Spring 2003 Texas Psychologist

Who will stand up for you if you’re faced with a malpractice suit?

Let one of America’s largest and most trusted providers of mental health professional liability insurance protect you.

w w w . a m e r i c a n p r o f e s s i o n a l . c o m

COVERAGE HIGHLIGHTS

■ New graduate discount■ New business discount■ 35% discount for part-time

(20 hours) employees ■ Discounted rates for additional Ph.D.’s■ Lower rates for employees with

M.A./B.A. degrees■ Risk management/continuing

education credits up to 10%■ $5,000 legal defense for Licensing

Board investigations■ Contractual liability for managed care■ Separate limits for each named insured■ Convenient quarterly payments for

premiums over $1,000■ Risk management consultation service

available via 800# hotline■ Free quarterly risk management

newsletter (also available online)

UNDERWRITTEN BY:

95 Broadway, Amityville, NY 11701

American Professional Agency, Inc.

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR

Now, more than ever, you have to be sure of thequality, strength and dependability of your mal-practice insurer. An “A” rating from A.M. Best,one of the insurance industry’s leading regula-tory bodies, means your insurance

underwriter meets certain stringent criteria – helping to ensurethe kind of protection you need both today and tomorrow.

You deserve an “A++”Professional liability coverage underwritten by ChubbExecutive Risk Indemnity, Inc. and administered by theAmerican Professional Agency, Inc. is even better. BecauseChubb has an “A++” (superior) rating from A.M. Best.

Service you can depend onAs your plan administrator, the American ProfessionalAgency, Inc. also offers outstanding service and peace ofmind. With more than 100,000 policyholders, over 30 yearsof experience and the best claim specialists and legal counselavailable, we can provide an ultra reliable, top-quality insurance program at very reasonable rates.

Protect yourself todayIt’s an unbeatable combination that gives you the compre-hensive coverage you need to safeguard your practice andease your mind. For a free personal quote, call toll free

1-800-421-6694 or visit us online.

Please visit us at our booth!

Texas Psychologist 1SPRING 2003

Features4 The Problem of Licensure Mobility

Ronald F. Levant, EdD, ABPP

8 From Normal Institute to State University: A History of Psychology at Sam Houston UniversityA. Jerry Bruce

12 Forward – Reflections of Prescriptive Authority and the Evolution of Psychology in the 21st CenturyPatrick H. DeLeon

Departments

2 FROM THE PRESIDENTDeanna Yates

4 FROM TPA HEADQUARTERS: Board of Trustees MeetingDavid White, CAE, Executive Director

18 LAW: Forensic Services – Beware of the PitfallsSam A. Houston

20 Inside TPA

21 Student Division UpdateMary Martin & LaDonna Saxon

22 Preview – 78th LegislatureJoey Bennett, TPA Legislative Consultant

24 The Texas Sunset Act and the Practice of Psychology in Texas: A Time to Get Off of the Sidelines andInto the GameM. David Rudd, PhD, ABPP

26 HPA HapeningsPatrick Elis, PhD, President

27 TPA: Tracking Legislation for YouDavid White, CAE, Executive Director

28 Report from the National Commissionon Mental HealthDee Yates, PhD, President

29 PSY-PAC ContributorsPaul Burney, PhD, PSY-PAC President

32 Classified Advertising

32 Advertisers’ Index

Claire Jacobs, PhDEditor

David White, CAEExecutive Director

Robert McPherson, PhDDirector of Professional Affairs

Lynda KeenMembership Manager/Bookkeeper

Sherry ReismanDirector of Conventions & Non-Dues

TPA BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Deanna Yates, PhDPresident

C. Alan Hopewell, PhDPresident-Elect

Paul Burney, PhDPresident-Elect Designate

Walter Cubberly, PhDPast-President

Board MembersRon Cohorn, PhDPatrick Ellis, PhD

Richard Fulbright, PhDCharlotte Kimmel, PhDJoseph C. Kobos, PhD

Suzanne Mouton-Odum, PhDRoberta L. Nutt, PhD

Dean Paret, PhDElizabeth L. Richeson, PhD

Ollie Seay, PhDJarvis Wright, PhD

EX-OFFICIO BOARD MEMBERS

Richard M. McGraw, PhDFederal Advocacy Coordinator

Melba J. T. Vasquez, PhDCAPP Representative

Jerry R. Grammer, PhDTexas Psychology Foundation President

Mary MartinStudent Division Director

PUBLISHERRector Duncan & Associates

P.O. Box 14667Austin, Texas 78761

512-454-5262

Stephanie ShawManaging Editor

Pat HuberAdvertising Sales

Julie ManganoArt Director

The Texas Psychological Association islocated at 1011 Meredith Drive, Suite4, Austin, Texas 78748. TexasPsychologist (ISSN 0749-3185) is theofficial publication of TPA and is pub-lished quarterly.

www.texaspsyc.org

SPRING 2003 VOLUME 54, ISSUE 1

From the CoverPhoto by Kiki Pantaze

And which children do you suppose arethe least likely to receive services? It is

the children who are poor, minorities or liv-ing in rural or innercity settings. Did I justmake all that up? No. These are just some ofthe findings coming out of the work of theCommission. I would like to be able to saythat the statistics are much better when itcomes to adults, but they are not. Whichadults do you think are the least likely toreceive services? That’s right — the poor,minorities, and those living inrural or innercity settings.There are several factors atplay here including: a severeshortage of mental healthproviders, especially psychia-trists; high managed care andmalpractice insurance rateswhich drive many providersout of the field; a lack of trueparity as mental health istreated as less important thanphysical health; and the growing numbersof the uninsured which threaten to bank-rupt state budgets.

During this next year as president, Iwould like to focus on access. During theconvention, which will be held in Dallas atthe Galleria, I will be asking for presentationsthat deal with some of these issues including:services to children, services in schools, issuesdealing with women and minority cultures,public mental health, evidence-based treat-ments and psychopharmacology.

Within the structure of TPA, I have cre-ated two new committees that I hope will beongoing. One new committee is the com-mittee on third party payers. It is time that

TPA begins to deal with these entities at thestate level when negotiating contracts andreimbursement rates for our members. Wecannot afford to have our members leavingthe profession because reimbursement ratesare so low that they cannot meet overheadexpenses. It is time we take on managedcare, not just for our own self-serving pur-poses, but for our patients who depend onour services.

The other new committee I have createdis the committee on publicpolicy. I would like to see TPAbecome more involved withcommunity mental healthorganizations such as theMental Health Association ofTexas and NAMI Texas. Iwould like to see where wecould work together with suchorganizations to support issuescommon to us — issues thatreflect our concerns for our

patients and their families.You will find this issue of the Texas

Psychologist heavily devoted to legislativeissues. This is a critical year for us and weare in a position to have a very good yearlegislatively. We have a strong lobby teamled by Rusty Kelly and Joey Bennett.Financial support for the PAC over thepast three years has been the strongestever. We have done our homework, andwe have the facts on our side. With yourhelp at the grassroots level, we will suc-ceed in passing our prescriptive authoritybill, which will put us in an even strongerposition when our practice act comes upin 2005.

Financially, TPA seems to have turnedthe corner and is getting back on track.When TPA made the decision to be a doc-toral organization several years ago, we tooka hit in membership revenues. But with thehelp of Walt’s forward thinking last year ofbeginning the sunset fund and the supportof legislative grants from APA three years ina row, it appears that TPA is again becom-ing a strong organization. We have plans forstrong membership recruitment this year aswell as continued growth of the PAC andincreasing funding streams for theFoundation.

I look forward to success in the legisla-ture this year and continued planning bythe Sunset committee for the 2005 legisla-ture. I look forward to a super conventionin Dallas in November and to our FamilyGetaway being back in Cancun this sum-mer. But most of all, I look forward to serv-ing you as your president this year and mak-ing this a year to remember. ✯

2 Texas Psychologist SPRING 2003

FROM THE PRESIDENT

Deanna F. Yates

TPA P r e s i d en t

Access to Care

As I begin my year as TPA president, I am nearing the end of my year of service on the President’s NewFreedom Commission on Mental Health. It is because of both my work on the Commission and my workin practice that I have chosen my year’s theme. It is Access to Mental Health Care. Did you know thatone in five children in this country has a mental health disorder and one in ten has a serious emotionaldisturbance? Do you know that 80 percent of children in need of mental health services receive none?

ARTICLE

REPRINTSCall Pat Huber

at (512) 310-9795

for rates and

information.


Members present were Drs. SuzanneMouton-Odum, Ollie Seay, Ron

Cohorn, Jarvis Wright, Walter Cubberly,Patrick J. Ellis, Elizabeth Richeson, Dee Yates,Joe Kobos, Charlotte Kimmel, Jose Torres,Sam Buser, Alan Hopewll, Paul Burney (ex-officio) and Rick McGraw (ex-offico).

Guests/Staff present were David White,CAE; Bob McPherson, PhD; SherryReisman; Joseph McCoy, PhD; Dean Paret,PhD; Roberta Nutt, PhD; MarshaHarman, PhD; Laura Barbanel, PhD; andRon Levant, EdD and APA Secretary.

The minutes of the September 7, 2002meeting were approved as written. MarshaHarman, PhD shared with the board theissues that are facing TASP and the schoolpsychologists. She also shared with theboard the desire to have a closer workingrelationship with TPA and indicated thateven though there might be some legislativeissues that TPA would not support, TASPwould like to open the lines of communica-tion and work together on common issues.

Dr. Cubberly thanked the board for alltheir hard work this year and recapped theevents and programs that TPA has accom-plished this year. He thanked them for alltheir support and passed out specialPresident Awards to Rusty Kelly and JoeyBennett, TPA lobbyists; Ron Cohorn, PhD,PSY-PAC President; and Russ Newman,PhD, JD, Executive Director of APAPractice Directorate. He also gave a “WiseElder” Award to Joe Kobos, PhD for hisendless years of leadership at TPA.

Dr. Cubberly shared the results of the2002 elections and congratulated all thewinners. They were:

➤ Paul Burney, PhD – President-ElectDesignate

➤ Richard Fulbright, PhD – BoardMember (term ends 2005)

➤ Dean Paret, PhD – Board Member(term ends 2005)

➤ Roberta Nutt, PhD – Board Member(term ends 2005)Mr. White briefed the board on TPA’s

membership status and finances. He indicat-ed that he received word from APA that TPAhas been approved for $25,000 for the leg-islative grant. Mr. White shared with theboard that this year’s convention, TPA’s 55thAnnual Convention, will have the highestturnout in over 5 years! A projected 600 willattend. He indicated that a post-conventionvideo will be filmed with the hopes of usingthis video to market next year’s convention.

Mr. White indicated that pre-filing of billshas already begun and over 250 bills had beenfiled for the next legislative session. RustyKelly and David White will be tracking thesebills. Mr. White shared the survey and resultsthat the Tele-health committee had complet-ed. The board will review these documentsand discuss at the next meeting. Mr. Whiteshared with the board the increase in paper-work and the fact the TSBEP does notrequire APA approved workshops for licenserenewal. Mr. White recommended that TPAnot renew their CE approval status with APA.After a discussion on the merits of this, theboard passed a motion that TPA discontinueoffering APA approved workshops to individ-uals and organizations and that we do notrenew our 2003 accreditation.

Mr. White shared with the board that hehad researched the CE tracking service that

the Ohio Psychological Association has imple-mented. He indicated that he had gathered allthe facts and would be putting a programtogether that models what OPA is providing.The TSBEP’s next board meeting will be inJanuary and a formal presentation will begiven to them at that time. Mr. White willsubmit the proposal to the TPA Board for finalapproval before taking it to TSBEP.

Dr. Torres presented a diversity initiativeprogram that he asked the board to considerand implement. This program would identi-fy minority psychologists and encouragethem to get involved with TPA at the com-mittee and board level. The board reviewedthis proposal and agreed to officially takeaction on it at the next board meeting.

Dr. Cohorn communicated his concernthat TPA award winners do not have to beTPA members. He encouraged that the2003 awards committee revise the awardcriteria and set policy that all winners mustbe TPA members. The board agreed andTPA policy and procedures manual will bechanged to reflect this criteria.

Dr. Yates shared with the board herthoughts on next year and how she would liketo see TPA function. She presented her 2003committees and the dates for 2003 boardmeetings. She also indicated that there will bea board orientation and Legislative Day nextyear and encouraged all current and newboard members to attend these programs. Dr.Yates indicated that if any board memberwould like to serve on a committee and/orTask Force (TF) to let her know, and she willassign them to that particular committee/TF.

There being no further business, themeeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. ✯

Texas Psychological Association Board of Trustees MeetingNovember 13, 2002San Antonio, Texas

David White, CAEExecutive Director

The November 13, 2002 meeting of the Texas Psychological Association Board of Trustees was calledto order by President, Walt Cubberly, PhD at 7pm at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in San Antonio.

FROM TPA HEADQUARTERS


The problem arose because each statedetermined the qualifications for pro-

fessional licensure. Although by 1977 allstates had enacted a psychology licensure law,there was a great deal of variation in therequirements. The APA Practice Directorateused the APA Model Licensure law in anattempt to reduce some of this variation inorder to promote mobility. However, manyvariations remain.

Other professions have addressed thisproblem. The National Council of StateBoards of Nursing has endorsed a modelbased on the driver’s license, in which mech-anisms exist for mutual recognition and reci-procity. Licensure is recognized across statelines, with the nurse subject to the laws andrules of the new state. So too, the pharmacistsfacilitate mobility through uniform licensurerequirements and a clearinghouse programwhich transfers the pharmacist’s license to thenew state, verifying background informationand screening for disciplinary actions.

APA has attempted to address this prob-lem. During the February 2001 meeting,the APA Council of Representatives(Council) gave formal approval to an ongo-ing strategic plan developed by theCommittee for the Advancement ofProfessional Practice (CAPP) for helping toprovide a climate within which existingmechanisms for professional mobility cancontinue to develop.

