Committee Goals and Progress Report for State Affairs Committee
GOAL 1: To monitor state and provincial jurisdiction’s laws and regulations that impact I/O psychologists and work to make these laws and regulations more appropriate and user friendly for I/P psychologists.
We have committee members assigned to monitor US and Canadian jurisdictions and monitor changes or potential changes in licensure on an ongoing basis. These data are summarized on a summary spreadsheet. I have passed this list on to the new SAC co-chairs
In terms of specific state issue that could have major impact on I-O psychologists, the California Governor has recommended the merger of the California Board of Psychology with the Social Work and Marriage and Family Therapy boards to create a large “mental health” board. This is part of a series of mergers of boards that is supposed to save money. This same merger was proposed a couple of years ago but was stopped by a strong lobbying group of psychologists. I wrote a draft letter that Gary sent to Governor Schwartenager that objected to be part of a mental health board. We made the point that psychology included more than mental health. This effort was successful as it was not included in the budget plan as was planned. Unfortunately, it is likely that this may come up again. I am closely monitoring this and co-operating with the California Psychological Association and their lobbiest. .
I have been asked to be part of two panel presentation at the upcoming ASPPB Board meeting in Boston (April 23-26) One will deal with the challenges of I-O psychologists who attempt to be licensed. The second is on the new APA Model Act for Licensure and Certification. Although this second panel deals with the entire act, I will focus on the areas that most impact I-O psychologists.
GOAL 2: To increase awareness of the Psychologically Healthy Workplace Award in our membership
Announcements in TIP and on our website have been used to increase awareness among our members about the award and to urge their participation.
I worked with the PHWA committee in California to refine the selection of California nominees. This included creating a rating sheet for site visitors, a revised protocol, and a list of “helpful hints” for the visitors. These were successful in standardizing and improving the site visit training and visits. These tools will be made available to other states for next year. ng.
Anna Erickson, our liaison to PHWA, has been active in providing guidance and support for this program at the national level. We have suggested ways that SIOP members could be more involved in the PHWA process. In particular, SIOP members often have skills in organizational surveys, organizaitional assessment and evaluation and other areas that would be helpful for the award.
To answer questions of members regarding licensure and regulations and assist them in dealing with boards of psychology
The chair (and others as appropriate) continues to be available as resources by email and phone to members who have questions about licensure. We get 3 to 4 queries per month.
To develop a simple guide for students to increase awareness about licensure issues
We have developed a short draft pamphlet (see appended). This could be printed or made available on our website with a title such as “An I-O student’s guide to licensure” We have found that many students have no information about issues they might face in licensure or have (even worse) wrong information. Faculty are seldom well informed about these issues so we believe that such a guide is needed.
To keep SIOP aware of issues regarding the President’s Task force for the revision of the APA Model Act for licensure and to assure that the I-O voice is heard in these discussions.
We had hoped to have a “mini-summit” of SIOP leaders in order to discuss the issue of licensure in depth. Unfortunately, this did not occur. We did, however, obtain input from a number of academics and practitioners that was used to develop a second draft of the MLA in December. This input was very helpful. The second draft has gone out for 90 days of public comment the first week of March. It would be useful for SIOP make a formal response to the document. I recommend that the new State Affairs co-chairs be actively involved in this response. The goal is to have the ACT to APA Council in fall 2010 for their approval.