AAMFT

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.

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.”

AAMFT, AFTA, CAMFT, IFTA, and more: A primer on MFT associations

by

There are at least six major professional associations that cater to marriage and family therapists. Each of the organizations has great value, and each focuses its energy a bit differently, so it is useful to know about them to determine where you want to make professional connections and what activities you want your member dues to support. Of course, for each organization, there is not room here to cover all of their member benefits; I would strongly suggest following the links to each organization’s web site to learn more about what they have to offer.

Note: The logos here are, of course, the trademarks of their respective owners. Like the rest of this post, they’re there to be informational, and to connect you to the organizations’ sites; they are not meant to indicate that the organization endorses this blog, or vice versa.

The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy is the national professional association for MFTs. It has led the successful push to get MFT licensure in all 50 states, and now is working in support of legislation that would add MFTs to Medicare and improve employability in schools. Strengths: AAMFT is particularly known for its successes in advancing the field through research, education, and training. These efforts include publishing the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy; publishing Family Therapy Magazine, which focuses each issue on a particular clinical or advocacy topic; putting on a large annual conference; supporting the AAMFT Approved Supervisor designation and related training; and accrediting graduate programs in MFT through its accrediting arm, COAMFTE. AAMFT also has divisions dedicated to more localized efforts in US states and Canadian provinces. (Full disclosure: I’m on a consulting contract with AAMFT, focused on California educational and policy issues.)

The American Family Therapy Academy is a smaller, invitation-only organization dedicated to advancing systemic thinking and systemically-oriented services for families. AFTA produces an Annual Conference and publishes a special-topics journal, the AFTA Monograph Series. Strengths: The depth and quality of discourse within the organization is strengthened by the invitation-only membership model. The organization’s strong commitment to systemic work is evident.

The International Family Therapy Association is dedicated to supporting the work of MFTs overseas and training practitioners around the world to deliver culturally-appropriate family-based services. IFTA publishes the Journal of Family Psychotherapy and sponsors the World Family Therapy Congress, an international conference of family therapy researchers and practitioners. Strengths: The Congress is well-renowned for its ability to bring together international leaders in the field who otherwise may never make personal contact. The organization’s focus on culturally-appropriate care is also important when applying treatments to different populations than those for whom the treatment was initially developed.

The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists is an independent organization (that is, separate from AAMFT and its California Division) dedicated to supporting MFTs in the state. That by itself makes the organization one that is important to the profession overall, since about half the MFTs in the country, by licensure, live in California. CAMFT produces its own magazine, The Therapist, which focuses largely on legislation, employment, and compliance issues. CAMFT also puts on an annual conference. Strengths: CAMFT has historically focused its energy effectively on state-level legislation and advocacy, and on local connections through its 29 local CAMFT chapters throughout the state.

The International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors is a division of the American Counseling Association. ACA considers marriage and family therapy to be simply one of many forms of counseling, and accredits MFT programs as specialty counseling programs. IAMFC publishes its own journal, which CAMFT has recently begun distributing to its members as the two organizations seek additional ways to collaborate. Strengths: IAMFC is seeking to grow in scope and influence through collaborative efforts, including its collaboration with CAMFT and with the National Credentialing Academy.

The National Council on Family Relations is an interdisciplinary organization focused on research and policy as they relate to family life. NCFR administers the Certified Family Life Educator credential, publishes a number of journals including family-studies leader Family Relations, and puts on its own annual conference. Strengths: The CFLE credential crosses state lines, and the organization’s focus on applied research and public policy have made it a go-to source for practitioners and policymakers alike.

Each of these organizations has a lot to offer. Students in particular can benefit from them, as they each have remarkably low membership costs for those currently in school. Professional associations advance the field on many levels, improving the quality of our training, the effectiveness of our clinical practices, the employability of MFTs, reimbursement practices, and public policy. I encourage you to find the ones that will be most valuable to you, join them, and then invest your time and energy in them. Being just a number in an organization is fine and has benefits; being an active voice and an advocate for your profession is even better.

