California

California’s complex plan to save mental health funding by slashing it

by

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?

          
          
          

Side View Sacramento CapitolCalifornia 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 longā€‘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 oneā€‘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.

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

by

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.

Graduation hat1We’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.

Quitting CAMFT

by

CAMFT’s LPCC “gap exam” lawsuit against the BBS is a waste of resources that, if CAMFT “wins,” would eliminate California’s legal recognition of the distinctiveness of the MFT license. I refuse to let my member dues support it.

As I reported here recently, the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT, which is independent of AAMFT and its California Division) has filed suit against the Board of Behavioral Sciences, alleging that their decision to require a “gap exam” for MFTs seeking grandparenting into LPCC licensure amounts to an illegal restraint of trade.

If CAMFT loses, it would mean they wasted thousands of dollars of member dues on outside counsel and court fees.

But if they “win,” the outcome would be far worse: It would eliminate legal recognition of any distinction between the practices of MFT and professional clinical counseling — and pave the way for the MFT license to disappear completely. (Here’s why.)

And either way, CAMFT’s conduct around the issue has already damaged the organization’s ability to work collaboratively with the BBS. [Page 50, item III on the linked PDF.]

Why CAMFT would want to win this argument, I do not know. But I know my member dues cannot support it.

===

I have been an active and supportive member of CAMFT for several years. As I have talked with students and colleagues around the state, I have been able to honestly say that there is much to be proud of in the work CAMFT has done — even this year, legislation CAMFT sponsored to clarify MFTs’ roles and responsibilities around child abuse reporting has been good for the profession. Their in-house attorneys are wonderful resources, available any time. And at the chapter level, the overwhelming majority of CAMFT members simply want to be able to make a living providing providing the most effective services possible to their clients. They’re great people and often outstanding therapists.

The organizational decisions CAMFT has made, though, have too often been in direct conflict with the best interests of the profession. CAMFT’s struggle around same-sex marriage is well-worn territory here, and it speaks to larger structural problems that were apparently never meaningfully addressed. CAMFT has stopped publicly advocating for the complete elimination of the MFT license, but they continue to make decisions that lead in that direction — like this lawsuit — and I do not believe most members know just how close they have come to making it happen.

This lawsuit over a gap exam, if successful, would put the state on the record as determining there are no differences in practice between MFT and LPCC. Not only is that fundamentally wrong, but it also would virtually force the BBS to consolidate the MFT and LPCC licenses. (If there is no difference in practice, there is no need for independent licensure.) It would not happen immediately — the process would take years — but with a CAMFT “victory” in this case, it would be almost impossible to prevent.

I am a marriage and family therapist. Not a professional clinical counselor. There is a difference. Even the counselors say so. [See currently-third item, “AMHCA lauds…”] I should never have to remind a professional association of MFTs that this is true. And I cannot support one more dime of my money being used to chip away at what makes this profession unique and valuable.

So I am, with a great deal of disappointment, resigning my membership in CAMFT. I hope they get back on the right track at some point in the future. My letter resigning my membership, which largely repeats these same points, follows in its entirety.

===

November 1, 2010

Dear CAMFT,

Effective immediately, please cancel my membership.

Over the past several years, I have gradually lost my faith that the organizationā€™s goals and actions are truly in the best interest of the MFT profession. Your lawsuit against the BBS over the ā€œgap examā€ for MFTs seeking grandparenting into LPCC licensure only confirms that you are actively working against what is best for the field of marriage and family therapy.

If unsuccessful, this lawsuit will be a massive waste of membersā€™ dues in a misguided cause. If successful, the outcome would be even worse: A legal determination that there is no difference in practice between MFT and LPCC (and perhaps LCSW as well) would pave the way for license consolidation. While this may be in the best interest of CAMFT as an organization (you could add LPCC members under one umbrella), it is quite clearly not in the best interest of marriage and family therapy as a profession. Independent licensure provides valuable legal recognition of the distinctiveness of our skill set and body of knowledge. A short “gap exam” for grandparenting appropriately balances the need to recognize this distinctiveness with the desire among some experienced MFTs who are otherwise prepared for LPCC licensure to obtain that distinct license.

