in the art and science of relating, face-to-face, in a way that will heal clients and their family relationships. That is a skill set, and one that would seem to require a fair amount of face-to-face interaction to be best developed, shaped, and observed.

Online graduate programs in MFT are experimenting with a number of creative ways to resolve this dilemma — and also keep themselves eligible for COAMFTE accreditation. COAMFTE has tried to walk a difficult middle ground in its educational standards, saying that MFT programs can employ some distance education but not be fully online; since “fully” means “fully,” it would seem a program could get around the letter of this requirement simply by requiring a one-hour meeting on campus at some point during the educational process. But many of the online MFT programs appear to be genuinely interested in maximizing the potential benefits of online education alongside a recognition of the need for in-person work to develop relational skills. As such, many have integrated in-person events and coursework into their online curricula.

Below you will find a list of five MFT programs that are mostly or fully online. Some things to know about all of these programs: 1, As of early December 2012, none of them have yet earned COAMFTE accreditation. (Here’s why COAMFTE accreditation matters to you.) That is only one consideration in choosing the right MFT program, but it is worth considering. [Update 2013: Northcentral is now COAMFTE-accredited.] 2, The information here is drawn from the universities’ web sites. Information can change quickly. 3, Any cost statements do not include books, supplies, living expenses, or the cost of travel or lodging for any required in-person events. 4, It is always the responsibility of the student to ensure their academic program will meet the requirements for licensure in the state where they wish to be licensed; check with your state’s licensing board before choosing a program and remain up-to-date as state requirements change. 5, States typically require hours of supervised experience in a clinic setting as part of the graduate degree; the schools also have this requirement, and offer varying levels of assistance in locating placements. 6, And of course, requirements and costs can change quickly; the information here is as of December 2012, and you should check with the schools for current information.

  • Touro University Worldwide is based in Woodland Hills, CA and has been rapidly growing their Master of Arts in Marriage and Family Therapy program. Part of this is due to cost; at $500 per unit, Touro’s program is less expensive than some of their competitors. Their 60-semester-unit program is delivered in eight-week terms (six of them per year). This program is fully online.

  • Northcentral University is widely considered a pioneer in online MFT education. Members of their faculty have spoken at past AAMFT Annual Conferences about their efforts to comply with COAMFTE standards [Update 2013: Northcentral is now COAMFTE-accredited]; it looks to me like they do so by utilizing site supervisors as co-instructors with university mentors for the practicum courses, which would then be considered in-person instruction. The Northcentral MA in MFT program is a 45-semester-unit program that can be bumped to 48 or 60 units for those living in states requiring more units for licensure. They also offer a PhD in MFT that requires an additional 72 semester units.

  • Capella University offers a Master of Science degree in Marriage and Family Counseling/Therapy. They have quickly grown this program to national prominence and notably earned CACREP accreditation. To their credit, they list cost information plainly and prominently on their site: Their 92-quarter-unit degree, at $458 per credit, will run about $40,000 in total tuition. The program requires two six-day colloquia in to accompany the online instruction. Like many online schools, Capella is for-profit, which may or may not matter to you. (I’ll do a separate post in the next few months on non-profit versus for-profit schools.)

  • Liberty University promises an affordable online MFT masters degree with a Christian perspective. They advertise themselves as the nation’s largest private, nonprofit online university. Their MFT program requires four one-week intensives to accompany the online instruction. Unfortunately, the information on their web site is surprisingly thin — I could not locate a program plan (curriculum) or specific cost information anywhere on their site.

  • Cal Southern University offers a Marriage and Family Therapy concentration within its Master of Arts in Psychology program. This 63-semester-unit program is entirely online.

There are other online programs out there as well, I’m sure. Feel free to share info on them in the comments, and I’ll update this post every once in a while with more recent additions.

# # #

Your comments are welcomed; you can email me at ben[at]bencaldwell[dot]com, post a comment below, or find me on Twitter @bcmft. I regret that I cannot answer every comment personally, but I do chime in on the comments when I can!