Recapping the 2010 AAMFT Annual Conference

by

There was a lot to talk about at the just-concluded 2010 AAMFT Annual Conference in Atlanta, where more than 1,700 clinicians and researchers from around the country gathered to share the latest ideas in treatment. This year’s theme was “Marriage: Social and Relational Perspectives,” and this year’s jump in conference attendance was well-deserved. Hitting some of the high points:

* For my money, Stephanie Coontz should be a keynote speaker every year. Last year, she talked about time-use studies and the changing face of American families. This year she gave a lively summation of her great book, Marriage: A history, putting modern marriage into a larger context. Next year’s theme will be “The science of relationships,” and I hope there’s a way to bring her into that, too. The woman could make the history of the paper bag engaging.

* The last plenary speaker, John Witte Jr., was not quite as advertised, but started great dinner-table conversation. He had promised a speech on “Marriage, Religion, and the Law,” which could have been wonderful — a more conservative counterpoint to the arguments others made in favor of same-sex marriage. Ultimately, he barely mentioned religion at all. Which was too bad — as I’ve argued before, there is a reasonable debate to be had about the role of religion in marriage (and specifically whether religious therapists should refer out same-sex couples they do not feel they can work with supportively). I really, really wish someone could put together a respectful dialogue on the topic. But for what it turned out to be, Witte’s speech was valuable. His proposals for legal-system remedies to the changes in family formation and dissolution in the US were far-fetched, but started some great conversations. We all want parents to be responsible for their choices, but how do you have a legal system that best balances supporting families in need with punishing those who are irresponsible? I loved the variety of ideas about that just at my own dinner table; I’m sure similar discussions were happening at plenty of others.

* We’re making great strides in the effective treatment of military veterans and their families. MFTs are ideally trained to help keep military marriages and relationships strong (or to end them more peacefully when necessary), and there was a whole track at the conference dedicated to just this kind of work. The timing could not have been better: finally, after years of struggle with the implementation process, the Department of Veterans affairs has a job description specifically for marriage and family therapists.

It’s always refreshing to renew old connections and make new ones at the conference, and I especially enjoyed the opportunity to present with some of my faculty colleagues from the Alliant MFT program. My heartfelt thanks to everyone who made the conference such a success. I can’t wait for next year!

From the AAMFT Research Conference: Does marriage education work?

by

Marriage education (also known as relationship enhancement or RE) has gotten a big, warm spotlight lately. A recent big-deal writeup in the Washington Post hit on the high points: Marriage education programs are big business, they have a lot of federal money supporting them, and there’s not a lot of research on them. Do they work?

That was the basic question tackled yesterday by Howard Markman at the AAMFT Research Conference in Alexandria, VA. In general, it looks like the research base for such programs is growing but still fairly small relative to the number of RE programs in existence. Markman and his colleagues located 30 studies examining 21 different programs since 2002 — meaning that a large number of programs offered at the annual SmartMarriages conference have not been researched at all. The research that does exist is usually promising, but not definitive: programs are generally shown to produce short-term improvements in couple satisfaction and communication skills. However, there have not been studies addressing whether these programs actually do what they set out to do, reducing the risk that couples will eventually divorce over the long term.

The federal government has been running a huge study that should be able to offer clearer answers. Involving eight sites and more than 5,000 couples around the country, the Building Strong Families (BSF) project sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families is testing voluntary RE programs offered to unmarried couples who are expecting or recently had a baby. The project just released its 15-month follow-up data, and the news is not good:

When results are averaged across all programs, RE did not make couples more likely to stay together or get married. In addition, it did not improve couples’ relationship quality.

As Markman was quick to note, the news was not all bleak. It would be more accurate to say that couples didn’t finish the programs than it would be to say that the programs didn’t work; with the exception of the project’s Oklahoma site (which performed much better than other sites in a variety of ways), only 9% of couples completed at least 80% of the relationship enhancement curriculum offered to them. That’s a big problem. Where couples did tend to finish their program — at the Oklahoma site — they were more likely to still be together at the 15-month follow-up, and experienced a number of other measurable improvements as well. Furthermore, only the Oklahoma site used a program that included most of PREP, one of the best-known and more well-researched relationship enhancement programs around. Other sites used less established curricula.

The study will be releasing its 3-year follow-up data in 2012. As Markman noted, the 15-month followup may simply be too early to see the hoped-for impact on marriage that these programs would offer; by definition, preventing marriage breakup is a long-term goal. It is possible that changes will emerge over time. Until they do, however, RE programs will continue to face skepticism. Which is good, if it drives more research that will develop programs that really do ultimately meet their preventive goals.