Regardless of its outcome, the lawsuit has harmed CAMFTā€™s ability to effectively work collaboratively with the BBS. This was made clear when, at the September BBS meeting, several board members openly and publicly expressed their disappointment with CAMFT’s conduct.

I cannot in good conscience allow my dues money to be used for efforts that work against the best interests of the profession of marriage and family therapy. I will happily rejoin if and when CAMFT (1) drops this misguided lawsuit; (2) makes a clear and public statement that it recognizes the practice of marriage and family therapy is distinct from other mental health professions; and (3) outlines and follows through on clear steps to protect, preserve and advance the distinctiveness of our profession.

Sincerely,

 
Benjamin Caldwell, PsyD

CAMFT sues California licensing board

by

CAMFT is suing the Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS), demanding a ruling that the practice of marriage and family therapy has nothing unique to offer.

See updates below: The court sided with the BBS on two out of three legal questions and CAMFT on the other. The ruling required the BBS to consult with the state’s Office of Professional Examination Services prior to determining whether a gap exam was necessary. OPES recommended doing the exam, and the BBS voted unanimously to do a gap exam.

===

The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) followed through on an earlier threat and filed suit this week against the state’s licensing board, the Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS). CAMFT is seeking a ruling that marriage and family therapists who wish to be grandparented into licensure as Professional Clinical Counselors (LPCCs) will not need to take an exam on the differences in practice between those professions. But the issue is bigger than it may sound: Such a ruling would require the BBS to first determine that there are no differences in practice between the professions, a ruling that would have major implications for the future of professional licensing in mental health.

But let’s start with where this is now. The law that brings the LPCC license into the state is quite clear (emphasis mine):

The board and the Office of Professional Examination Services shall jointly develop an examination on the differences, if any differences exist, between the following:
   (A) The practice of professional clinical counseling and the practice of marriage and family therapy.
   (B) The practice of professional clinical counseling and the practice of clinical social work.
– California Business & Professions Code section 4999.54(b)(1)

CAMFT argues in its suit, as it has in BBS meetings, that there may be differences between the professions, but that these do not amount to differences in practice. So they do not believe that an exam on differences between MFT and LPCC (a “gap exam”) is necessary. That argument has now lost twice: The BBS ruled on July 28 that there should be a gap exam, based on the language of the law. CAMFT threatened to sue (page 6), and the BBS vacated all earlier discussion and took the issue up again on September 9. Again they ruled that there must be a test. In a suit filed on Monday, CAMFT argues that requiring a gap exam amounts to an unlawful restraint of trade for MFTs seeking LPCC licensure. They ask to have the BBS decision again vacated, and an injunction issued preventing the BBS from requiring a gap exam.

===

While I am trying to present these facts as neutrally as possible, I am hardly an objective observer. I co-signed AAMFT-CA’s letter to the BBS encouraging them to revisit their initial decision in May that no gap exam would be needed. And, fundamentally, I believe there are significant differences between the professions — that’s why we have distinct educational programs and are distinctly licensed. Arguing that the professions may be different but their practices — the doing of the professions — is the same is a giant leap of both language and logic. Indeed, as Dean Porter, head of the California Coalition for Counselor Licensure, has said, proving LPCCs’ distinctiveness [currently-third item, “AMHCA lauds…”] was one of their biggest challenges in achieving licensure in California.

There is no need for a separate license if the professional group in question has nothing new or different to offer. That is why this is such a concern for me — if CAMFT gets their way, and the BBS or a court rules that there are no differences in practice between the professions, it is an extremely short logical walk to an argument that MFTs and LPCCs (and even LCSWs) should not be separately licensed. I worry that that’s the idea. CAMFT has stopped publicly advocating such a shift (they openly projected such a “one-license future” to members and to the California legislature in 2007), but they still seem to be walking down that road. Having earlier removed their opposition to LPCC licensing legislation, they appear to have taken no action when a 2008 version of the LPCC bill proposed to study eliminating the MFT license entirely (see Section 6, at the bottom of the next-to-last page; that version of the bill, thankfully, failed). This week’s legal action seems to be a continuation of the “we have nothing unique to offer, so let’s all combine licenses” philosophy. Why an association of marriage and family therapists would continue taking stances that appear to act against keeping the MFT license distinct is beyond my understanding.