CAPP, at Council’s request, had beenimplementing a strategic plan to provide asupportive environment for giving visibilityto the existing mechanisms for professionalmobility available through the National

Register of Health Service Providers inPsychology (National Register), theAssociation of State and ProvincialPsychology Boards (ASPPB) and theAmerican Board of Professional Psychology(ABPP). CAPP conducted programs at theannual State Leadership Conference, dis-seminated invited articles to state andprovincial psychological association newslet-ters and took other strategic actions. InFebruary, Council approved the continua-tion of this plan, and as a result, additionalarticles on the status of the various mobilitymechanisms have been, and will continue tobe published, as appropriate, in APA andPractice Directorate publications (e.g.,Smith, 2001, Sullivan, 2000-01), additionalconference programs will be arranged, andmeetings among parties of interest will befacilitated. In addition, the author and JayBenedict, Associate Editors of the journal,Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,are preparing a special section on this issue.

BackgroundThe information in this section of the

column has been drawn from various APAgovernance documents. In February 2000,Council suspended its rules and approved anew business item, titled “Reciprocity ofLicensure Among States”, introduced byDr’s. Carol Goodheart, Ron Levant and 20other Council Representatives. This itemaffirmed that the attainment of reciprocityof licensure and other mechanisms for pro-fessional mobility are urgently needed. Itdirected CAPP, as the lead group, and APA’sBoard of Professional Affairs (BPA) to work

in collaboration with ASPPB to develop aplan to achieve this goal.

In March, 2000, CAPP and the PracticeDirectorate made time available before thestart of the State Leadership Conference forrepresentatives of state psychology licensingboards and state psychological associations tomeet in order to discuss mobility in a forumcoordinated by ASPPB. This was the secondconsecutive year for this particular forum.

At its meeting later in March of 2000,CAPP discussed the Council item anddecided to convene a conference call amongrepresentatives of CAPP, BPA, and ASPPBto determine what would be most helpful inpromoting mobility. This call took place inJune 2000. It highlighted several relevantissues, including: the type of support thatAPA could provide, the potential implica-tions of technology changes and tele-healthfor licensure, and the recognition that otherorganizations have also developed initiativesto facilitate licensure for psychologists mov-ing to different states. Of considerableimportance, the participants on the callnoted that there are two different mecha-nisms for promoting professional mobility:Reciprocity, which refers to agreementsbetween jurisdictions in which states arewilling to recognize each other’s licenseesbased on comparable requirements for licen-sure, and Endorsement, which is a vehicle torecognize individuals as having met a highstandard qualification, such as theCertificate of Professional Qualification(CPQ) developed by ASPPB, which isaccepted by jurisdictions as meeting most ofthe qualifications for licensure. In the past

The Problem of Licensure MobilityRonald F. Levant, EdD, ABPPNova Southeastern University

APA Recording Secretary

Psychologists seeking to obtain a license in another state, whether for the purpose of relocation, for amulti-state practice or for engaging in tele-health, might find themselves facing a real nightmare. TheBoard of Psychology in the new state might ask the psychologist to jump over many hurdles, such asproducing notarized supervision forms when some of the supervisors have retired or passed on. Asformer APA President Pat DeLeon (2000) has observed, “few psychologists realize how difficult it is toget relicensed in a new state.”


10 years, only 10 states have entered intoreciprocity agreements. This makes endorse-ment the more promising mechanism forpromoting mobility since more than twodozen states are in various stages of recog-nizing the more recently developed CPQ.

In July of 2000, CAPP continued discus-sion of this issue with representatives ofASPPB and the National Register. CAPPnoted that decisions about licensure reciproc-ity and mobility are not the province of APAbut rather of state and provincial psychologyboards. CAPP also noted that BPA has awork group examining tele-health issues, andthat these issues are clearly relevant to anyconsideration of reciprocity and mobility.CAPP felt that at the present time it couldtake two additional actions supportive of rec-iprocity and mobility: 1) provide a climateand create an environment in which existingmechanisms for mobility can flourish byinforming members about the various mech-anisms for mobility offered by ASPPB, theNational Register, and the American Board of

Professional Psychology (ABPP); and 2)inform Council of the distinctions betweenreciprocity and endorsement, and the statusof the latter as being the mobility mechanismmore widely accepted by states and provinces.

As part of providing a climate to sup-port existing mechanisms for mobility,CAPP offered to compile and disseminateto state and provincial psychological asso-ciations (SPPAs) invited articles writtenby ABPP, ASPPB, and the NationalRegister about the various mechanismsand initiatives each has developed to pro-mote licensure reciprocity and mobility.Each of the organizations was contactedand agreed to prepare a brief article suit-able for publication in SPPA newsletters.These three articles were circulated inSeptember of 2000 and have been reprint-ed in various SPPA newsletters.

In October of 2000, CAPP reviewed theprogress made in publicizing the variousmechanisms for promoting mobility andthe increasing acceptance that these mecha-

nisms were receiving, and decided that acontinuation of the current strategy wouldbe recommended to the Board andCouncil. In December of 2000, the Boardof Directors approved the strategic planprepared by CAPP.

Mechanisms to Mobility:Implications for Practitioners

At this point in time it seems clear thatthe need for mobility for psychologists willcontinue to increase. However, since wereally don’t know how events will unfold inthe future, all of the vehicles for increasingpsychologists’ mobility should be support-ed. We need all of our “oars in the water,”so to speak. Readers are encouraged to con-tact the sponsoring organizations to learnmore about each of the mobility mecha-nisms: the National Register, the ASPPB,and ABPP.

As always, I welcome your thoughts onthis column. You can most easily contactme via email: [email protected]. ✯


ReferencesDeLeon, P. (2000). The critical need for

licensure mobility. Monitor on

Psychology, 31(4), 9.

Smith, D. (2001, May). Helping psycholo-

gists on the move: States and

provinces make professional mobility

easier for psychologists. Monitor on

Psychology, 32(5), 73.

Sullivan, M. J. (2000-2001, Winter).

Directorate helps to promote mecha-

nisms for mobility. Practitioner Focus,

13, 4, 16.

Ronald F. Levant, EdD, ABPP, is in hissecond term as Recording Secretary of theAmerican Psychological Association. He wasthe Chair of the APA Committee for theAdvancement of Professional Practice (CAPP)from 1993-95, a member of the Board ofDirectors of Division 42 (1991-94), a mem-ber at large of the APA Board of Directors(1995-97), and APA Recording Secretary(1998-2000). He is Dean, Center forPsychological Studies, Nova SoutheasternUniversity, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Texas Psychologically Healthy Workplace Award

Southwest Airlines

Psychologist of the YearHarriet H. Arvey, EdD

Outstanding Contribution to Education

Cynthia de las Fuentes, PhD

Outstanding Contribution to Science

Ricardo C. Ainslie, PhD

Outstanding Contribution to Public ServiceAlice Lawler, PhD

Outstanding Public Contribution to Psychology

Genevieve Hearon

Texas Psychology FoundationManuel Ramirez III Dissertation

Award for Ethnic Minority ResearchDebra K. Roberts, PhD

2002 DistinguishedProfessional

Contribution Awards


The program faculty is earnestly workingon a self-study with the hope that it will

lead to APA accreditation for the program. AtSam Houston State University, this doctoralprogram has evolved from a number of otherprograms within psychology and rests on ahistory of commitment to the developmentof educational opportunities for personswithin the region, the state, and the nation.

In the year 1879, according to theAmerican Psychological Association (APA)(Benjamin, 1979; Hearst, 1979), psycholo-gy joined the academic community as a sep-arate independent discipline distinct fromphilosophy and physiology. Wundt inLeipzig, Germany, is usually considered thefather of the new academic experimentalpsychology. In that same year, SamHouston Normal Institute began classes inHuntsville, Texas (Sam Houston StateUniversity, 2000-2002). The purpose of thenew normal institute was to train teachers.To quote from the first Sam HoustonNormal Institute Catalogue (1879-1880):

The object of this school is to elevatethe standards of education through-out our state, by giving thoroughinstructions and special training toas many as possible of our presentand future teachers (p. 9).

In keeping with the stated purpose (i.e.,to be thorough), psychology was offered asone of the areas of instruction. Oscar HenryCooper was listed (p. 8) as the instructor forpsychology. This same O. H. Cooper, in1899, became president of Baylor University

and later Hardin-Simmons College (Webb,1952, p. 408). In all of the early cataloguespsychology was listed as part of the curricu-lum. It might have been interesting toattend those early psychology classes taughtat Sam Houston and to compare them withthe psychology taught today. How much hasit changed? Reed (1997) indicates that psy-chology, as taught in those early classes, wasmostly philosophy of mind, study of thedevelopment of character, or education inmorality. The Scottish School of CommonSense was a dominant theme. Philosophers/psychologists such as Thomas Reid, DugalStewart, et al. were central in the texts.

Goodwin (1999) notes that the first psy-chology textbook in the USA was Thomas C.Upham’s Elements of Intellectual Philosophy. Itwas published first in 1827 and several timesthereafter, growing to a total of three volumesand changing its title to Elements of MentalPhilosophy. The Sam Houston StateUniversity, Newton Gresham Library, has acopy dated 1850. It is a one-volume workentitled Elements of Mental Philosophy:Abridged and Designed as a Text-Book forAcademies and High Schools. The chapterheadings of Upham’s book read much thesame as current day introductory psychologytexts: sensation and perception, the sense ofhearing, habits of sensation and perception,attention, memory, and disordered intellec-tual action, to name a few. But there are otherchapter titles that reflect a difference: originsof knowledge in general, simplicity and com-plexness of mental states, original suggestion,moral reasoning, excited conceptions orapparitions, emotions of beauty, instincts, the

malevolent affections, etc. A passage thatreveals the flavor of the early work: “Thesoul, considered in its relationship to externalnature, may be compared to a stringedinstrument. Regarded in itself, it is an invisi-ble existence, having the capacity and ele-ments of harmony” (p. 18). Nevertheless,psychology was there at the beginning of SamHouston State University’s existence.

An interesting note on psychology in thelife of Sam Houston, the man, comes fromReed (1997) who relates that he had an inter-est in psychology. In the 1850’s, SamHouston and several other leading senatorsinvited John Bovee Dods to deliver a series oflectures on psychology. Reed says, “…Dodsoffered his psychology as a new science whichhe believed would become queen among thesciences because of the insights it would pro-vide into the most important aspects of life:human beings’ relation to nature, to otherpeople, and to the deity” (p. 1).

Sam Houston State University was partof the normal school movement withinEurope and the United States. The firststate-supported normal school in theUnited States was opened in 1839,Lexington, Massachusetts (Harper, 1939).The movement grew from the notion thateducation of the populace was essential fora democracy. Daniel Webster noted thisneed clearly when he said, “On the diffu-sion of education among the people reststhe preservation and perpetuation of ourfree institutions” (as cited in Harper, 1939,p.11).

Colleges had emerged in this countrymuch earlier. Harvard, founded in 1636,

From Normal Institute to State University:A History of Psychology at Sam Houston State University

A. Jerry BruceSam Houston State University

Sam Houston State University Department of Psychology and Philosophy opens the fall semester of2002-2003 for its fifth year in the Forensic Clinical Psychology PhD Program. Four students completedtheir internships in 2001-2002, and two are beginning theirs for 2002-2003 at various clinics acrossthe country. All of the interns have received appointments to APA accredited internship sites. The firsttwo degrees from the program were awarded August 10, 2002.


was followed by nine others before 1776(Goodwin, 1999). These liberal arts col-leges, however, were for the most part com-mitted to training ministers, physicians,and lawyers. In Texas, the University ofTexas was envisioned in 1839 but did notopen for classes until 1883 (Battle, 2002).Austin College, first at Huntsville and laterat Sherman, was one of the earliest collegesin Texas admitting its first students in thefall of 1850 (Austin College, n.d.). The twocolleges that vie for the designation ofTexas’ first college are Baylor University(Baylor University, n.d.) and SouthwesternUniversity at Georgetown (SouthwesternUniversity, 2002). Both trace their begin-nings to the early 1840’s.

The public schools, usually referred toas common schools in the United Statesduring the nineteenth century, were poorindeed. The teachers were simply whoever-was-available. The normal school move-ment was intended to develop and toimprove public education. By improvingthe quality of the teachers, the quality ofthe schools would be assured. A furthergoal of the normal school was to maketeaching a profession.

According to Bowen (1981, p. 250), theuse of the designation normal school, camefrom Austria where by 1774 AbbotFelbriger called his teachers’ college aNormalschule. This usage was followed inFrance when the government created theEcole Normale for the purpose of trainingteachers. The word “normal,” as used here,is in reference to the idea of setting stan-dards of normal practice. Perhaps one couldthink of it in terms of setting standards ofminimum competency. In the 1840’s, theEnglish established normal schools in orderto create a body of schoolmasters to managethe schools throughout England (Bowen,1981, p. 309).

The movement to improve publicschools was energetic and led to anincreased numbers of states requiring edu-cation of all its children. By 1918, all stateshad compulsory education of some sort(Zenderland, 1998).

During the first two decades of the

twentieth century the normal schools begana rapid change to state teachers colleges.These changes required the institutions toexpand their curriculum and to resist thetemptation to become mere liberal arts col-leges (Harper, 1939). In the west, most ofthe normal schools considered themselvescolleges from the very beginning; in fact,they considered themselves more than col-leges. For instance, at Sam HoustonNormal Institute, the catalogues noted thatat the normal school it was necessary notonly to know what should be known, butone had to have the skills to teach it as well(Sam Houston Normal Institute, 1879-1880, p.10).

The more classically oriented institu-tions looked askance at the newly emerg-ing normal schools, but the normalschools took pride in their more down-to-earth approach. Some universities and col-leges began the development of educationdepartments; but the majority, as the nine-teenth century came to a close, resistedthis tendency. Where education depart-ments and positions were developed, otherdepartments and colleagues usually con-sidered the new departments and profes-sors of pedagogy in a less than favorablemanner. The faculty generally consideredthe new departments as tacked onto theuniversity, not a real part of the college oruniversity. If Sternberg and Lyon (2002)are correct, the bias against education stillexits. To be associated with education, todo research in education, in fact to beinvolved in applied research of any sort,was and is seen as second-class activity inmany psychological circles.

