Psychotherapy Notes

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

February 23, 2011 by Ben Caldwell

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.

The “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

February 10, 2011 by Ben Caldwell

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?

California 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.

California CE providers routinely violate ad regulations

February 7, 2011 by Ben Caldwell

A review of 15 advertisements for continuing education events for California MFTs and LCSWs finds that all of them violate state regulations by leaving out required information. If no one is complaining, do we need the regulations?

Continuing education providers in California are expected to offer some basic information about themselves and their events when advertising, just as licensed marriage and family therapists are expected to have our licensure information attached to any advertising we do. Ideally, these disclosure requirements prevent less-than-reputable folks from putting on less-than-worthwhile CE events to swindle therapists out of money.

But no one is following the requirements.

And that’s a literal “no one,” at least in our sample. Not one advertisement followed the letter of the law.

===

We (my research assistant and I) reviewed ads from every issue in volume 21 (2009) of The Therapist magazine, published by the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists every two months. We want to emphasize that CAMFT is not in any way responsible for policing outside ads; it is the CE providers who are solely responsible for their own advertising content. We found a total of 15 unique ads, many of which appeared in multiple issues; we did not count duplicates in our calculations.

Section 1887.9 of the California Code of Regulations (it can be viewed in the BBS laws & regulations booklet, page 142 by the on-page numbering, page 149 of the PDF) requires all CE providers to:

ensure that information publicizing a continuing education course is accurate and includes the following:

(a) the provider’s name;

(b) the provider number, if a board-approved provider;

(c) the statement “Course meets the qualifications for _______ hours of continuing education credit for MFTs and/or LCSWs as required by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences”;

(d) the provider’s policy on refunds in cases of non-attendance by the registrant; and

(e) a clear, concise description of the course content and objectives.

Providers seem to be simply ignoring this. We found a total of 15 unique ads for in-person CE events. We ignored ads for online or mail-in courses; they usually were advertising the provider, and not a specific course, and thus they are probably not subject to the above requirements.

We found that among the 15 ads we reviewed, providers routinely ignored all of the required information except the provider’s name:

Item	Ads containing	Ads missing	% of ads containing
1. Provider name	14	1	93%
2. Provider number	7	8	47%
3. “Meets qualifications” statement	0	15	0%
4. Refund policy	2	13	13%
5. Course description	8	7	53%

Another way to look at this is to see what proportion of ads had 2, 3, 4, or all 5 of the required pieces of information:

Items present	Ads	% of all ads
One or more	15	100%
Two or more	11	73%
Three or more	3	20%
Four or more	2	13%
All five	0	0%

The requirements exist to ensure that when licensees hand over their money to CE providers, the licensee knows what they are signing up for and those hours will legitimately count toward the licensee’s continuing education requirement. But the BBS does not enforce those requirements unless they receive a complaint, and such complaints are rare: in a 7-month span reported here, the BBS received just three complaints against continuing education providers. (And those were not likely to have been about advertising, judging by prior complaint data.) For comparison, there are more than 2,000 approved CE providers in the state.

===

The relative rarity with which the requirements are followed, combined with the relative lack of complaints against continuing education providers, raises an important question: Are these regulations really helping anybody?

Certainly the BBS has better things to do with its enforcement unit than go after such minor omissions. Maybe it would be better to take the requirements off the books entirely.

Or, maybe the current landscape is just fine. After all, it allows licensees who feel they have been duped by unscrupulous CE providers to complain, and gives the BBS leverage to act against the provider who failed to advertise appropriately. It’s the CE-advertising equivalent of jaywalking: we all want the cops to focus their work on more important things, and it’s really only a problem when somebody gets hurt.

===

If you’re wondering, the flowers in the picture are forget-me-nots. Seemed appropriate.

Wyoming bill would require counseling before marriage or divorce

February 4, 2011 by Ben Caldwell

With some exceptions, three hours of premarital or pre-divorce counseling would be required. For divorcing couples, it’s good policy, even though it is unlikely to reduce divorce rates. It is much harder to justify the premarital requirement, on either a clinical or policy level.

A bill introduced in this year’s session of the Wyoming state legislature, HB0065, would require couples to attend three hours of premarital counseling before obtaining a marriage license, and three hours of marriage counseling before obtaining a divorce.

While there is little data to suggest that any three-hour process for couples already planning to split up will make much of a dent in the state’s divorce rate, requiring divorce counseling is a good idea for other reasons. Divorce education reduces conflict in the divorce process, particularly where custody is concerned (see this summary of several studies on divorce education for parents), and saves the divorcing couple as well as the public a significant amount of money in the process. Three hours is not an unduly burdensome amount, and the a judge can waive the requirement if the court finds there is “clear and convincing evidence that marital counseling will not lead to a reconciliation of the parties” — an important consideration for victims of relationship violence. Several states have adopted such programs, often similar to one called “Children in the Middle,” with good results.

The premarital counseling requirement is harder to support, either on a policy or scientific level — and this is coming from a guy who specializes in couples work (San Diego marriage counseling) and loves premarital counseling.