I would love a different explanation, but cannot seem to come up with one.

The legal complaint and related documents can be downloaded here *. They are referenced by case number (34-2010-80000689).

===

I know I say this over to the right, but it bears repeating: On this blog, I speak strictly for myself, and not my employers or contractors or anyone else. It also bears repeating, for those of you from outside California, that CAMFT is an independent organization with no ties to the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) or its California Division (AAMFT-CA).

===

* Updated 1-11-2011: Updated link.

Updated 2-3-2011: The court has issued its ruling, which sides with the BBS on two out of three legal questions and CAMFT on the other. See this post for details: Ruling mixed on CAMFT-BBS “gap exam” lawsuit.

Updated 2-27-2011: OPES recommended doing the exam, and the BBS has voted unanimously to do a gap exam.

Insights from 5 1/2 years of California MFT license exam data: Part II

by

In part one, we learned that there are huge differences between programs in how their graduates perform on California’s MFT licensing exams. Here, we’ll see how for-profit programs measure up. You may be surprised.

For-profit universities have come under scrutiny in the past few years for aggressive recruiting practices and high costs. While the overwhelming majority of marriage and family therapy graduate programs are non-profit (either public or private), here in California a few programs are in the business of education to make money.

Some of the scrutiny faced by for-profit universities revolves around whether they are so eager to bring in new students that they accept unqualified students who cannot succeed in their fields. Since MFT licensure requires an examination that every applicant takes, we have a handy, easily-measured research question:

How do graduates of for-profit MFT programs perform on state licensing exams, compared to graduates of non-profit programs?

From this list of for-profit colleges and universities, we can identify at least four for-profit MFT programs in California:

  1. University of Phoenix – San Diego
  2. University of Phoenix – Sacramento
  3. Argosy University
  4. California Southern University

These programs, as it turns out, are widely varied when it comes to their graduates’ exam performance.

Table 1: Pass rate, CA Standard Written Exam, Graduates of for-profit MFT programs

Considering the better-than-average performance of Argosy graduates and the worse-than-average (but by no means abysmal) performance of Phoenix graduates, it seems that little can be safely concluded about an MFT program simply on the basis of its for-profit/non-profit status. So here are three money-centered things I would ask any program, for-profit or not, about if I were a prospective student:

  • A true accounting of costs. For-profit programs may be expensive, but non-profit programs can be too. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as asking “How much is the tuition?” Availability of financial aid should be a factor, particularly the question of how much aid comes in the form of loans (which need to be paid back) versus scholarships or grants (which do not). It also may be wise to ask about additional costs separate from tuition (books, fees), and whether the program will make you eligible for various stipend and loan reimbursement programs offered at the county, state, and federal levels. Students at for-profit universities appear to have particular difficulty repaying their loans.
  • Graduation rates. If programs (for-profit or not) are, in fact, admitting students who cannot succeed, that may not show up on licensing exam data; the students simply would never get that far. A key criticism of for-profit programs has been that they suffer high dropout rates, leaving students with additional debt but no additional job qualifications to show for it. Ask how many students actually complete the program relative to those who start.
  • Where your money goes. You want the bulk of your tuition money to support your learning. How much does the program spend on faculty salaries, learning technology, and other support for student learning, as opposed to administration, investments, or other costs? Naturally, some other costs are needed for any program to function. But as a general rule, the bulk of your tuition money should be going toward those things that most directly impact your educational experience.

Elsewhere on this blog I’ve described some other factors that may help you choose the best MFT graduate program for you. The questions here are more financial in nature. They’re all worth asking about.

Ultimately, I would not dismiss any of these programs simply because of their for-profit status. Any of them may be the right fit for you. Ask questions, and make sure any decision you make on a graduate education is a well-informed one.