The new normal schools were practicaland applied schools. Harper (1939) notesthat the early requirements for admissionto the normal schools were a bit spotty. Astime passed, the trend for admissionrequirements moved toward graduationfrom high school. By 1900, the nationalaverage of those matriculating in thirty-eight of the large schools was about 26 per-cent high school graduates (p. 105).Harper further indicates that a large per-centage of the students had taught in pub-

lic schools already. At some of the normalschools, the average age was 24 years old.The goal of many of the graduates especial-ly in the western schools was to move intothe position of principal or superintendentof the schools.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that itwas not always easy to get into the normalinstitute. T. S. Stribling, a Pulitzer Prizewinning novelist, related how the experi-ence was for him:

The college at Florence which Iattended was a training school forteachers, but that made no differ-ence to me because all roads led toRome anyway. [He was intent uponbecoming a lawyer at the time.] Irecall some little difficulty matricu-lating. The prospective students hadto pass examinations, designedmainly I think to block the path ofambition and arrest noble resolves.It was a two-year course. I wanted toenter the second year because I wasin a hurry to reach the regular lawcourse at the University. The teach-ers at the Florence Normal, backedby the results of the examination,wanted me to enter the first year.We argued and argued about it. Iclaimed that I failed because I hadbeen out of school too long, three orfour months—all summer in fact—and had let slip from mind, quitetemporarily, much matter that Ireally knew. I don’t know why theyfinally let me enter the second yearwith conditions. I don’t knowwhether they thought one year ofthe Normal would be enough forme, or one year would be enoughfor the Normal (Cross & McMillan,1982, p.77-78).

As is common in universities with simi-lar histories, psychology, and education atSam Houston State University both grewfrom the normal school applied traditionand were closely related from the begin-ning. The college in which both education


and psychology are housed today at SamHouston State University is the College ofEducation and Applied Science. In 1923,Sam Houston Normal Institute changed itsname to Sam Houston State TeachersCollege. The name again was changed in1965 to Sam Houston State College. In1969 the school adopted its present name,Sam Houston State University.

It was not until 1962 that psychologywas made available as a major course ofstudy and received departmental status atSam Houston State Teachers College. Inthat year, the Department of Educationbecame the Department of Education andPsychology. And it was not until 1970 thatpsychology became an autonomousdepartment. In its early years as a depart-ment it was considered a service depart-ment primarily for education students,though in that year, 1970, psychology had85 majors.

An autonomous department of psychol-ogy was created under the leadership of JackStaggs (University of Houston) in the fall of1970-1971. Billy Gene Waldron (NorthTexas University) was the chair of the newdepartment during the earliest days.

The faculty of the department duringthe earliest years was composed of individu-als from wide geographical areas and frommany of the various sub-areas of academicpsychology. Some of the earliest hires werePatricia Altenburg, physiological psycholo-gy from University of Houston; A. JerryBruce, developmental psychology fromUniversity of Georgia; S. T. Kordinak, psy-chology of learning from University ofColorado; James A. Johnson, counselingpsychology from Texas A&M University;Lois Picht, mental retardation fromUniversity of Northern Colorado; JohnSymonds, social psychology fromUniversity of Illinois; and James PatrickWeber, statistics and history of psychologyfrom Michigan State University. BillWaldron, the new department chair, hadbeen a member of the Education andPsychology Department for several years.

The department over the years continuedto employ persons with the idea of maintain-

ing diversity in terms of geographical areaand sub-fields within psychology. Professorsincluded: Cheryl K. Anisman(clinical/school psychology, Wayne StateUniversity), Mary Alice Conroy (forensicpsychology, University of Houston), JohnEdens (forensic psychology, Texas A&MUniversity), Richard Eglsaer (school psychol-ogy, University of Texas), Mac Griffith (per-sonality, Baylor University), Marsha Harman(counseling/school psychology, University ofHouston), Melanine Kercher (experimentalpsychology, Baylor University), RickMcNeese (physiological psychology, TexasChristian University), David Marcus (clini-cal psychology, Clark University), RowlandMiller (social psychology, University ofFlorida), Paul Neunuebel (clinical psycholo-gy, University of Missouri), Linda Parker(physiological psychology, MemorialUniversity of Newfoundland), T. C. Sim(cognitive psychology, University of Nevada,Reno), Chris Wilson (physiological psychol-ogy, Texas Christian University), and otherswho could be added if adjunct, part-time,and temporary positions were included.Many of these persons have moved to otherplaces, but the department, as Sam HoustonState University in general, has had a remark-ably low level of turnover.

A. Jerry Bruce became chair of theDepartment of Psychology in 1976. Heserved in that position until August of1999. Under his leadership, the departmentevolved from offering only an undergradu-ate major in psychology to include threemaster’s degrees and a PhD program. Thenumber of majors at the undergraduatelevel increased from approximately 100 toover 500 majors in the fall of 1998.

The psychology program was grantedpermission to offer the Master of Artsdegree in the fall of 1981. It was in theDecember graduation of 1982 that the firstM.A. was awarded. The M.A. programsgrew to include one in General Psychology,one in Clinical Psychology, and one inSchool Psychology. Consistently over theyears, about 20 people per year were admit-ted to the master’s level programs.

In the spring of 1994, A. Jerry Bruce

proposed the idea of a doctoral program inforensic psychology to Dean KennethCraycraft, College of Education andApplied Science. As a result of this propos-al, a meeting was held in the office of theVice President for Academic Affairs. VicePresident Bob Marks, Dean KennethCraycraft, Dean Tim Flannagan (CriminalJustice), and A. Jerry Bruce were at themeeting. Shortly thereafter, a committeewas formed made up of faculty membersfrom the College of Criminal Justice andthe College of Education and AppliedScience. This committee plus several addi-tional committees under the urging ofPresident Martin Anisman finally produceda proposal that was submitted to the TexasHigher Education Coordinating Board.

In 1997 the Coordinating Board ofTexas gave Sam Houston State Universitypermission to offer the PhD in ForensicClinical Psychology. The first class of eightstudents entered in the fall of 1998. Now inAugust of 2002, the first two graduatesfrom this program join the ranks of doctor-al level scientist/practitioners eligible forlicensure as psychologists.

Today Donna Desforges is chair of theDepartment of Psychology and Philosophy,Sam Houston State University. The facultyconsists of 18 full-time members plus a num-ber of part-time and adjunct positions. Thedoctoral program is coordinated by DavidMarcus and the master’s programs byRowland Miller. Marsha Harman is thesupervisor of the school psychology students.The department operates a PsychologicalService Center under the direction of MaryAlice Conroy. With the beginning of fallsemester, 2002, there are approximately 500undergraduate majors, 60 master’s level stu-dents, and 40 doctoral students.

At Sam Houston State University, psy-chology is committed to the propositionthat psychology must be related to theworld of real problems. From the Collegeof Education and Applied Science, psy-chology reaches out to education (schoolprogram), to the mental health communi-ty (clinical program), and to the criminaljustice system (forensic program). This


does not mean that psychology is not alsodevoted to providing the best possiblecoverage of the basic discipline in all of itsscientific rigor and academic quality. Theposition is taken that academic concernsand professional interests, theory andpractice, both basic and applied approach-es, can be and should be addressed in thepsychology programs at Sam HoustonState University. ✯

ReferencesAustin College. (n.d.) Austin College

History: An Overview. Retrieved on

August 2, 2002, from http://www.

austincollege.edu/vistors/welcome/

150/history.htm

Battle, W. J. (2002). University of Texas at

Austin. In The General Libraries at the

University of Texas at Austin and the

Texas State Historical Association

(Project Editors). Handbook of Texas

Online. Retrieved July 26, 2002, from

h t t p : / / w w w. t s h a . u t e x a s . e d u /

handbook/online/ar ticles/view/UU/

kcu9.htm

Baylor University. (n.d.) Excellence in

Christian Higher Education. Retrieved

July 30, 2002, from http://www.baylor.

edu/about/default.asp

Benjamin, L. T. (1979). A century of sci-

ence. APA Monitor, 10 (2), 1, 3.

Bowen, J. (1981). A history of Western

education, Vol. 3: The modern west

Europe and the New World. New York:

St. Martin’s Press.

Cross, R. K., & McMillan, J. T. (Eds.)

(1982). Laughing stock: The posthu-

mous autobiography of T. S. Stribling.

Memphis, TN: St. Luke’s Press.

Goodwin, C. J. (1999). A history of modern

psychology. New York: John Wiley.

Harper, C. A. (1939). A century of public

teacher education. Washington, DC:

National Education Association.

Hearst, E. (1979). The first century of

experimental psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reed, E. S. (1997). From soul to mind: The

emergence of psychology, from

Erasmus Darwin to William James. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sam Houston State University. (2000-

2002). Sam Houston State University

2000-2002 undergraduate catalogue.

Huntsville, TX: Author.

Sam Houston Normal Institute (1879-

1880). Sam Houston Normal Institute

1879-1880 catalogue. Huntsville, TX:

Author.

Southwestern University. (2002). South-

western History. Retrieved August 1,

2002, from http://www.southwestern.

edu/about/history.html

Sternberg, R. J., & Lyon, G. R. (2002).

Making a difference to education: Will

psychology pass up the chance? APA

Monitor, 33 (7, July/August), 76-78.

Webb, W. P. (1952). The handbook of

Texas, Vol.1. Austin, TX: The State

Historical Association.

Upham, T. C. (1850). Elements of mental

philosophy. New York: Harper &

Brothers.

Zenderland, L. (1998). Measuring minds:

Henry Goddard and the origin of American

intelligence testing. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.


Iam particularly pleased to be given theopportunity to formally express my sin-

cerest appreciation to former APA PresidentRon Fox who has understood this nexusfrom the very beginning and who has per-sonally been there on behalf of all of psy-chology every step of the way. WithoutRon’s effective leadership, we would neverhave come this far, this fast (cf, DeLeon,Sammons, & Fox, 1995).

Historical GlimpseAs described in several chapters in this

volume, the prescriptive authority move-ment is evolutionary, and received its firstreal impetus little more than 15 years ago, inSenator Daniel K. Inouye’s November, 1984,suggestion to the Hawaii PsychologicalAssociation that they adopt an entirely newlegislative agenda, one which he felt wouldfit very nicely into that year’s programmatictheme: “Transcending Traditional Boundaries.”At that time, 39 states allowed optometriststo utilize diagnostic drugs (4 states havingauthorized the use of therapeutic drugs) and18 states allowed nurse practitioners to pre-scribe, generally under some form of super-visory arrangement with a physician(DeLeon, Fox, & Graham, 1991). Today, the

non-physician landscape has drasticallychanged with all states allowing these profes-sions to effectively utilize medications and anincreasing number recognizing physicians’assistants and clinical pharmacists. It isexpected that by the year 2005 the numberof non-physicians practicing in primary carewill equal the number of primary care physi-cians. Drug companies are now overtlyadvertising to an enlightened public. Handheld pocket computers contain the most up-to-date information on drug interactions.During the year of my APA Presidency, I waspleased that the national leadership of psy-chology and clinical pharmacy activelyexplored areas of common interest and con-cern — including RxP training and collabo-rative practice. As I traveled across the nationvisiting with state associations, I also senseddeveloping interest at the grass roots level infostering collaborative practice opportunitiesand legislative endeavors.

A vision of the futureThe 21st Century will be an era of the

educated consumer and a time when ournation will experience an unprecedentedimpact of technology upon our health caredelivery and educational systems. For exam-

ple, objective (e.g., data driven) clinical pro-tocols will become increasingly common;telehealth care and Web-based distancelearning will make traditional time and dis-tance considerations almost inconsequential;and the all important behavioral, environ-mental, and cultural aspects of service deliv-ery will finally be accorded their appropriatepriority. At the same time, there is also everyindication that we will see unprecedentedchanges in the manner in which health careservices are delivered. Economic concerns,including the costs inherent in ensuring thatpractitioners are able to access the mostadvanced scientific knowledge available, willstrongly encourage interdisciplinary care andprovide enhanced opportunities for psychol-ogy within primary health care systems. Forsome senior clinicians, the traditional fee-for-service practices will flourish. Future gen-erations of psychologist clinicians, however,will undoubtedly experience a very differentworking environment. In my judgment,these expected changes go to the essence ofpsychological training and service delivery— we are, above all else, behavioral scientists.For psychology to actively participate inshaping the nature of this monumental shiftin focus within our nation’s health care sys-

Forward – Reflections on Prescriptive Authority and the Evolution ofPsychology in the 21st Century

Patrick H. DeLeonPast President, American Psychological Association

It has been tremendously rewarding to watch up-close the maturation of psychology’s prescriptiveauthority (RxP) agenda. Over the past quarter of a century, I have had the opportunity of being person-ally involved within the public policy (e.g., political) process. Further, I have been most fortunate to havebeen elected to a number of American Psychological Association (APA) governance positions. This hasbeen very satisfying — both personally and professionally. The caliber of colleagues I have worked withhas been simply outstanding. Across the nation, we really do care about what is best for our patients.Psychology is one of the “learned professions” and as such, we have much to offer to society. The psy-chosocial aspects of health care, not to mention of education, are extraordinarily important. In my judg-ment, the profession of psychology has a special societal responsibility to provide proactive vision andeffective leadership. We must appreciate the transformations that are occurring within society andensure that psychology’s considerable expertise is appropriately utilized. The 21st Century will be anera of: educated consumers; an explosion of technology in the health care arena; and systematic uti-lization of objective, data driven, clinical decision making. This is the essence of the RxP agenda.


tem, it is critical that our profession’s nation-al leadership proactively work to ensure thatour clinical and scientific skills are increas-ingly recognized and valued by society andby our nation’s health policy experts.

