Mid-level Career Development Roundtable

Facilitator:  Jodi K. Caldwell, Ph.D., Georgia Southern University

Six people, including representatives from several different universities, attended this roundtable.  The first topic of discussion was defining “Mid-level.” The category of “New Professional” seemed to span a short period of time (less than the 10 years previously considered). Therefore, some attendants had 5 years experience, while others had more than 15 years experience.

Lack of advancement opportunities within the Counseling Center world were discussed.  It was noted that the main route for advancement was to move into an administrative position. However, not everyone has interest in administration.  Therefore, in order to advance, the professional must leave counseling center work for private practice, etc. 

The need for professional mentoring was noted.  Several attendants expressed a desire to have more mentoring available from directors.  Also, a desire for formalized training in managerial skills, budgeting skills, etc. was noted.  Although Counseling Center administrators are often drawn from Counseling Center professionals, there does not seem to be widely accessible training to obtain the necessary business/management skills for successful directorship or administration.

Brainstorming took place for ways that professionals could maintain their vitality and excitement despite limited upward mobility.  Suggestions included rotating coordinator positions, balancing training responsibilities with opportunities for self-growth, and creating job exchanges (i.e., switch places with a colleague at another university for a prescribed length of time). Another suggestion was pushing for faculty status, which might allow for professionals to apply for sabbaticals in order to obtain in depth training, to focus on research, etc.  Faculty status might also provide for more of a growth ladder. One attendee noted that he was currently on a sabbatical, which had allowed him to “clear his head” professionally.  As a result of time away from the center, he had developed new programming ideas, and his passion and interest in counseling center work had been revitalized.  Prior to the sabattical he had felt burnt out, but he believed that at the end of his sabbatical he would be able to return to his center enthusiastic about the new role he would hold. 

Participants discussed suggestions for CCAPS for the upcoming year.  These suggestions included having workshops targeted to mid-level professionals who are considering transitioning to assistant director or director positions, holding a forum for professionals to give feedback to directors as a group, expanding the current mentoring program to include advanced mentors for mid-level folks, and having a panel discussion on counseling center life with panel members representing different developmental stages.

New Professionals Roundtable

Facilitators: Jocelyn Buhain, Ph.D., University of North Carolina Wilmington; Joy Lane, Ph.D., Morgan State University; and Thomas Berry, Ph.D., Utah State University

The roundtable had 3 co-facilitators and 3 participants. The participants were a social work graduate student, a pre-doctoral psychology intern, and a new professional. Issues addressed during the informal group discussion included job search strategies and interviewing tips.   The roundtable also included discussion about the various ways in which counseling centers incorporate professionals from different fields and the strengths of multidisciplinary approaches.

Outreach Roundtable

Facilitators: Stacey Moore, Ph.D., John Carroll University and Thomas Berry, Ph.D., Utah State University

At the outreach roundtable, we discussed several major themes including the following: innovative outreach approaches, proactive vs. reactive outreach, outreach philosophies, staff participation in outreach, programming in different areas of campus, use of the web and other technologies, and successful marketing strategies. 

Strategies that really seemed to work included doing more large scale outreach (e.g., campus wide awareness weeks) vs. a single program (e.g., in the residence halls), getting  faculty members to offer extra credit for outreach attendance, and making use of passive programming ideas (e.g., awareness building bulleting boards, door hangers, toilet tribune).  Other helpful ideas included advocating for outreach to be at an equal level to clinical services in terms of emphasis and ensuring that the outreach coordinator is in an administrative position.  Participants also discussed ways to increase staff participation, such as having outreach teams and honoring each staff members' personality, strengths and weaknesses.

Another area of discussion was the development of undergraduate peer educator programs and the integration of undergraduate peers into the center's outreach efforts.  The use of undergraduate peers provides both face validity for persuasive messages and a valuable training experience to undergrads interested in pursuing graduate school.

Self-Care Roundtable

Facilitator: Phyllis Weatherly, M.Ed., L.P.C., Southern Polytechnic State University

In addition to the facilitator, 2 participants showed up for the self-care roundtable, but 1 had to leave shortly after arrival. Although good discussion occurred, the facilitator suggested providing a few highlights from handouts as a summary:

 “There is a saying that those most ready to offer help to others are often the most resistant to accepting it themselves.”  (Rollins, J. (2005). Campaign for Counselor Wellness, Counseling Today)

Counselors often fail to observe the basic guidelines for personal health and wellness, though they will encourage their clients to.

Approximately 10% of counselors are impaired at any given time (i.e., 5000 members of ACA are impaired at any given time) – Taskforce formed 1991

Therapeutic impairment occurs when there is a significant negative impact on a counselor’s professional functioning which compromises client care or poses the potential for harm to the client.