California’s ludicrous new elder abuse reporting law

by

California law has changed dramatically for mandated reporters of suspected elder or dependent adult abuse. The good news: The changes only impact some instances of abuse. The bad news: The law is a needlessly complex mess.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Elderly couple with ear muffsWhile the California legislative process often works quite well — witness the passage of SB1172 — a pair of other bills that got far less attention this year will also impact the practices of MFTs, LCSWs, and LPCCs (and all psychotherapists) in the state.

California’s requirements for mandated reporting of elder and dependent adult abuse have changed significantly. These changes have already taken effect, because one of the bills putting the changes into place was marked as emergency legislation. The new law replaces what had been a single standard for when and to whom reports are sent with five different standards based on the specifics of the situation — specifics that, under the law, mandated reporters are not required to investigate.

“Wait, what?” is a fully appropriate response here.

Assembly Bill 40 began in 2011 as a response to an information-sharing problem. When elder or dependent adult abuse takes place in a long-term care facility (such as a nursing home), mandated reporters could report to either law enforcement or the county ombudsperson (a sort of resident advocate for those in long-term care). However, there were problems with information-sharing between ombudspersons and law enforcement, so AB40 initially would have required mandated reporters to send their written reports of suspected abuse to both.

It was a dumb and expensive way to solve the information-sharing problem, forcing therapists to take the time to make duplicate reports rather than just fixing the information flow between ombudspersons and law enforcement. Some of California’s mental health professionals jumped in to oppose the measure.

But it moved forward anyway, with the support of ombudspersons and law enforcement organizations. AB40 was amended many times through its journey through the legislature, and many of the same changes were proposed in Senate Bill 1051. Where the process ended is this:

As of today (because SB1051 was marked emergency legislation, it took effect September 27, 2012, immediately upon the Governor’s signature), mandated telephone reports of suspected elder or dependent adult abuse in California must be made “immediately or as soon as practicably possible” in some cases, “immediately, and no later than within two hours” in others, and within 24 hours in others. Written reports must be sent to various combinations of law enforcement, adult protective services, county ombudspersons, and facilities’ licensing agencies — requiring triplicate reporting in some instances. Filing reports via Internet appears to be allowed in some instances and not others. And the acceptable time frames for written reports will now vary as well, from 2 hours to two working days. These combinations are based on:

  • Whether the abuse took place in a long-term care facility
  • Whether the abuse was physical abuse
  • Whether the abuse resulted in serious bodily injury
  • Whether the abuse was caused by a resident with a physician’s diagnosis of dementia

For the problems that existed with the old standard, at least mandated reporters could be reasonably expected to know who they needed to report to, and when. The new standards are simply too complex to be held in memory, and will likely result in many reports being sent to the wrong places at the wrong times.

It’s bad law.

But it is currently the law of California. So mandated reporters will need to be able to determine where their reports should go and when.

I’ve put together a flowchart of reporting timelines and report recipients; a thumbnail appears below, and the full-size, non-pixelated version is part of my ebook, Basics of California Law for LMFTs, LPCCs, and LCSWs (2013 edition). Use the link for more information or to order.

# # #

Your feedback is welcome, through the comments here, by email to ben [at] bencaldwell [dot] com, or to my decidedly non-abusive Twitter feed.

California may become first state to limit “reparative therapy”

by

Senate Bill 1172 would stop licensed therapists from providing reparative therapy to minors. It awaits Governor Brown’s signature or veto.

California Capitol-fromSWUpdated 9/30/12 – Governor Brown signed the bill into law. It takes effect January 1, 2013.

Senate Bill 1172, a proposed California law that would prevent licensed therapists from offering so-called “reparative therapy” to minors, has passed the state Assembly and Senate and is currently on Governor Jerry Brown’s desk. The Governor has until the end of this month — less than a week away — to sign or veto the bill.

If he signs it, California would be the first state in the US to take such action. Other states are eyeing the California bill closely, with some planning to propose similar bills. Gay rights organizations are also paying close attention to the bill, and have been pushing the Governor to sign it.

“Reparative therapy,” also sometimes known as “conversion therapy” and referred to in the bill as “sexual orientation change efforts,” is a form of therapy that aims to help people distressed by same-sex attraction change those attractions and ultimately become more heterosexual. The therapy was pioneered by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, who suggests in his original book on the topic that same-sex attractions are unhealthy.