It is important that professional psychol-ogy never lose sight of the fact that theessence of the RxP agenda is fundamentallya social policy agenda; e.g., ensuring that allAmericans have access to the highest possi-ble quality of care. It is equally important toappreciate that this is a psychology agenda(DeLeon, Sammons, & Sexton, 1995). Theconcerns that have been raised over the pasttwo decades by members of other profes-sions are in the larger scheme irrelevant.The underlying policy discussion is, andalways has been, about where the professionof psychology collectively wants to evolve.It is not about the future or preferences ofany other profession. It is also important tonote here that this is an agenda that involvesall of psychology, not just professional psy-chology. Fundamentally, the prescriptiveauthority agenda is an educational agenda— in spite of the fact that it was initiatedby, and fostered by, the front-line practicingclinician community.

If one reflects upon the history of profes-sional psychology, one soon appreciates thatpsychology is a relatively young professionand further, that its members are only in thebeginning stages of their personal involve-ment in the public policy (e.g., political)process. This latter point is particularlysalient, for it is through the public policyprocess that institutional and societalchanges ultimately evolve. Although the dis-cipline of psychology dates back to thefounding of Wundt’s laboratory in 1879, itwas on September 21, 1970 that classesbegan at the first independent professionalschool of psychology — the CaliforniaSchool of Professional Psychology (CSPP).This was to become the era of the Doctor ofPsychology degree (Psy.D.), the first programbeing launched in the Department ofPsychology at the University of Illinois atChampaign-Urbana in 1968. In many ways,this particular educational movement wouldultimately lay the foundation for the interest

of future generations of clinicians in ensuringthat their services would be reimbursed andreadily accessible to the public. Today, thereare 48 accredited Psy.D. programs, most ofwhich are within professional schools, thelatter graduating 58% of all clinical students.

Upon reflection, it also becomes clear thatat every stage in professional psychology’sdevelopment there have been those bothwithin the profession, and external to psy-chology, who have actively resisted anychange in the status quo (Resnick, 1997).This was the case when psychology sought toprovide psychotherapy; independently diag-nose and treat; and receive reimbursementfor services rendered, regardless of the loca-tion (e.g., inpatient care). Change is alwaysunsettling and there can be no question thatthe movement towards the professionaldegree (Psy.D.), in particular, represented amajor shift in psychology’s fundamentalidentity and inherent value system. This is ashift that even today some more traditionalpsychologists continue to actively resist. It isimpossible to predict with any sense of cer-tainty where the future will evolve.Accordingly, in my judgment, it is absolute-ly critical that those who genuinely careabout the profession and who are willing tobe responsive to society’s pressing needs, aswell as being sensitive to the broader changesevolving within society, become intimatelyinvolved in shaping our collective future.

Focused DebateAs is described in-depth elsewhere in this

impressive and most timely publication, theRxP agenda has now been thoroughly debat-ed and discussed in the classroom, in our pro-fessional journals, at state and national con-vention gatherings, in various State legislativevenues, in the halls of Congress and through-out the APA governance. At every step of theway, the underlying concept of appropriatelytrained psychologists obtaining independentprescriptive authority has always beenendorsed by psychology and nearly unani-mously (DeLeon & Sammons, 1998).

In 1989, APA’s Board of ProfessionalAffairs (BPA), under the chairship of NormaSimon, held a special retreat meeting on the

issue, hearing from a wide range of expertsand perspectives. BPA ultimately recom-mended that focused attention on theresponsibility of preparing the profession toaddress current and future needs of the pub-lic for psychologically managed psychophar-macological interventions be made APA’shighest priority. In 1990, the APA Councilof Representatives established an ad hoc TaskForce on Psychopharmacology, with at mostonly two Council members expressing oppo-sition. Two years later, this Task Force, underthe chairmanship of Michael Smyer, submit-ted their report to Council. In their judg-ment, practitioners with combined trainingin psychopharmacology and psychosocialtreatments could be viewed as a new form ofhealth care professional, one which would beexpected to bring to health care delivery thebest of both psychological and pharmacolog-ical knowledge and which possessed thepotential to dramatically improve patientcare and make important new advances intreatment. As future developments woulddemonstrate, the proactive vision of theseearlier colleagues is most impressive.

Over three consecutive conventionmeetings of Council — 1995, New York;1996, Toronto; and 1997, Chicago —APA’s highest elected body of governance(e.g., the Council of Representatives) votedoverwhelmingly to make obtaining pre-scriptive authority APA policy, includingendorsing a model legislative bill and train-ing curriculum. Further, the APA Collegeof Professional Psychology was authorizedto develop an appropriate national exami-nation, suitable for use by the State andProvincial licensing boards. The examina-tion has now been taken by approximately50 postdoctoral psychopharmacology grad-uates. During these deliberations within theAPA’s governance, the Committee for theAmerican Psychological Association ofGraduate Students (APAGS) adopted a for-mal resolution of support for RxP. This wasparticularly significant, as APAGS is thefuture of the profession.

As one reviews the chapters in this his-toric book, one gets a first hand sense of howa steadily increasing number of dedicated


and visionary colleagues have truly made adifference in the lives of many of our nation’scitizens, often behind the scenes and at greatpersonal sacrifice. They have been willing tomove the profession into uncharted waters. Ifone is honest with oneself and focuses uponthe unique needs of any subset of our nation’spopulation — whether this be children, theelderly, women, ethnic minorities, thoseresiding in rural America, or those in need ofchronic or long term care — it is clear thatthey are not receiving the quality of care thatevery one of us would desire for our ownloved ones. Further, it readily also becomesevident that the systematic and enhancedavailability of psychological expertise wouldbe most beneficial. In my judgment, anyother conclusion would be simply intellectu-ally dishonest. The underlying policy ques-tions become: Is professional psychologywilling to assume this clinical responsibility?We must also ask: Have we matured suffi-ciently to become one of our nation’s bonafide health care professions? (DeLeon,Bennett, & Bricklin, 1997; DeLeon,Robinson-Kurpius, & Sexton, 2001).

The Bigger PictureFor those who have not taken a careful

and candid look at the status of our currenthealth care delivery system, we would suggestthey review several landmark reports recentlyreleased by the Institute of Medicine (IOM).The IOM has served as a highly respectedhealth policy “think tank” for the Congressand various Administrations, since it waschartered in 1970 by the National Academyof Sciences, acting under the Academy’s1863 Congressional charter responsibility tobe an advisor to the Federal government. In1999, the IOM released a highly controver-sial report that found that each year, between44,000 and 98,000 Americans died in hospi-tals, as a result of medical errors. The reportnoted that medications are the most frequentmedical intervention. Encouraging interdis-ciplinary collaboration, the report furtherdescribed how merely by having clinicalpharmacists participate during daily hospitalrounds, the rate of preventable adverse drugevents relating to prescribing decreased sig-

nificantly (66 percent) within major teachingfacilities. We would remind the reader thatthese patients were under the clinical care oflicensed physicians and were being treated inlicensed health care facilities. Another farreaching IOM report (IOM, 2001)addressed the extent to which the currentAmerican health care system lags significant-ly behind other segments of the economy inutilizing advances in relevant technology andin ensuring that scientific advances areemployed in a timely fashion.

The American health care delivery systemis in need of fundamental change. Americansshould be able to count on receiving carethat meets their needs and is based on thebest scientific knowledge. Yet there is strongevidence that this frequently is not the case.The lag between the discovery of more effi-cacious forms of treatment and their incor-poration into routine patient care is unneces-sarily long, in the range of about 15 to 20years. Even then, adherence of clinical prac-tice to the evidence is highly uneven.

Accordingly, to profess (as some in orga-nized medicine have done) that our highlytrained and dedicated clinicians will become“public health hazards” when they obtain theclinical responsibility to independently pre-scribe is simply absurd. This is an emotional-ly charged argument that for generations hasbeen used against a wide range of non-physi-cian health care providers. It simply has nobasis in fact and, not surprisingly, is overtlycontradicted by objective study after study.In all candor, it has always seemed somewhatstrange to me that medicine would even con-sider making this particular policy argument.The key to providing quality care is the abil-ity to make an accurate clinical diagnosis. Ifany of the non-physician disciplines wereinherently dangerous, one would expect thatthose public institutions (e.g., the state legis-latures and regulatory and licensing boards)that have a long and distinguished trackrecord of protecting the public, would pro-hibit psychology (for example) from beinglicensed to diagnose. Yet since 1977, psy-chology has been licensed (or certified) in allstates, and today, psychology is recognized asan independent profession under every one

of the federal government’s healthcare deliveryand reimbursement programs. Essentially, the“public health hazard” argument has long agobeen deemed moot at best, and at worst irre-sponsible, in that it impedes portions of ourcitizenry from receiving the most appropriatecare.

A related perspective is provided by ouracademic colleagues involved in establishingquality psychopharmacology training mod-ules. These professionals have described theextent to which organized psychiatry hassystematically attempted to prevent theircourses from even being offered. This bringsto mind the worst of the anti-intellectualeras in our nation’s history. As an individualwho grew up in a family that highly valuededucation, the thought that any segment ofour society would affirmatively attempt toprevent anyone from bettering oneselfthrough education, is simply uncon-scionable. For the RxP agenda, the relevanteducational question is: “what aspects of thecurrent psychopharmacology didactic train-ing programs (conducted by medicine, nurs-ing, or pharmacy) should be incorporatedinto psychology’s already extensive knowl-edge base in order to improve the function-ing of psychology’s clinicians?” The answeris not: “One should go to medical school.”It is the underlying mission of our nation’seducational system to develop courses thatare relevant to societal needs. By employingup-to-date technological advances withineducation (e.g., virtual training modalities),these can be readily adopted to the uniquecircumstances of practicing clinicians, grad-uate students on internships, and thoseinterested in re-specializing. Given theintensity of the opposition, one can onlyconclude that we must be making a differ-ence. That is what a learned profession muststrive to do. Quality education is thestrength of our profession and our nation.

A Personal AsideOver the past several years, I have had the

distinct honor of serving as the commence-ment speaker at three separate psychophama-cology graduating ceremonies. These have allbeen very special events. Our senior col-


leagues had agreed to go back to school, withall of the accompanying self-doubts, stressors,and anxieties. But they survived and did verywell. At graduation time, they were rightfullyproud of their newest accomplishments. Thegraduates began to publicly share how muchthey had learned and how they now saw theirpatients from an entirely different perspec-tive. Prior to enrolling in their psychophar-macology training, their peers all agreed thatthey were excellent therapists. Now, theydescribed themselves as bringing somethingqualitatively different to those patients forwhom medication might be clinically useful– a fundamentally psychological approach topsychotropic interventions. They hadbecome, in fact, an entirely new breed of clin-ician with a highly unique perspective. Theprophetic vision of our earlier governancepolicy reflections was being fulfilled. Mostimportantly, society was being well served(DeLeon & Wiggins, 1996).

It has been my observation in talking withcolleagues across the nation over the pastthree decades, that the overwhelming majori-ty of practicing psychologists originally wentinto the field because they wanted to be ableto make a meaningful difference in the dailylives of those they would eventually serve.During my presidential year, on a weeklybasis, I reached out to those in the member-ship who were not involved within the APAgovernance. These were very moving andinspiring discussions. There can be no ques-tion that our field possesses extraordinary tal-ent and dedication. Countless colleagues aremaking contributions at the local level everyday. Psychological principles are being effec-tively utilized in an increasingly wide range offorums — sports psychology, health psychol-ogy, psychology and the law, etc. Our profes-sional future is only limited by our collectivevision and willingness to take a chance.

Those of us who have been fortunate togravitate to positions of national psychologyleadership must now fulfill our uniqueresponsibility. Historically, psychology’snationally elected officials seem to have notappreciated the policy importance of theirpositions. We must, for example, ensure thatsociety becomes aware of, and can readily

avail itself of, the most up-to-date psycholog-ical expertise. To cite but one example, it isclear that it never occurred to our graduatestudents when they entered the field that ourhealth care delivery system would have estab-lished arbitrary barriers to making their ser-vices readily available to those in need, underthe rubric of being a “medical care system.”We must work to change that. We must striveto ensure that the most up-to-date scientificknowledge (including that of the behavioralsciences) is effectively utilized throughout thehealth care delivery system. In seeking toaccomplish this laudatory objective, we willcome to appreciate the importance of trueinterdisciplinary collaboration and training.Psychology is but one of the health profes-sions. We must, for example, learn to becometeam players within the primary health carearena. Above all else, organized psychologyrequires proactive leadership at the nationallevel in furtherance of these goals.

Within our universities, psychology con-tinues to be one of, if not the, most popularundergraduate majors and every year extraor-dinarily bright seniors apply for advancedtraining. When President Carter establishedhis landmark Presidential Commission onMental Health, there were approximately59,900 members and affiliates of the APA. Adecade later (1988), APAGS was establishedby the APA Council of Representatives. Aswe enter the 21st Century, the comparableAPA membership numbers have grown to155,000, with APAGS possessing 59,700members. These are very impressive numbers,and they speak well for the future of the pro-fession. But I would reiterate that a promisingfuture exists only if those of us in leadershippositions fulfill our responsibilities.Collectively, we must possess a vision that isconsistent with evolving national trends. Wemust also work together to ensure that ourvision and dreams for psychology becomereality. We must never forget that we are allone family. In this light, it was with great per-sonal pleasure that I was able to have the RxPagenda become one of my APA Presidentialinitiatives and convention programmaticthemes, admirably co-chaired by Departmentof Defense (DoD) Psychopharmacology

Fellows Anita Brown, Chuck Faltz, RayFolen, and Sandy Rose Mahalo.

