Submit a Question

Would you love to know what fellow therapists think about a certain topic concerning our profession?

Read through the topics here to get an idea of the format then submit it to me at: greg at ThrivingCounseling dot com.

Public Advocacy

How it Is

During the discussion around Sexual Orientation Change Therapy one of the questions that emerged was:
"Is it in our mandate as a professional organization to make recommendations to the public?"

This of course is a practice commonly seen among other professional organizations such as the APA and the AMA.

It appears these organizations pore over the science and come up with recommendations on trending issues which they then release to the press. This of course alerts the public on a topic of import and also conveys to the public information about the role of the profession in their lives.

Those who oppose it suggests that the purview of CAMFT is only to look out for the interests of MFT's - not to make public statements. 

Those who promote it say that by making public statements CAMFT is acting within its purview to promote the profession.

In the case of our sexual change therapy policies - the ideas of the profession went on to become law in both California and New Jersey.

Questions

• What do you think?
• How would it be helpful for you if CAMFT were to take a stand on important mental health topics in the press?
• How would it hinder your professional life?
• Some say that psychologists and doctors make science whereas we simply execute. What impact do you suppose it would have on our image as a profession if we did something like them?

Tools for Up and Down Communication

How it is Today

Top Down 

The board and staff have a variety of tools available to them to communicate with members.

Some people believe that written documents sent by postal service (at a considerable cost) don't get read by a large proportion of our members because they are too busy or not interested.

Some people suggest that an article written in The Therapist has more "weight" and a higher likelihood of being read.

At CAMFT we post short summaries of our board meeting minutes on our Web site for everyone to see. Most organizations write very short meeting minutes to keep their members up to date. A common struggle in non-profits is to remember what exactly has been decided in previous meetings.

Many organizations use the "closed meeting" tool for the very rare case in which they must discuss a highly sensitive confidential question such as a human resource issue - supporting the idea that more transparency is always preferable to less transparency. While others prefer to keep meeting participation to a minimum.

In my experience with large non-profits I find that most boards don't really know how to ask their membership for input on a topic; that many decisions are time sensitive and need immediate responses and board members don't have the luxury to check with their constituency. Many times when the do the constituency doesn't really have an opinion. I believe there is a learning curve for a board to figure out how to ask questions in ways that keep the membership feeling engaged in the decision-making process.

Bottom Up

My hunch is that a vast majority of CAMFT members rarely communicate with the staff and board. 

It appears that each chapter has an online tool and regular meetings that allow for multi-lateral communication within the chapter but that most members don't communicate on a state level.

State CAMFT has implemented a state-wide system of profiles and online groups to promote member to member communication as well as hiring a staff person whose sole job is to interface with the community leaders.

Some Discussion Ideas

• What would be the ideal mode of communication for you if the board had to turn to you for input?
• How frequently would you be willing to answer a board member's request for input?
• Would you be willing to be part of a pool of people interested in being a board member's sounding board?
• What about email? Voice mail blasts? Online conference calls to discuss?
• Would you prefer the information and questions be handed to a local leader who then reaches out to you?

MFT Demographics

MFT Demographics

MFT vs LPCC

So it appears that we are in this odd predicament:

- We are the largest, masters-level mental health professional organization IN THE COUNTRY!

- We represent a license that is losing ground in the national recognition contest with LPCC's.

For the moment - according to Jill Epstein - the 400 LPCC's in California are almost entirely MFT's. But that will no doubt change over time.

Some experts believe that in the long term universities will likely offer LPCC preparation grad programs and phase out their MFT counterparts.

Booming Boomers

Some folks suggest that we are not a young group, that a sizable chunk of us are reaching retirement age.

A survey conducted about 5 years ago indicated that the average age was indeed above 55.

One person who presented her findings at the Marin pow-wow crunched the numbers and debunked this idea altogether.