All the major professional associations in mental health have issued statements discouraging their members from using reparative therapy, though none has gone so far as to declare the practice inherently unethical. (See statements from the AAMFT, ACA, APA, CAMFT, and NASW; there’s a nice history of associations’ stances on the topic here.) These statements typically cite the lack of research support for any therapy succeeding in altering sexual orientation, and the serious risk of harm that comes to gay and lesbian clients when a therapist tells them that their sexuality is wrong or unhealthy.

However, the therapy remains practiced by a number of mental health professionals, who offer anecdotal reports of clients who say they were helped by the approach.

While professional associations are usually loath to accept government intrusion into clinical practice, it is noteworthy that all of the major professional associations in mental health in California are now either neutral on the bill or actively supporting it. All were initially opposed, but as the language of the bill has been amended, all have dropped their opposition. Here is where the major mental health professional associations currently stand:

AAMFT-CA: Support

The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, California Division was (with NASW-CA) one of the first associations to move from opposition to support. (Full disclosure: I’m the current Legislative and Advocacy Committee Chair for AAMFT-CA, and I’ve worked a great deal on this bill.)

NASW-CA: Support

The National Association of Social Workers, California Division was (with AAMFT-CA) one of the first associations to move from opposition to support.

CPA (Psychologists): Support

The The California Psychological Association had initially joined three other organizations (Psychiatrists, CAMFT, and CALPCC) in jointly oposing the bill. While all four organizations have since dropped their opposition, CPA appears to be the only one of the four to move to a position of support.

CALPCC: Neutral

The California Association of Licensed Professional Clinical Counselors has dropped its opposition, though the bill is not currently mentioned anywhere on the group’s web site.

CAMFT: Neutral

The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists has dropped its opposition to the bill. The CAMFT web site includes a relatively soft caution to its members about the use of reparative therapy (referred to here as “sexual orientation change efforts”) but otherwise does not address the bill.

CPA (Psychiatrists): Neutral

The California Psychiatric Association has officially withdrawn its opposition to the bill, citing a 1998 statement of the American Psychiatric Association which reads in part, “The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder.”

Whatever your stance on the bill, both sides are suggesting you contact Governor Brown’s office directly to let him know. The Governor’s office can be reached by phone at 916-445-2841, by email here, or on Twitter at @JerryBrownGov.

# # #

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

Yes, Tweets can be considered advertisements

by

For California therapists promoting their practices on Twitter, there isn’t enough room to include legally-required disclosures on every tweet. Here’s what to do.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Twitter is a web site that allows for “micro-blogging,” or posting of messages that are 140 characters or less. Because of Twitter’s open and social nature, it can be a good platform for sharing news about your practice. However, as you can imagine, 140 characters is often not enough room to include both your legally-required disclosures and whatever meaningful content you had hoped to include in a post on the site (otherwise known as a “tweet”).

If you are an LMFT, LPCC, or LCSW in California (other state laws vary), you can advertise your practice on Twitter, you just need to use caution in doing so. The California Board of Behavioral Sciences reported in a committee meeting that they had consulted with legal counsel on therapists’ use of Twitter [page 6 of linked PDF]. If the BBS were to receive a complaint about such advertising, they said they would consider advertising “as a whole.” In other words, if your tweet only links to your web site, they would consider the tweet and the site together. As long as a potential client must have seen your legally-mandated disclosures in at least one of those places, you should be safe.

Another way to think of it is, do NOT include any direct contact information – like your phone number, email address, or office location – in a tweet or on your Twitter profile. If you do that, a potential client could come to you just from the tweet, never having seen your required disclosures. Instead, make sure your Twitter profile and individual tweets ONLY include a link to a web site or other resource where you do meet all of California’s advertising standards.

Standard caveat applies here: I’m not a lawyer, so if you are in need of legal advice, this isn’t that. Talk with someone who has actually, like, gone to law school. I’m giving my best clinician’s understanding of both the law and what the BBS has said about it.