A Step ForwardDuring the Congressional deliberations

on the Fiscal Year 1989 Appropriations billfor the Department of Defense, the confereesdirected the Department to establish ademonstration pilot training project underwhich military psychologists would betrained and authorized to issue appropriatepsychotropic medications under certain cir-cumstances. On June 17, 1994 then APAPresident Bob Resnick and I attended thegraduation ceremonies at the Walter ReedArmy Medical Center of the first two DoDPsychopharmacology Fellows, U.S. NavyCommander John Sexton and Lt.Commander Morgan Sammons. This federalprogram caused considerable consternation(to put it mildly) within the psychiatric com-munity and ultimately graduated 10 Fellows.Numerous external evaluations of the pre-scribing practices of the DoD Fellows havebeen extraordinarily laudatory (Newman,Phelps, Sammons, Dunivin, & Cullen,2000). These dedicated individuals have visu-ally demonstrated to the public, and perhapsmore importantly to their own peers, thatprofessional psychologists can be successfullytrained to safely and cost-effectively utilizepsychotropic medications. Listening to theirwords, they definitely have made a differencein the lives of their patients. From a moreglobal perspective, a number of the Fellowshave been intimately involved in the “grass-roots” state-based legislative movement.Others have been on the cutting edge ofdeveloping psychology’s civilian postdoctoralpsychopharmacology training modules. Mostimportantly, each of them has provided a liv-ing face to the previously purely abstract con-cept of psychology’s RxP agenda. We owethem a tremendous debt of gratitude. Theywere willing to go where no one else had treadbefore (DeLeon, Sammons, & Fox, 2000).

Forward glancesFirst, for the Practitioner — Obtaining

in-depth knowledge about the rapidadvances occurring within pharmacy and the


expanding appreciation of the biologicalbasis of various mental health and emotionaldisorders is the fundamental key to improvedquality of care. Prescriptive authority opensup entirely new market places and providesthe profession with the legal standing toinsist upon the recognition of the psychoso-cial aspects of mental health care. Those whoalready prescribe (either within the federaljurisdiction or as “learned collaborators”with primary care physicians) clearly indicatethat from their personal experiences, ensur-ing that those receiving psychotropic med-ications received the appropriate dosage is ahigh priority. Those colleagues interested inserving individuals with chronic or severemental disorders will find historical artificialprogrammatic barriers removed. Those inter-ested in working with nursing home popula-tions will find ready access to patients andtheir families with significant psychologicalneeds. And those interested in focusing uponunique population subsets, for examplewomen or children, will again find that theirfundamental psychological approach willprovide a unique and welcomed perspective.The DoD Fellows have truly taught us thatabove all else: The power to prescribe is alsothe power to un-prescribe (or modify) inap-propriate or excessive medication regimens.

For the Scientist It is difficult to fathom any limit on the

newest scientific problems to be systemati-cally explored, particularly within the area oftherapeutic effectiveness. What, for example,is the most effective therapeutic approach forwomen with depressive symptoms? Howshould hyperactive children be assessed andtreated? What about depression related toserious physical diagnoses, such as cancer orneeding dialysis care? What are the long termdevelopmental effects of being treated withpsychotropic medications? The history ofclinical medicine’s training resources wouldsuggest that graduate departments of psy-chology and professional schools that areinvolved in these psycho-physical investiga-tions will do very well.

For the Educator These should be extraordinarily energiz-

ing times, particularly for those colleaguesinterested in interdisciplinary collaboration.Those who have been involved from theearliest days in the development of the RxPagenda have consistently agreed that forpsychology to retain its fundamental behav-ioral science identity (and its psychologicalapproach to utilizing medications), it isimportant that psychopharmacology train-ing be obtained at the post-doctoral level.This policy orientation is reflected in therequirements for taking the nationalCollege of Professional Psychology exami-nation. Accordingly, one should expect arapidly expanding educational market, notonly for formal training leading to anadvanced psychopharmacology degree, butalso for the soon to-be required (by licens-ing boards) continuing education modules,“hands-on” training for those on their clin-ical internships, and for members of otherprofessions (e.g., advanced practice nurses,clinical pharmacists, and clinical socialworkers) who are interested in the broadbehavioral health area. With increasingreliance upon Web-based virtual teachingenvironments, I cannot see any limit to thedevelopment of future educational activitiesin this field. As non-physician cliniciansbecome more involved in serving diversesubpopulations (e.g., the elderly and chil-dren) there will be an ever-expanding needfor quality educational modules targetingpracticing clinicians. As a nation, we areexperiencing a virtual explosion of scientif-ic knowledge; while information presentlydoubles every 5 years, it is projected to soondouble every 17 days, with traffic on theWeb already doubling every 100 days(Jerome, et al., 2000).

Legislative ForaysToday there are 31 State psychological

associations possessing prescriptive authoritytask forces. Enacting RxP legislation is a veryhigh priority for the Committee for theAdvancement of Professional Practice(CAPP) which annually makes available dis-cretionary financial support for these legisla-

tive activities. In the next several years, it isprojected that over a quarter of the State leg-islatures will grapple with formal RxP bills.During his RxP Council briefing at the SanFrancisco annual convention, Russ Newmanindicated that soon APA will have spent inexcess of $1 million on this legislative agen-da. Relevant legislation has already beenenacted into public law in Guam (1998) andIndiana (1993) – admittedly, perhaps notexactly the wording that professional psy-chology desires, but the underlying policymessage is definitely there. The passage in2000 of RxP legislation by the New MexicoHouse of Representatives, on a vote of 37-21clearly indicates we have come a very longway indeed, since the introduction of theHawaii RxP study resolution in 1985 (S.Res. 159) (Burns, DeLeon, Chemtob,Welch, & Samuels, 1988; DeLeon, Folen,Jennings, Willis, & Wright, 1991).

The maturation of the profession as apublic policy force: What has been particu-larly exciting from my public policy vantagepoint has been watching those colleagueswho are supportive of the RxP agendabecome personally engaged, both within thegovernance of their own state psychologicalassociation and their State legislatures. Thisis the best of our Democratic way of life.Enthusiastic citizens actively participating inthe public policy (e.g., political) process onbehalf of a policy agenda to which they arefirmly committed. Considerable energy isoftentimes first spent educating fellow psy-chologists as to the value of the RxP move-ment. Soon a small, but definitely dedicat-ed, group of like-minded colleagues sur-faces. Survey after survey demonstrates thatwith concerted educative effort (and often apersonal visit from one of the DoD psy-chopharmacology Fellows), approximatelythree quarters of the local state psychologicalassociation membership eventually becomessupportive. However, it remains those selectdedicated few who will spend the necessarypersonal time with their individual State leg-islators and remaining reticent colleagues toease their concerns. Frequently, these indi-viduals have not previously been involvedwithin their local psychological association


governance in the past and now they bringthe necessary enthusiasm and energy for anentirely new agenda. Ultimately, they willmake a real difference to a revitalized statepsychological association. Not surprisingly,the external medical opposition within thelegislative arena remains consistent; mostoften expressed in the form of spreadingemotional “public health hazard” allega-tions. Organized psychiatry and medicinefrequently appear to spend considerablefinancial resources. On the other hand,efforts to work collaboratively with variouspotential stakeholders (e.g., clinical pharma-cists, advanced nurse practitioners, con-sumer groups, educational institutions, andleaders of community health centers) turnout to be surprisingly successful.

Ultimately, the key to legislative successis a belief in ourselves and persistence. Ihave no doubt that psychology’s RxP agen-da is good for the future of professional psy-chology and good for the nation. Equallyimportantly, it is highly consistent withevolving national trends – both within thevarious health professions and in society ingeneral. The number of Americans who usethe Internet to retrieve health-related infor-mation is estimated to approximate 70-100million annually. Currently, over half ofAmerican homes possess computers. Thesenumbers continue to increase. The highlyeducated consumer of the 21st Century willvalue our scientific and clinical expertise, aslong as we ourselves value our extensivetraining and clinical skills and if we ensurethat society becomes increasingly aware ofour potential contributions. Extraordinarilybright students are seeking careers in psy-chology. They simply will not be held backby historical artifacts or barriers. From myvantage point, psychology’s RxP agenda isforemost an agenda for the future and oneof hope and optimism. As a profession, weare evolving out of nearly a decade ofdespair and frustration verbalized by practi-tioners as they began to come to grips withmanaged care and external demands forclinical accountability. The RxP agenda is apositive one; it provides a creative vehiclefor constructive professional accomplish-

ments. It is a policy agenda around whichall aspects of psychology can productivelycoalesce. In my judgment, time is definitelyon our side. Aloha. ✯

References

Burns, S. M., DeLeon, P. H., Chemtob, C. M.,

Welch, B. L., & Samuels, R. M. (1988).

Psychotropic medication: A new technique

for psychology? Psychotherapy: Theory,

Research, Practice, and Training, 25, 508-

515.

DeLeon, P. H., Bennett, B. E., & Bricklin, P. M.

(1997). Ethics and public policy formulation:

A case example related to prescription privi-

leges. Professional Psychology: Research

and Practice, 28(6), 518-525. And, (in

press). In S. F. Buckley (Ed.), The Integration

of Ethics and Law in Clinical Practice. New

York: Plenum.

DeLeon, P. H., Folen, R. A., Jennings, F. L.,

Willis, D. J., & Wright, R. H. (1991). The

case for prescription privileges: A logical evo-

lution of professional practice. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology, 20(3), 254-267.

DeLeon, P. H., Fox, R. E., & Graham, S. R.

(1991). Prescription privileges: Psychology’s

next frontier? American Psychologist, 46,

384-393. Reprinted in J. A. Mindell (Ed.),

Issues in clinical psychology (pp. 63-73).

Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Communications,

Inc. (1993).

DeLeon, P. H., Robinson-Kurpius, S. E., &

Sexton, J. L. (2001). Prescriptive authority for

psychologists: Law, ethics, and public policy.

In M. T. Sammons & N. B. Schmidt (Eds.),

Combined treatments for mental disorders: A

guide to psychological and pharmacological

interventions (pp. 33-52). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

DeLeon, P. H., & Sammons, M. (1998).

Foreword. Prescription privileges for psychol-

ogists: An historical overview. In L. A.

Pagliaro & A. M. Pagliaro (Eds.), The phar-

macologic basis of psychotherapeutics (pp.

xvii-xxiii). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Reprinted (1999) in L. A. Pagliaro & A. M.

Pagliaro (Eds.), Psychologists’ neuropsy-

chotropic drug reference (pp. xxi-xxvii).

Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

DeLeon, P. H., Sammons, M. T., & Fox, R. E.

(1995, November). A commentary: Canada

is not that far north. Canadian Psychology,

36(4), 320-326.

DeLeon, P. H., Sammons, M. T., & Sexton, J. L.

(1995). Focusing on society’s real needs:

Responsibility and prescription privileges?

American Psychologist, 50(12), 1022-1032.

DeLeon, P. H., Sammons, M. T., & Fox, R. E.

(2000). Prescription privileges. In A. E.

Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology:

Vol.6. (pp. 285-287). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association, Oxford

University Press.

DeLeon, P. H., & Wiggins, J. G. (1996).

Prescription privileges for psychologists.


[Reprinted in Verhaltenstherapie und

Verhaltensmedizin (2000), 21. JG.(1), 7-14].

Institute of Medicine (IOM). (1999). To err is

human: Building a safer health system. L. T.

Kohn, J. M. Corrigan, & M. S. Donaldson

(Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy

Press.

Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2001). Crossing the

quality chasm: A new health system for the

21st century. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Jerome, L. W., DeLeon, P. H., James, L. C.,

Folen, R., Earles, J., & Gedney, J. J. (2000).

The coming of age of telecommunications in

psychological research and practice.


Newman, R., Phelps, R., Sammons, M. T.,

Dunivin, D. L., & Cullen, E. A. (2000).

Evaluation of the psychopharmacology

demonstration project: A retrospective analy-

sis. Professional Psychology: Research and

Practice, 31(6), 598-603.

Resnick, R. J. (1997). A brief history of practice

— Expanded. American Psychologist, 52(4),

463-468.

Reprinted with permission of the author.

The rule governing forensic services isRule 465.18 of the Texas State Board of

Examiners of Psychologists Rules of Practice.If you have access to that rule, I would rec-ommend that you review it, particularly ifyou intend to engage in forensic services.

The rule requires that any licensee pro-viding forensic services must comply withall applicable board rules concerning suchservices, whether specifically acting as anexpert witness or as a factual witness. Ingeneral, the rule requires the following:1. You must demonstrate appropriate

knowledge of, and competence in, allunderlying areas of the testimony.

2. Any reports or recommendations mustbe based on information and techniquessufficient to provide appropriate sub-stantiation for each of your findings.

3. You must decline to render opinions inareas in which you are not competent.

4. You should not render a written or oralopinion about the psychological charac-teristics of an individual without anexamination, unless the opinion containsa statement that you did not conduct anexamination. If you do render such opin-ions, you must clarify the limits of thereliability and validity of the opinions.

5. If providing forensic services by courtappointment, you must not accept anappointment for both evaluation andtherapeutic intervention for the same case.

6. If you interview or examine an individ-ual for the purpose of providing foren-sic services, you must inform the indi-vidual of the specific purpose of theinterview or examination. In the eventthere are multiple parties, you mustobtain and document written informedconsent from all adult participantsunless informed consent is precluded bycourt order.

7. In child custody cases, you must notaccept a case for forensic evaluation ifyou have a prior relationship with thechild or parents, unless ordered to do soby court order. These are just some of the main points

of the rule. I recommend that you reviewthe rule and make certain that you arefamiliar with the appropriate requirements.

It is important to be very careful in anysituation involving litigation as complaintsare often made by the aggrieved party to achild custody case. Thoroughly documentinformation regarding consent and conver-sations in compliance with the rule.

If you would like a copy of Rule 465.18,please e-mail me at [email protected], please call me at 713/650-6600 if you areinterested in applying for our telephone con-sultation program. ✯


Forensic Services – Beware of the PitfallsSam A. Houston

The interplay between psychology and law in today’s society makes it almost certain that at some pointin your career you may be called by a lawyer to give forensic testimony and/or possibly render a legalopinion — especially if you provide family therapy or counseling. According to the TSBEP newsletter,complaints regarding psychologists who perform forensic child custody evaluations represent thefastest growing segment of complaints received by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists.

LAW

Texas A&M is launching its primarily web-basedPsychopharmacology program with its second cohort begin-

ning in April. This program, with the curriculum based on APAguidelines, is a 450-hour didactic program.

Courses are offered primarily in a web-based format with videolectures, readings and assignments, online study sessions withinstructors and online tests. Reading material includes conven-tional textbooks and articles with regular assignments and ques-tions for review.

There will be several extended weekends between moduleswhen students will meet in Dallas for review, exams and live lec-tures. The final weekend of the program will be a review intendedto help prepare students to take the APA national exam in psy-chopharmacology.