My own very anecdotal evidence shows me that when I get together with other CAMFT'ers in chapters - they are generally a few years ahead of my own 52.

Discussion Ideas

• So what do we want to do about this?
• How do we maintain relevance 10, 15, 20 years from now?
• Is it even important to consider?
• Are you interested in moving to another state?
• Should CAMFT be working on making sure the MFT license is recognized more widely without forcing those of us who move to get relicensed?
• Are we really an aging community? Is that a problem?

Working with Other Professionals

The Idea

One strategy that has been put forward as a long-term strategic goal is to create some kind of modality to work with other professions: including masters-level LPCC's and MSW's, and doctoral-level Psychologists and Psychiatrists.

It appears that though we are the largest masters-level professional organization - that on a national scale there are reasons to believe that rather than spreading across the country, the MFT license, will remain in a few states and possibly diminish in size.

One proposal which was put into the bylaws that were ratified in the Spring of 2013 was to simply let non-MFT's interested in joining CAMFT become members. 

This idea was met with considerable disagreement by a group of members in particular because this new idea was not spelled out in the summary which accompanied the bylaws sent to members for a vote of approval. But many also argue that the idea of using CAMFT as the mode for rapprochement is a very bad idea and will cause serious problems for MFT's.

Other people pushing for some kind of rapprochement have suggested that CAMFT remain exclusively an MFT organization but become part of an umbrella organization which would include several professional categories.

Discussion Ideas

• What do you think of the CAMFT vs Umbrella idea?
• Why would we want to keep other professionals outside of CAMFT?
• Why would other professions want to join CAMFT?
• How does it serve us to let them become members?
• Many chapters have people of different licenses as members and even on their board - so why not at the state level?
• How do we build partnerships in particular with MSW's who historically did not exactly embrace the arrival of MFT's and who unlike MFT's benefit from Medicare reimbursement and higher pay even though they have almost an identical training to our own?

Board Representation

Board Representation

How it is Today

Today board members are "At large" directors with the exception of the pre-licensed board member who has the specific role of representing that subgroup of MFT's.

The others represent ALL MFT's from across the state. Hence it is assumed they speak for a general constituency.

The Idea

What if we had board members form different constituencies?

The most obvious way to do this would be for the board to be made up of one member from each chapter. This allows them to speak for the more precise needs they perceive in their chapter which may be different from one chapter to another.

But is it possible that MFT's are not very excited about their geographic status? Might that explain why so few are actually members of chapters? For professional reasons - consultations, referrals, support, mentoring, supervision - geographic proximity makes a lot of sense. 

But what if there were better ways to divide MFT's for representation on a state level?

What if we allowed MFT's to divide into professional groups and each one elected a member to represent them on the board?

Pre-licensed, private practice, retired, government-employed, education-employed, hospital-employed are just some of the categories that come to mind. Each group has a very different reality from the other. This might allow the board to forge more fine tuned policies and it might allow more members to feel a bit more jazzed about their organization than they do today.

Questions

• What do you think of this idea?
• Is this something that might make you feel more compelled to participate in CAMFT activities? Debates? 
• Are there other categories we might consider?
• How might this improve the way we communicate, set policy, improve the lives of MFT's?

Caucuses

How it is today

Today we are organized by chapters.

Each chapter is an independent non profit that represents a geographic group. A chapter's by-laws conform to the directives of CAMFT bylaws. In a way we are like a federation of non-profits - but not quite because each chapter is not represented.

In 2013 only 15% of CAMFT members are part of a chapter.

Those chapters don't have representation as a chapter on the board - our board members are what is known as "at large" in that they are elected to represent the interests of all members and not those of the chapter to which they belong.

The Idea

What if we encouraged CAMFT members to group in caucuses based on a point of interest, a cause, an identity - that they are excited about?

What if CAMFT agrees to make online tools available so that people can caucus across chapter lines and come up with proposals for the board?