There is ample evidence that these relationship education programs improve communication, but it is unclear whether premarital education actually improves relationship satisfaction or stability, and there is virtually no evidence to suggest they actually have a long-term impact on divorce. (That’s primarily due to a lack of data, not studies showing failure.) A recent, thorough review in the journal Family Relations described current research on the very basic question of whether these programs work as “not as settled as program developers and practitioners might assume or like it to be.” There are at least three large-scale, federally-funded demonstration projects of premarital education (Appendix 2) underway now that should provide clearer answers.

In the meantime, these programs continue to grow because they are, in the words of one report, “popular and valued.” And there is some evidence to suggest they have a greater impact on low-income families, who do suffer from higher long-term divorce rates.

But here’s the catch. In the studies that have been done, as well as the large studies underway now, few have suggested that just three hours of education would be enough to even expect an impact. The federally-funded studies use programs of at least 24 hours of education. Most programs utilize at least 12 hours. Anything under eight hours was considered in the Family Relations review to be a “low-dosage” program.

This is why it’s so hard to get behind the premarital requirement in the proposed Wyoming law. I could see requiring 12 hours, and I can certainly understand requiring none. But three hours? It adds a hurdle to marriage, without sufficient reason to believe it will have a lasting positive impact. And while I believe quite strongly that premarital education can be effective, I cannot support requiring an amount of it that is too low to have any likely effect. Wyoming and other states should either require enough premarital education to make a lasting difference, or none at all.

Update: The bill died in its first committee in February 2011.

Insights from 5 1/2 years of California MFT license exam data: A defense of underperforming programs

November 9, 2015February 1, 2011 by Ben Caldwell

Some MFT programs’ graduates perform poorly on California’s MFT licensing exams. Don’t assume that means the program is of poor quality; there may be good reasons.

We’ve seen that there are huge differences in performance on the California marriage and family therapy licensing exams based on what graduate program the test-takers attended. We’ve also seen that for-profit MFT programs should not be dismissed simply because they aim to make money; Argosy graduates do particularly well on the exams, while University of Phoenix graduates do not. I’ve said before, though, that there are lots of things to consider when choosing a graduate program in MFT, and that graduates’ exam performance should only be one of many such considerations. Indeed, there are some major problems with putting too much stock in exam data.

If you are looking at graduate programs, and are concerned about your prospective MFT program’s exam pass rate, here are three reasons why you may want to ignore the exam data:

Programs can and do improve. Exam data reflects students who graduated years earlier. Remember, it takes the average MFT intern in California more than four years to move from graduation to the licensing exams. That number is a bit lower for graduates of COAMFTE-accredited programs, primarily because they do more practicum hours while still in school. Nonetheless, if you are looking at MFT licensing exam data from 2009 and earlier, you will find very little information on anyone who graduated much past 2005, and nothing to tell you which programs have gotten better or worse since then. Consider the recently-COAMFTE-accredited programs at Chapman University and Hope International University. Their national accreditation should arguably make them more appealing (and thus competitive) programs for prospective students and faculty alike. That’s important, and simply is not reflected in currently-available exam data.
Programs seek to give students opportunities. Consider for a moment the state’s worst-performing program, according to a table that appeared in Part I of this series: Pacific Oaks College. Based on the pass-rate statistic alone, one might presume that the Pacific Oaks program is not very good. But that conclusion can’t safely be made from that data. Pacific Oaks, over the past few years, has specifically sought to provide opportunities to historically underserved populations, creating cohorts specifically for African-American Family Therapy and Latino Family Therapy. (This outreach is vital: Lots of evidence suggests that the mental health workforce is not meeting the needs of minority populations, either in California or around the US.) Students in these cohorts may lack the family, economic, and social support, as well as the earlier educational opportunities, that other students often have. Pacific Oaks goes to great length to remediate these earlier deficits, and may be doing more, with less, than programs who start with more economically- and educationally-advantaged students. When financial and accreditation concerns threatened to close the Pacific Oaks in 2009, I was one of many who stood up in defense of keeping the program alive, and have no reservations about having done so.
Programs have no control over what students do after graduation. A program can really only control what happens from the time students are in the program to the time they graduate — and even then, programs have limited control over how well their students prepare themselves. A great supervisor can help an MFT Intern/Associate make up for deficiencies in their education, and help get them ready for licensing exams. Poor supervision may leave the Intern/Associate on their own to prepare, or even offer incorrect information that ultimately harms one’s chance of passing the exams. And of course, programs have no control over whether their graduates use MFT exam prep programs, although there is little evidence that these prep classes actually impact MFT exam pass rates.

Of course, before you do go dismissing a program’s exam pass rate, take some steps to get reassurance that you are making that decision wisely. If you are considering attending a program whose graduates have not performed well on recent licensing exams, ask the program (1) why, (2) what they’re doing about it, and (3) what evidence they have that they’re getting better. If the program can’t pass that test, then it’s time to wonder whether you would be able to pass yours.