This program does not qualify a psychologist to prescribe. Itmeets the APA guidelines for didactic instruction in psychopharma-cology intended to prepare a psychologist to consult on medica-tions. Before a psychologist will be able to prescribe, he/she will haveto complete a preceptorship, pass the national exam and the TexasLegislature will have to pass legislation that gives psychologists pre-scriptive authority.

When the law is passed our state board (TSBEP) will need towork out the specific requirements for prescriptive authority certifi-cation.

If you are interested in beginning the A&M program in April,contact Dee Yates at 210-494-1991 or go to the website athttp://cecoe.tamu.edu/psypharm. ✯

Texas A&M Begins New Program


The Executive Committee for the Capital Area Psychological Association (CAPA) has invited TPA’s leg-islative lobbyist, Joey Bennett, to address CAPA and update them on upcoming legislative issues. CAPAis increasing their legislative awareness and liaison work for the current session.

LAS UPDATE

The Fort Worth Area PsychologicalAssociation (FWAPA) sponsors a number ofdiscussion groups each Friday at a local cafeas well as CE offerings, a mix which hasproven both effective and popular. DeanParet, PhD, is not only the legislative liaisonfor FWAPA, but is also a newly elected TPABoard Member. As a current student in theTexas A&Mpsychopharmacology program,he liaisons between FWAPA and TPA onthese and other issues. FWAPA also sponsorsa great annual Christmas party.

The Rio Grande Valley PsychologicalAssociation (RGVPA) is now directed byMary De Ferreire, PhD, a native of the RioGrande Valley. RGVPA has been instru-mental in addressing diversity and mental

health/mental retardation issues, amongothers. RGVPA has been well represented atTPA and annual convention activities. Dr.De Ferreire is aided with legislative effortsby the Rio Grande liaison officer, JosephMcCoy, PhD.

The Dallas Psychological Association spon-sored an extremely successful HIPAA work-shop, which was provided by the TPADirector of Professional Affairs, RobertMcPherson, PhD. Dr. McPherson also led thisworkshop at a variety of sites around the state.DPA also publishes an excellent newsletter.One outstanding contribution to the newslet-ter was recently provided by Lane Ogden,PhD, who is not only a psychopharmacologygraduate but is also a newly elected member of

the PSY-PAC Board. Richard Fulbright, PhD,is the DPA legislative liaison and is also anewly elected TPA Board Member.

The South Plains Association ofPsychologists (SPAP), under the directionof Catherine Matthews, PhD, has beenexceptionally active with meeting their leg-islative representatives. They are planningto bring at least 10 SPAP members andsponsor two students at TPA’s LegislativeDay in Austin, scheduled for February 25.

The Bexar County PsychologicalAssociation (BCPA) provides specificemphasis upon student and newly licensedpsychologist recruitment. Each fall, BCPAhosts a reception and offers membershipdiscounts for joining.

Mary De Ferreire, PhD, current President of RGVPA, was accept-ed into the “National Register of Who’s Who in Executives andProfessionals” this January for reaching a level of recognizable successin her respective field of psychology. Dr. De Ferreire is theFounder/President of “International and Multicultural PsychologicalServices, a private practice, now 31 months in existence in the RioGrande Valley.

Joseph C. Kobos, PhD, ABPP of San Antonio was recently elect-ed to a second term as Treasurer of the American Board of ProfessionalPsychology. ABPP has been certifying Specialists in Psychology byexamination since 1947. Psychologists who wish information aboutthe application and examination process may contact ABPP atwww.abpp.org.

Tom Kubiszyn, PhD has just been appointed to the APA’sCommittee on Psychological Tests and Assessment (CPTA) as theBoard of Professional Affairs (BPA) representative for a three year term(2003-2005). CPTA has responsibility for (a) addressing issues thataffect testing and assessment practices, (b) reviewing and revising ofthe Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, (c) providingtechnical assistance to other APA boards and committees around test-ing and assessment issues, (d) monitoring and making recommenda-tions regarding policy and legislation that may affect testing andassessment, (e) monitoring the use of testing and assessment in all set-tings, and (f ) promoting the appropriate use of tests and sound assess-ment practices.

Collin County Psychological Association (CCPA) is beginningthe 11th year as a Local Area Society of TPA. The President of CCPAreports that membership has consistently grown and participation hasnever been stronger. CCPA offers monthly meetings, referral serviceson the web, pro bono services, community involvement and awardsfor graduate research. Building a strong network of psychologists whoconnect with each other for support, mentoring and referral has beenthe primary mission of CCPA! CCPA also provides workshops andseminars twice a year and invites all psychologists in the North Texasarea to participate. Please visit CCPA at www.psychselect.com/ccpa for

more information, future programs and location, and a listing ofmembers for referral.

Bruce Mansbridge, PhD has announced the opening of theAustin Center for the Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorderon Bee Cave Road in Austin. The center has an affiliated psychiatristand has just hired a full-time licensed professional counselor fromSeattle with extensive experience with children and adolescents.

Rick McGraw, PhD has been elected by APA Board and Councilof Representatives to the APA Rural Health Committee. The commit-tee’s mission is to address the full breadth of issues affecting the healthof persons living in rural and frontier America. Dr. McGraw’s termshall last for 3 years. The committee will identify, study, and attemptto ameliorate health and mental heath problems that may yield to thespecial knowledge and competence of psychologists. The committeewill identify and develop programs to meet the needs of residents inthese areas. Dr. McGraw is a Past-President of the PsychologicalAssociation of Greater West Texas, Past-President of TexasPsychological Association (TPA), current APA Federal AdvocacyCoordinator for TPA, and a member of APA Business of PracticeNetwork Steering Committee.

Mariana Wainer, PsyD announces the opening of her office in thepractice of psychotherapy in Houston. Until recently, she was in pri-vate practice in New York City where she was also a faculty member atthe Institute for Infants, Children and Families (JBFCS). Previously,she was the director of the Therapeutic Nursery at the Karen HorneyClinic. Dr. Wainer provides psychotherapy in both English andSpanish, and treats adults, adolescents and children/infants.

Congratulations to David White, TPA’s Executive director, for fin-ishing the 2003 Motorola Austin marathon! This is a huge commit-ment and accomplishment.

Rio Grande Valley Psychological Association meetings: February7, dinner honoring Dr. Bert Levine. Dr. Levine has been a member ofTexas Psychological Association for 50 years!

INSIDE TPA


h

Texas Psychological Association would like to thank all of its

sponsors and exhibitors from the 2002 Annual Convention.

GoldAmerican Professional Agency

Texas A&M University

SilverRemuda Ranch

BronzeAPAIT (APA Insurance Trust)

Behavioral Health ConsultantsComprehensive Software/

Therapies PsyquelSan Gabriel Psychological Services

Senior Connections, Inc

Spring Creek Horse Farm - Cadwalder Behaviorial ClinicsThe Psychological CorporationUHS Neurobehavioral Systems

VericareW.B. Saunder, Mosby, Churchill -

Livingstone

THANK YOU


News for the New Year: New Student Officers!Mary Martin & LaDonna Saxon

Student President: Mary Martin Contact Mary at: [email protected] President-Elect: LaDonna Saxon Contact LaDonna at: [email protected] Representative: Andrea Brose Contact Andrea at: [email protected] Treasurer: LaTisha Braddock Contact LaTisha at: [email protected]

We are all looking forward to our year of service with TPA. We are providing you with our contact infor-mation. From time to time we will be asking for input from our fellow members in order to increase stu-dent involvement in TPA.

STUDENT DIVISION UPDATE

We would also like to increasestudent membership andattendance at the annual con-

ference (don’t forget, it’s in Dallas this year,November 6-8). The call for papers will beheading your way soon. So, if you’ve beenworking hard on a research project, here’syour chance to show off all of your hardwork. Regarding TPA’s annual conference, wewould like to know if you find it helpful tohave all the convention workshops geared

toward students scheduled on the same day(this usually includes the Student BusinessMeeting, the Internship Mixer, and Gettinginto Graduate School: What You Need toKnow.) If so, what day is best in terms of yourability to attend? Further, are there any othertopics that you want to know more about?Please drop us an email with your feedback.

Our goals for this year also includeincreasing the number of Texas internshipsites who send representatives to our annualconference to meet with students. So, ifthere is any particular site you are interested

in, let us know. We realize that not every sitewill send a representative, but we’ll certainlytry our best to elicit their participation. Also,we’d like to revitalize the TPA student divi-sion website. So, if there is any informationthat you would find particularly useful, letus know. We make no guarantees to fulfilleveryone’s desires, but we will give it ourbest effort. We need input from our col-leagues in order to reach our goals. So,please take a moment to send us your ideas.We look forward to hearing from you. ✯


On January 14, 2002, the 78th RegularSession of the Texas Legislature began. Whatalso began was a new era in Texas politics.The November elections were a landslide vic-tory for Republicans. Republicans won allstatewide offices, retained control of the TexasSenate and gained control in the Texas Housefor the first time since Reconstruction. Withthe reelection of Governor Rick Perry, theelection of David Dewhurst to the office ofLieutenant Governor and the election by themembers of the House of Tom Craddick tothe Speaker’s office, Republicans also hold allthree of the state’s top offices. Perry was elect-ed to his first full term after succeedingGeorge W. Bush in the Governor’s office twoyears ago. Perry recorded a convincing 30point victory over a heavily financedDemocratic opponent. Dewhurst was electedafter serving four years as Commissioner ofthe General Land Office and now presumesthe duties of presiding over the Texas Senate.And, Craddick, a 34 year House veteran, waselected Speaker of the House by his peers ona 148-1 vote.

The 31 member Senate increased theirmajority and now hold a 19-12 seat advan-tage over the Democrats. Shortly after thebeginning of the session, Dewhurst appoint-ed his committee chairs and members. And,in keeping with the traditional bipartisannature of the Texas Legislature, Dewhurst hasappointed many Democrats to key chairman-ships and roles in the various committees.Most, if not all, of the issues pertaining to ourindustry will be under the jurisdiction of theSenate Health and Human ServicesCommittee. It will be chaired by veteranSenator Jane Nelson, a Republican fromFlower Mound in the Dallas/Fort WorthMetroplex. Other members of the committeeare: Senators Kyle Janek (R, Houston); JohnCarona (R, Dallas); Bob Duell (R,Greenville); Mario Gallegos (D, Houston);Jon Lindsay (R, Houston); Bill Ratliff (R, Mt.Pleasant); Royce West (D, Dallas) and JudithZaffirini (D, Laredo).

The Republicans in the 150 memberHouse of Representatives now hold an 88-62seat majority. At the deadline for this article,the House had not appointed committeemembers and chairs. With 34 incomingfreshmen, and the retirement of over 20 longserving veterans, there will be wholesaleturnover in heads of committees. We can cer-tainly expect to see new chairs and substantialturnover in the membership of committeessuch as Appropriations, Ways and Means,Public Health, Human Services, and HigherEducation, to name just a few.

Public Health, the committee of jurisdic-tion over our issues in the House, will have agreat deal of turnover. The chair from last ses-sion, Patricia Gray, a Democrat fromGalveston, decided to retire. Furthermore,three other members of the nine-membercommittee did not seek reelection, leaving thepossibility of only five members of the com-mittee returning. That however could cer-tainly change with the change in leadership.

Now, I would like to briefly discuss someof the key issues we will be facing this sessionas an Association, and some of the largerissues that will be faced by lawmakers thisyear.

As far as our Association, we will have sev-eral major issues, including attempting togive the authority to prescribe medication toproperly trained doctoral level psychologists.The House Committee on Public Healthconducted an interim study on programs andtreatment options for mental illness. TPA hadextensive input during the hearing and theproduction of the report. The committeeagreed with many of our positions, includingthe argument that there is a shortage of qual-ified mental health care providers to prescribemedications for the mentally ill. They con-cluded in short that qualified mental healthcare professionals can be properly trained toprescribe safely, and this in turn can be usedto improve access to mental health care and abetter system overall for the delivery of men-tal health care.

We intend to make a very strong push topass legislation that will allow properlytrained doctoral level psychologists the abilityto prescribe medication. We are optimisticabout our endeavor, but there is a great dealof hard work to be done.

There are certainly other issues we will befollowing during the session that affect ourindustry, such as scope of practice issues,issues affecting the Board of Examiners ofPsychologists, medical malpractice reformand prompt payment to health care providers.

There are a huge number of issues theLegislature will have to face before the bien-nial session ends on June 2nd. First in every-one’s mind is the state budget. For the firsttime since the 1991 session, the state is look-ing at a budget deficit. Comptroller CaroleKeeton Strayhorn has told lawmakers that tomeet the current services demand of the cur-rent $114 biennium budget, there is a budgetshortfall of $9.9 billion. This gives lawmakersonly two choices — to cut services or findnew revenues. This is an issue that coulddefine the session and, in all likelihood, leadto a special session.

Other major issues include Medicaidreform. With approximately $25 billion ofthe state’s $114 billion budget going toMedicaid payments, there could be a push toincrease the eligibility requirements of thoseavailable for enrollment to bring down theoverall cost of the program.

Another major issue is reform of home-owners insurance. Already declared an emer-gency issue by the Governor, this promises totake front stage early, with the question ofhow much more or less regulation the stateshould provide to stabilize the market.

A couple of other major issues that willreceive a great amount of attention are:reform of the public school finance system,water rights, electric utility restructuring,campaign reform and transportation. It willdefinitely be interesting, and I feel it will alsobe a very productive session for the people ofTexas. ✯

Preview – 78th LegislatureJoey Bennett

TPA Legislative Consultant


The sunset review process is vitallyimportant for all of us concerned about

the practice of psychology in Texas. For lackof a better way of saying it, our practice Actwill be open for revision during the next leg-islative session. Many groups, with a range ofmotivations, have an interest in the practiceof psychology and will likely offer numerousrecommendations. As we start the sunsetprocess, it’s important to remember the cen-tral mission and motivation of the TSBEP -to protect the public. That protection comesin the form of the practice Act, an Act thatdoes some very basic things in order to estab-lish regulatory authority. The Act providesfor such things as the composition of theBoard, a definition of the practice of psy-chology, articulates Board powers and duties,defines complaint procedures, licensurerequirements, disciplinary procedures,among a host of others. It’s also important,however, to remember that psychologists areindeed a part of the public and you have avoice that should be heard during the reviewprocess. After almost five and a half years onthe Board, I’ve always been a bit surprised atthe general consensus among licensees thatthe Board has limited accountability. That iscertainly not, nor should it ever be, the case.