Unlike a committee proposal which is generally commissioned by the board, a caucus proposal is a spontaneous idea that the board may not have considered.

A caucus has the advantage of seeing micro (ie the specific needs of the folks who make up the caucus) and has the burden of coming up with very specific proposals that they think might make macro sense (ie further the profession as a whole).

They of course need to come to the board with sound arguments to show how their proposal can improve the lives of all members but they also bring a specific voice that might get lost in the more general discussions.

Some caucus ideas that come to mind are:

- Save CAMFT

- Get healthcare for all

- LGBT 

- Medicare for MFT's

- Atheist

- Buddhist

- Christian

- Progressive

- Men

etc

The main thrust of the idea is that we allow members to assemble around ideas THEY are excited about. 

When members run for the board they can also get the support of this or that caucus.

Discussion Ideas

• So....what do you think?
• Would you be willing to join a caucus?
• How much time could you give?
• Are online tools enough or do we need to budget for face to face meetings? How often?
• What are some great caucus ideas?

Member Advisory Council

Idea

What if each year, each chapter elected a number of representatives to go to an annual conference based on their membership -- for instance 1 rep for 100 members?

Well before the conference the staff and board ask the newly elected reps to find out what "their" members are thinking and feeling about a certain number of proposed changes that may or may not get implemented in the year ahead.

The elected members find ways to get the pulse of their chapter then come together for a 2 day "convention" during which topics are discussed, debated and fine tuned then voted on. 

The board and staff are invited to attend but only as a way to listen to what is being said. They cannot speak on the topics unless they are invited to do so by the directory committee of the Member Advisory Council.

At the end of the 2 days the outcomes are put to the board. Though the board may have reasons not to adopt the proposals - fiscal or legal - it is their duty to respect the outcome of the discussion as reflecting the desires of the members.

One international non-profit that was experiencing a strong feeling of distance between the leadership and its members created something similar as a middle level consultation group - half way between the two. Staff and board were delighted to get a clearer vision of what really goes on in the lives of members and members were reassured that the policies being set were closely honed to meet their needs.

Discussion Ideas

• What do you think of this idea?
• Would you be willing to attend such a meeting?
• How would it enhance the representation of members' ideas? How might it hinder them?
• What power should this council have? Advisory or Decision making? (ie make proposals to the board or make policies in the place of the board?)
• Would you feel better equipped if you received a short training beforehand on things likes Robert's Rules and how to create a motion to make sure it gets passed?

Double Board of Directors

The Idea

One idea that was implemented by a large national non-profit to build up a stronger sense of representation of the members in the governing process was to create two boards with separate 'portfolios".

Fiscal Board: 

A fiscal board oversees the questions of generating income, reporting income, finding grants, representing the organization in national events, promoting the organization. This board might include non-MFT members such as a CPA, a lawyer, a high level civil servant from Medicare, a member of the AARP board. etc Their proximity to CAMFT could enhance our image among other "annex" organizations.

Program Board: 

A program board oversees the various programs that CAMFT runs. Made up of MFT's it makes sure CAMFT is offering new and cutting edge trainings, it oversees the publication of the Therapist, integrates new tools on the Web site to make the life of MFT's easier, it makes sure membership continues to be managed properly.

How it might work:
If the Program Board decides they want to implement a new three year project to for instance create an encrypted online charting service for members as part of their annual membership, they turn to the fiscal board with a budget and try to convince them that it is a worthy investment. The fiscal board then decides if it's legally and financially sound then finds a good way to allocate funds and/or generate the income necessary to cover such a project.

If the fiscal board sees that there is a projected drop in revenue it turns to the program board, explains the process and leaves it up to the program board to determine which programs it sees as priority and which ones might be able to cut back.

Discussion Ideas

• What do you think?
• How might this improve the way CAMFT meets the needs of MFT members?
• What are the upsides? The downsides? 
• How could we improve this?
• What kind of members would you like to see on a fiscal board?