The TSBEP is a small state agencycharged with the regulation of the practiceof psychology. This includes the provisionof licenses, renewal and disciplinary review.Accordingly, it is accountable to the public,including those individuals licensed by the

Board. Remember that the TSBEP is not apolitical entity, it’s an agency charged withprotecting the public. The TSBEP is orga-nized by and functions entirely according tothe authority established in the practice Act.The sunset process is, for the most part, apolitical process, one that provides fordemocratic review and input. Revisions tothe Act will be accomplished in the legisla-ture, not by the Board. The legislativeprocess provides an avenue for input for thefull range of constituencies that have aninterest in the practice of psychology. As aresult, it’s important for psychologists tostep off the sidelines and into the game.

In the last five and a half years I’ve heardmany concerns voiced about the structureand function of the TSBEP, with most beingextremely insightful and important.Naturally, recipients of psychological ser-vices have different complaints thanlicensees, but all are concerned that the pro-fession be regulated in a consistent and fairmanner, holding professionals to the higheststandards. Often times state agencies such asTSBEP and regulatory process becomecumbersome and bureaucratic because theacts from which they derive their authorityare vague and incomplete. In a sense, thisprovides loopholes or a little wiggle room forthe agency and legislature, particularly withrespect to adequate funding to accomplishthe mission. Agencies and regulatory bodiesare most accountable when their roles arewell defined and specific. When this hap-

pens, their goals are clear and the necessarystaffing and resources needed to accomplishthose goals are similarly unambiguous. It’simportant to recognize that Boards are pro-vided the authority to write and enforcerules through their respective practice acts.Poorly written and vaguely defined provi-sions in an act can foster a scope of authori-ty beyond the intent of the act itself. Thenext several years provides a unique oppor-tunity to more clearly define areas that havebeen identified as problematic for both thepublic and the profession. What’s mostimportant is to have adequate representationof those affected by the Act, including thebroad public constituencies mentionedabove. This means not just recipients of ser-vices but professionals and students alike.

Each area of the Act will be reviewed andrefined. It’s likely that entirely new sectionswill be added that reflect the evolution ofprofessional psychology and lay a founda-tion for the next several decades. The nextseveral years are critical for professional psy-chology. It’s likely to be a period of unprece-dented professional change. Accordingly,we’ll need a practice act that is well-rea-soned, professionally informed, far reachingand anticipatory in nature, detailed andspecific, and one that not only holds pro-fessionals accountable to the highest stan-dards of ethical and professional practicebut their governing Board similarlyaccountable. Now is the time to step off thesidelines and into the game. ✯

The Texas Sunset Act and the Practice of Psychology in Texas:A Time to Get Off the Sidelines and Into the Game

M. David Rudd, PhD, ABPPBaylor University

As many of us are aware, the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (TSBEP) is subject to Chapter325 of the Government Code, also known as the Texas Sunset Act (501.005, Application of the SunsetAct). In essence, this provision in our current Act allows for the TSBEP to be abolished when the existingchapter [501] expires on September 1, 2005. In anticipation of the sunset process, the Texas PsychologicalAssociation has already formed a working group, a group that has been active over the past year reviewingour current practice act and charting a strategy for revisions in the next legislative session. Let me extend,and encourage all of you to do the same, a word of thank you to all of the committee members for takingtime away from their demanding schedules and families in order to take on this critically important task.


The mission of the Texas Psychological Foundation is to fund initiatives that advance the field of psychology and research to the benefitof all Texans. An example of recent Foundation activity was the Town Hall on School Violence at the TPA Annual Convention in October,2001. The Town Hall brought a diverse group of professionals including judges and school leaders along with teens and parents from thecommunity to establish a framework to deal with violence in the school setting.

The Foundation accepts gifts, memorials that honor colleagues, family members and friends, and bequests from estates. Gifts or bequestsmay include cash, securities or insurance proceeds. The Foundation is available to assist individuals in establishing memorials or bequestsfrom an estate. All contributions to the Foundation are tax deductible.

The Foundation accepts both general and earmarked contributions.

Earmarked donations can be made to the following designated funds:❑ Schoenfeld-McCann-Schmidt-Ehrisman Fund for Ethics Education: Provides education in ethics in the field of psychology in the state

of Texas.❑ Rose Costello Education Fund: Provides awards for furthering education in psychology.❑ Roy Scrivner Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues Award: Provides an annual award for the best student paper on gay & lesbian research

issues.❑ Bo and Sally Family Psychology Research Award: Provides awards for research projects related to family psychology.❑ TPA/TPF-Student Merit Research Awards: Given to one graduate student and one undergraduate student to defray costs of meritorious

research projects.❑ Alexander Award: Provides an award for the best paper submitted by a graduate student in psychobiology, psychophysiology and related

areas.❑ Manuel Ramirez III Dissertation Award for Ethnic Minority Research: Provides awards for research projects related to Minority

Psychology.

Texas PsychologicalFoundation

The following individuals have gener-ously contributed to the TexasPsychological Foundation in 2002.We thank each of you for your kind support.

Joseph C Kobos, PhD, PresidentBarbara Abrams, EdD

Amos Bruce, PhDSam Buser, PhD

Sean Connolly, PhDJim Cox, PhD

William M. Erwin, PhDRonald Garber, PhD

Linda M. Ingraham, PhDCharles McDonald, PhDRobert McPherson, PhD

Muriel Meicler, PhDHarriet T. Schultz, PhDRobert M. Setty, PhDRobbie N. Sharp, PhDAnn P. Vreeland, PhD

The Texas Psychological Foundation

Please complete the following to make a contributionor request further information:

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY

ZIP

IN HONOR OF

AMT. OF DONATION

CONTACT ME TO DISCUSS A DONATION

Make check payable to Texas Psychological Foundation and mail to1011 Meredith Dr., Ste. 4, Austin, TX 78748.


The Houston Psychological Associationcontinues to actively serve its members,

the Houston community and the psycholog-ical/mental health fields in Texas. In the pastyear, HPA has provided a number of out-standing CE and educational opportunitiesfor the membership, other mental healthprofessionals, and the public. Topics haveincluded the insanity defense, psychologists’portrayals in the movies and psychopharma-cological treatments for mood disorders.

One of the Association’s most informa-tive and interesting CE offerings was byAndrea Yates’ attorney, George Parnham.Mr. Parnham discussed the Andrea Yatescase, the insanity standard in Texas and howpsychologists can address this issue in Texas.

Perhaps our Association’s most significantcontribution this past year was last May’sViolence: Prevention, Intervention, &Activism conference. HPA will present a sec-ond conference to the Houston communitythis May again addressing the important issue

of violence titled, Violence 2: Prevention &Resilience. Other community servicesinclude: two informative videos written andproduced by members on teenage pregnancyand violence that aired on the Houston Accesscable TV channel, our free Speakers’ Bureauand our Information and Referral service.

Our Speakers’ Bureau, Information andReferral service, and videos can all beaccessed by the general public at our web-site: www.hpaonline.org. Through ourmonthly newsletter our membership is keptinformed of important issues affectingmental health and psychology, and we haverecently begun spotlighting an area legisla-tor and a member in each issue.

HPA has also been active in the politicalarena. We have had a number of fundraisersfor our legislators at the local and state level,and several more are being planned for theupcoming year.

Our membership will be actively partic-ipating in the year’s TPA 2003 Legislative

Day, and we challenge other LASs to cometo Austin en masse! In order to prepare ourmembership for Legislative Day, HPA hasasked David White, TPA’s ExecutiveDirector, and Joey Bennett, TPA’s lobbyist,to speak at our January CE luncheon. Thispromises to be an informative presentationand should generate enthusiasm and excite-ment for the event.

Finally, our Association recognizes theimportance of social activities and theimportance of recognizing the contribu-tions of members and other individuals inthe community who advocate for mentalhealth and psychology. Each year at ourSpring Social, awards are presented forPsychologist of the Year, LifetimeAchievement, Legislator of the Year, and thePresident’s Award.

One of the best attended events is theAssociation’s annual Holiday Party withfood provided by the HPA ExecutiveCommittee. In keeping with the social andfun aspects of the Association, HPA spon-sored its first ever HPA Night at AstrosBallpark this past baseball season.

HPA looks forward to providing futurefirst-class services to the membership, theHouston community and the mental healthfield. HPA’s ability to provide these servicesis only made possible by the dedication andenthusiasm of its members. ✯

HPA HappeningsPatrick Ellis, PhD, President

For TPA

Membership

Information

visit

www.texaspsyc.org


TPA Tracking Legislation for YouDavid White, CAE, Executive Director

Have you ever wondered how lobbyistsstay abreast of all the proposed legis-

lation that is introduced during a legislativesession? Did you know thatthere are over 5,500 billsintroduced every session andduring the current sessionthere could easily be over6,000 bills introduced. Well,as part of your membership,we, the TPA staff and lead-ership, monitor all of thesebills to determine if they willaffect you as a psychologistin any manner.

I would like to give you abrief overview of how we goabout monitoring bills onyour behalf. But before I do,let me first state that the besttracking mechanism we haveis YOU. That is right, if youhear, or read, of certain legis-lation that is being proposedthat has a direct impact onthe profession call me imme-diately! I can research thatparticular bill and add it tomy tracking system.

There are two main leg-islative tracking services inAustin that many of the lob-byists use to monitor bills.Both of them are WEBbased and work in the samemanner but have different‘bells and whistles’ for thesearches and tracking.

In short, all proposedbills and amendments aredownloaded into a data-base. At that point, you can search on thetext of the bills for key words or phrases.This will locate all bills that have a matchon your words.

In the service that TPA staff utilizes, thelocation of the bill that was found as amatch will appear with the bill caption

upon a successful search. You then candetermine if the bill is important, and if itis, can easily read all the text of the bill. Thesystem then gives you a plethora of infor-

mation on the author, financial notes on thebill, amendments, and where the bill is inthe process getting passed into law.

You can go to the state’sWEB site and do your ownsearches on bill. Go to the fol-lowing site: http://www. capi-tol.state.tx.us and follow theprompts to do your search.This site is free and will giveyou the full text of all billsthat have been introduced.

My primary responsibili-ty during the session is tomonitor, educate, andinform the Board and mem-bership on what bills arebeing filed and the progressthat is being made.Therefore, I will be writinga weekly update that will beposted on our WEB site giv-ing you the latest on TPA’slegislative activities.

Only members will beable to access this page sincethis will be password pro-tected. You will go tohttp://www.texaspsyc.organd log into the “govern-ment relations” page. Yourpassword will be the same asthe username/passwordcombination you use to login to the member portalarea of the site.

The 78th Legislature willbe a busy session and manymajor decisions will bemade that will affect youand your families. Take part

in the legislative process...come to TPA’sLegislative Day on February 25th. Checkhttp:///www.texaspsyc.org for all the detailsor call (512) 280-4099.


I would like to welcome our new PSY-PAC Board Members, Cheryl Hall, Ph. D. and Lane Ogden, Ph. D.Drs. Hall and Ogden will serve through 2005. PSY-PAC’s other Board Members are Tom Lowry, Ph. D.,Tim Branaman, Ph. D. and James Quinn, Ph. D. Dr. Lowry will serve through 2003 and Drs. Branamanand Quinn will serve through 2004.

2003 will be an exciting legislative yearfor TPA and PSY-PAC. It is anticipated

that both the House and Senate will intro-duce a prescription authority bill this ses-sion. Other important matters are: protect-ing psychology as a doctoral level profes-sion, a more collaborative and integratedhealth care delivery system and our contin-ued preparation for Sunset Review in 2005.This committee has been renamed theSunrise Committee emphasizing that wewill be successful in protecting andstrengthening our practice act. This com-mittee has worked hard and has done atremendous job in preparation.

There are four very important ways inwhich you can support the legislative effortsof TPA. First, it is important to become aregular and active contributor to PSY-PAC.I encourage all psychologists to make a

$100.00 minimum yearly contribution. Dr.Ron Cohorn, Past President of PSY-PAC,stated at our annual conference that in 2002approximately 17 individuals provided 80%of PSY-PAC contributions. Psychologistshistorically have given less to their respectivePACs than any other profession, and it willtake a concerted effort by all of us to changeour image. In a future article, I will providea chart comparing the national contributionlevels of the different professions.

Second, our Legislative Day will beTuesday, February 25th in Austin at theCapitol Marriott. Our goal is to have 100psychologists be present, so mark that dateon your calendar and plan to be there.Several local area societies are planning onchartering a bus for their members.

Third, get to personally know your leg-islators. Many local area societies invite leg-

islators to their meetings. This is a great wayto meet them, find out what their interestsare and how you can support them and forthem to find out what is important to you.TPA is in the process of accumulating a listof legislators that psychologists know. Thisinformation is very helpful in our legislativeefforts and you can forward the informationto TPA or to me.

Fourth, be a grassroots advocate for areasof interest that are important to you and toour profession.

It is an honor to be your PSY-PACPresident. Do not hesitate to contact me formore information. The PSY-PAC BoardMembers are listed on TPA’s Web Page foryour convenience.

J. Paul Burney, PhDPresident PSY-PAC

Report from the National Commission on Mental Health

Deanna Yates, PhD, President

In April, the final report from the President’s New FreedomCommission on Mental Health is due to be sent to the President.

So where is the Commission in their deliberations right now?Reports to the full Commission have been made by several subcom-mittees, including: the subcommittees on Rural Health, Evidence-based Practices, and Interface Between Mental Health and GeneralMedicine to name just a few. Many of the subcommittees are stillworking on their reports to the full Commission. What have thesubcommittees reported? Some subcommittees have asked for broadsweeping changes in the system, while others have more specific rec-ommendations focusing on a few issues. Specifics of the reports areincluded in the minutes of the meetings and posted to the websiteat www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.

There is still much work to be done in the subcommittees as well asby the full Commission. Some issues, like workforce shortages, whichcut across all subcommittees, have not been dealt with as yet. While

access to care is clearly an issue being dealt with by the Rural subcom-mittee, it is a much larger issue affecting the country. For example, ithas been reported that 80 percent of children in need of mental healthservices in this country are not receiving services. This is an issue notonly with respect to insufficient providers, but also in schools wheremany services are provided (or not provided), in the prevention of sui-cide among youth, and in Medicare/Medicaid funding. If those 80 per-cent did begin receiving services, where would the money come from?This example points out how intertwined many of the issues are.

What will the final report look like? What will be the findings ofthe Commission? Will the recommendations be heard and actedupon? These questions will need to wait to be answered. In the finalanalysis, there are no simple answers. President Bush will have animmense job on his hands if we are going to change the face of themental health delivery system in this country. Like you, I look for-ward to the results. ✯

PSY-PAC


$4000Steven Schneider, PhD

$3000Paul Burney, PhD

$2000Walter Bordages, PhD

Ron Cohorn, PhD

James B. Quinn, PhD

$1000 - $1999Tim Branaman, PhD

King Buchanan, PhD

Patricia Driskill, PhD

Mark Foster, PhD

Richard Fulbright, PhD

Cheryl L. Hall, PhD

Ethel W. Hetrick, PhD

C. Alan Hopewell, PhD

Angela Ladogana, PhD

Elizabeth L. Richeson, PhD

Kevin G. Smith, PhD

Jarvis A. Wright, Jr., PhD

Mimi Wright, PhD

Deanna Yates, PhD

$500 - $999Morton L. Katz, PhD

Lane Ogden, PhD

Mark Rider

Thomas A. Van Hoose, PhD

$100 - $499Ramona Aarsvold, PhD

Laurence Abrams, PhD

Kyle Babick, PhD

Barbara Beckham, PhD

Peggy Bradley, PhD

James Bray, PhD

Ray H. Brown, PhD

Sam Buser, PhD

Betty Cartmell, PhD

Sean Connolly, PhD

Donna Copeland, PhD

Jim Cox, PhD

Maria Concepcion Cruz, PhD

Walter Cubberly, PhD

Caryl Dalton, PhD

Michael Duffy, PhD, ABPP

Wayne Ehrisman, PhD

Patrick J. Ellis, PhD

Ronald Garber, PhD

Humberto S. Gonzalez, PhD

Jerry R. Grammer, PhD

Andrew Griffin, PhD

Charles A. Haskovec, PhD

Sophia K. Havasy, PhD

A.S. Helge, PhD

Sheila Jenkins, PhD

Kevin Jones, PhD

Joseph Kenneally, MS

Kenneth Kopel, PhD

Nancy A. Leslie, PhD

Marcia Lindsey, PsyD

William Lucker, PhD

Ann Matt Maddrey, PhD

Joseph McCoy, PhD

Charles McDonald, PhD

Richard M. McGraw, PhD

Robert McPherson, PhD

Charles B. Middleton, PhD

Leon Morris, EdD

Lee L. Morrison, PhD

Suzanne Mouton-Odum, PhD

Michael C. Pelfrey, PhD

J. Randall Price, PhD

Shelley Probber, PsyD

John Pinkerman, PhD

Lynn Rehm, PhD

Shannon E. Scott, PhD

Robbie N. Sharp, PhD

Jana Swart, PhD

David S. Wachtel, PhD

Richard L. Wall, PhD

John W. Worsham, Jr., PhD

Under $100Barbara Abrams, EdD

Bruce Amos

Carolyn Anderson, PhD

Ruth Baer, PhD

Elizabeth Barry, PhD

Connie Benfield, PhD

M. Lee Berryman-Tedman,

PhD

Ronald Boney, PhD

Robert Braun, PhD

Glenn Bricken, PsyD

Barry Bullard, PsyD

Jane Carr, MA

Leslie Crossman, PhD

C. Munro Cullum, PhD

Sally Davis, PhD

Jessica Del Rio

Caren Cooper Dillard, PhD

Alan B. Frol, PhD

Sylvia Gearing, PhD

Steven G. Gray, PhD

Dennis Grill, PhD

Linda M. Ingraham, PhD

Harry F. Klinefelter, III, PhD

Karen Krause, PhD

Rebecca LeBlanc, PhD

Victor E. Loos, PhD

Sam Marullo, PhD

Glen McClure, PhD

Muriel Meicler, PhD

Robert W. Mims, PhD

Dorothy C. Pettigrew, PsyD

Janet Bond Rexroad, EdD

Allison L. Sallee, MA, LMFT

Ollie Seay, PhD

Robert M. Setty, PhD

Debbi S. Wagner-Johnson, BA

B. R. Walker, PhD

Colleen A. Walter, PhD

Patricia D. Weger, PhD

Mark J. Wernick, PhD

Deborah Whitehead Gleaves,

PhD

Alison Wilson, PhD

Connie S. Wilson, PhD

Eirene Wong-Liang, PhD

Margot B. Zuelzer, PhD

PSY-PAC

2002 PSY-PAC Contributors (January 1, 2002 – December 31, 2002)

Paul Burney, PhD, PSY-PAC President

Thank you for your year 2002 contribution(s) to PSY-PAC, the Texas Psychological Association’s Political Action Committee. As a sup-porter of PSY-PAC, you are among the special group of individuals who make the sacrifice to protect and enhance the practice of psycholo-gy in Texas. Thanks to your donation(s), psychology is still a doctoral level profession and we have initiated the process of obtaining pre-scription privileges. However, PSY-PAC is not limited to these issues. Our lobbyist and Central Office staff are constantly monitoring all leg-islation and responding appropriately. Without your contribution(s), psychologists would have no voice in the Texas political process.

Please make a personal commitment to contribute regularly to PSY-PAC. Again, thank you for your support. You are appreciated.


NEW MEMBERS

Doctoral MembersLaura Avila, PhD

Steven Bailley, PhDJames Besyner, PhD, ABPP

Brock Boekhout, PhDStephanie Carrera, PhD

Kim Copeland, PhDCecily Cornelius-White, PsyD

Joy Crabtree, PsyDJeffrey Dersh, PhD

Michelle A. Emick, PhDSarah Haley, PhD

Robin Hilsabeck, PhDTommie Hughes, PhDJennifer Imming, PhDPatricia Kaminski, PhD

Michael Karcher, EdD, PhDElizabeth Katz, PhDJoel Marcus, PsyD

JoAnn McMillan, PhDAngela Morrissette, PhDMargaret P. Norris, PhD

George S. Park, PhDRalph Payne, PhDGreg Pina, PhD

Sandra Prince-Embury, PhDJudy Rambur, PsyD

Laurie Robinson, PsyDJosue’ Romero, PhD

Bonnie Rudolph, PhDRose Signorello, PhDRandy J. Smith, PhD

Jill Squyres, PhDVictoria Van Wie, PhD

Alisha Wagner, PhDCarol Walser, PhD

Curtis E. Wills, PhDJames R. Womack, PhD

AssociateApril Brown, MS

Vidal Guevara, MACarla Hilland, MS

StudentAshley Barnes, PhD

Brian BattenJ. Alison Bess

Shannon BoltAndrea Brose, MAClaudia Burns, BAJeannette CalzadaSheri Collinsworth

Jeff CooperDaniel Davila, II

Shelley DryAlia Fons, MEd

Janine Gauthier, PhDJulie Gibson

Vickie Goins, MADeltina Hay

Rebecca Jackson, MSShaunda Johnson, MEd

Beryl KaminskyManisha Kapadia, PhDShannon Kershaw, MEdKristie Kirkpatrick, MA

Eileen Lopez, MSLanita Martin, MEd

Mary May, MSDonna McCurley, MS

Cynthia McMahon, MSAndrew Miller, MSNaomi Moller, MA

Brandy MooreKathleen Murphy, MA

Stella Nelms, MALizette Ojeda

Amanda Parsons, BACynthia Denise Porter, MEd,

LPCBernard Ramsey, MA

Saori RiveraDavid RunyonLaDonna Saxon

Jennifer Snyder, MEdSabera Sobhan, MA

Don SpurgeonMichelle Steinley-Bumgarner

Ellen TunnellAdam J. VaughnAlba VillanuevaVeronica Villela

Jamie Wilson, BSMichael Worsley

The following individuals joined TPA between September 27,

2002 and January 28, 2003. TPA welcomes all of our new

members.

BECOME A

CERTIFIEDANGER

RESOLUTIONTHERAPIST™

CART™ TWO DAY CERTIFICATION

Register online or by mail, fax, or phone* Early registration due in our office ONE Week before training

• Newton’s book AngerBusting 101: New ABCsfor Angry Men and TheWomen Who Love Them.

• A three ring binder withextensive materials.

• A one hour audio tape, Stop Anger.

• A framed CERTIFIED ANGER RESOLUTIONTHERAPIST™ certificate.

• A free 45-minute follow up phone conference with Newton to use as a businessconsultation or as a case supervision.

Facilitator - Founding Master Trainer NEWTON HIGHTOWER, LMSW-ACP, AAC, CART™

DALLAS, TXMay 9 - 10

HOUSTON, TXJune 12 - 13

The Center for Anger Resolution, Inc.2524 Nottingham Houston, Tx 77005

1-877-NO ANGER Fax: 713-526-4342

[email protected] www.angerbusters.com

REGISTRATION FEESEarly* Regular

Single Registrant $429 $479

2-4 Registrants $389 $429

5 or more $349 each $389 each

SANTA MONICA, CAMarch 7 - 8

CART™ Training Includes:


Please use this letter as a guide to writeyour legislator(s) if you support the psychol-ogists’ prescriptive authority movement.

January 21, 2003

The Honorable xxxxxxxxxxxTexas House of RepresentativesP.O. Box 2910Austin, Texas 78768

Dear Representative xxxxxxxx:I am writing to express my support for

House Bill xxx by Representative xxxx,relating to the prescriptive authority of cer-tain psychologists.

This bill would allow qualified doctorallevel psychologists the authority to pre-scribe psychotropic medications to theirpatients. As a practicing psychologist, Ihave seen an increasing need for greateraccess to medication for mental health care

patients because of a shortage of qualifiedmental health care providers. Having prop-erly trained psychologists prescribing med-ication would help to alleviate this problem.The training would be extensive and rigor-ous, ensuring only the best and most quali-fied psychologists would be certified to pre-scribe. I sincerely believe this is one solu-tion to the shortage of mental health careproviders that would allow for greater costcontainment and more continuity of carefor mental health care patients.

I appreciate your consideration of thisvery important legislation. Please do nothesitate to contact me if you would like todiscuss this issue further.

Sincerely,Dee F. Yates, PhDPresidentTexas Psychological Association

SAMPLE LETTER

@Does TPA have your e-mail address?If not, you could be missing out on

important announcements about

upcoming CE opportunities and

numerous other important updates.

If you have not been receiving

announcements from us via e-mail,

then we don’t have your current

address. To have your e-mail address

added, send your updated address to

[email protected].

E-mail Updates


PSYCHOLOGISTS needed P/T (weekdays – at least 6-8 hours per

week) to do assessment and treatment in nursing homes. We

have 400 contracted facilities in Texas we serve, throughout the

state. Visit our web site: www.vericare.com. Please send your

C.V./resume to Vericare (Formerly Senior Psych Services): E-Mail:

[email protected], FAX: (800) 503-3842, PHONE: (800)

508-5151.

Part-time office space available on Houston’s west side.

Located on fifth floor of beautiful atrium building. Also, psycholo-

gist interested in purchasing used, but current, psychological

tests,

WAIS-III, WMS-III, Booklet Categories. Call Nicholas Edd, PsyD,

713-647-8822.

Psychologists Wanted: Red Oak Psychiatry Associates, PA, is a

large successful, multidisciplinary private practice that includes

MD’s, PhD’s, Master’s Level Therapists and RN’s in the

Northwest Houston area. We are looking for full-time, licensed

psychologists who can perform testing as well as therapy. For

more information please call 281-893-4111 ext. 157 or fax your

resume to the attention of Kalea at 281-893-8082.

STAFF PSYCHOLOGIST NEEDED. The Callier Center for

Communication Disorders is a nationally recognized research,

diagnostic and treatment facility that has been part of the

University of Texas at Dallas since 1975. We seek a full-time

PHD level clinical psychologist to join the multidisciplinary clinical

staff serving individuals with communication impairments. The

psychologist will work with speech-language pathologists, audiolo-

gists and educators serving individuals with mental health con-

cerns and co-existing communication disorders related to devel-

opmental delay, hearing impairment, language disorder, autistic

spectrum disorder and/or brain injury. Patients range in age

from 6 months - elderly.

Minimum Professional Qualifications include a PhD or PsyD in

Clinical Psychology from an APA approved training program and a

Texas Psychology License. Necessary experience includes

administration of nonverbal IQ tests, diagnosis of PDD,

mood/anxiety disorders, etc in early childhood, skill in use of

parent guidance and coaching, crisis management with suicide

and child abuse. Prefer ABPP in Neuropsychology, Texas LSSP,

Fluency in Spanish and/or Sign Language may be eligible for a

one-time hiring bonus. Contact Dr. Teresa Nezworski, Search

Committee Chair at 214-905-3040 or [email protected].

CLASSIFIEDS

ADVERTISERS INDEX

American Professional Agency inside front cover

Association for Advanced Trainingin Behavioral Sciences Back Cover

CE-credit.com 7

Hazeldon c/o Strategic Innovations 23

HIPPA 11

Professional EDU 26

ProfessionalCharges.com 7

Psyquel 21

Quit Smart 31

Remuda Ranch inside back cover

Rockport Insurance Associates 5

Senior Connections, Inc. 31

Stens Corporation 6

Therapist Helper 19

Documents

Spring 2003 Texas Psychologist