The goal is to focus on prevention, that is, lessening the percentage of impaired counselors.

Small College Roundtable

Facilitator: Mary Beth Javorek, Ph.D., John Carroll University

Mental Health professionals and Student Affairs administrators from 6 different small colleges attended the roundtable discussion.  Each participant shared information about the types of counseling services provided on their home campus and specific challenges that arise in this setting.  The group identified several issues related to small staff size that can be potentially problematic, including limited availability for handling after hour emergencies or outreach, the lack of collegial consultation, and a tendency to feel isolated from other counseling professionals.  Participants also agreed that the lack of psychiatric services on small campuses is a growing concern, and financial limitations require finding creative alternatives to meet student needs.

Some of the creative ideas that were presented included establishing collaborative relationships with psychiatrists and mental health professionals in the local community to provide services for referred students at a discounted rate, having the college provide health insurance for every student to access private services, and establishing partnerships with psychiatric residency programs at local hospitals.  Several centers are expanding their use of web-based mental health resources to supplement the services offered on campus.  The group also discussed the importance of being connected to professional organizations, such as CCAPS, to reduce the sense of isolation and to keep up with current trends in the field. 

Suicide Assessment, Prevention and Intervention Roundtable

Facilitator: Sherry Lynch Conrad, Ph.D., LPC, Virginia Tech

Attendees to this roundtable included Counseling Center personnel, a person from Residence Life, and a student in our session.  The discussion probably took a little bit different twist than if it had been all Counseling Center personnel.

A key idea introduced by Counseling staff and Residence Life staff was the need to collaborate with Residence Life and hospital personnel before situations with suicidal students arise.  Both Counseling and Residence Life staff reported incidents of students being allowed to return to campus without being involved in the development of the continuity of care plan for this student.  Counseling centers are sometimes contacted by the student who expects to be seen quickly in order to comply with the agreed upon plan developed at the hospital; however, counseling centers are not always able to easily accommodate the student and often have no information from the hospital about the reason the student was referred.  Residence Life staff also expressed concern because they are not sure if the student is ready to be back in the residence hall and may not know when the student is being released from the hospital.  Concern was expressed that students may not need to be in the hospital according to hospital standards; however, the student may also not be ready to assume the independence afforded by the residence hall environment.

Another focus was the competing interests of the administrative/judicial branches of the campus and the wellness/therapeutic branches. Residence Life has more control of the student’s situation from an administrative/judicial perspective; however, this is not always in the best interest of the student. Counselors want to address the student’s situation from a therapeutic perspective, which may be more helpful in the long-term, but does not necessarily address the short-term concern of the Residence Life staff who may be concerned about the student’s safety on a daily basis.

In summary, the main theme of our discussion was the need for collaboration between all involved parties.  Everyone wants the student to be safe and successful in the college environment without causing a disruption that interferes with other students’ opportunity to learn as well.  As counselors, if we collaborate with both Residence Life and local hospitals before these situations arise and try to develop agreements for how suicidal student situations will be addressed, we can hopefully reduce the anxiety of everyone involved and also provide the best continuity of care for the student.

Training Roundtable

Facilitator: Jodi Caldwell, Ph.D. Georgia Southern University

The roundtable had 6 attendees from domestic universities and Takano University in Japan.  Several themes were discussed and a great deal of time was spent answering questions from the Takano participants, who hoped to be able to return to Japan with enough knowledge to be able to start the first Counseling Center and training program located in Japan. 

Themes included defining the role of the training program on the university campus, the need for professional connections and mentoring for universities which have a masters training program but not a doctoral internship, and related questions about whether ACCTA  could be open to these masters program training directors.  Administrative problems, such as finding stipend funds for interns and Human Resources problems with classifying interns and handling benefits issues, were also discussed. Another theme was balancing the growth of professional staff (e.g., being able to look at clinical issues on an increasingly deep level) with providing developmentally appropriate training (e.g., starting over each year with a new group of beginners).  Participants also discussed the differences between training clinical vs. counseling graduate students, with the former group having greater strength in  assessment and treatment planning and the latter having greater strength in relationship skills and micro-skills as well as a tendency to build caseloads faster.

Pros and Cons of having a training program were reviewed.  Pros included having more clinical hours available for clients, being a revitalizing experience for staff, helping develop a reputation for the counseling center, increasing collaboration, and the provision of supervision possibly making psychologists better therapists.  Cons included the use of staff time and the drain from problematic trainees due to the need for extra supervision and the emotional toll on staff.

Components of training programs were discussed.  For example, some sites have practicum students do all outreach for the center; other sites do not have trainees do any.  Some sites provide training in outreach programming for trainees.  A question was posed about how to encourage clinical students, who have no interest in outreach work, to participate in outreach programming.  Differences in practicum placements were discussed, e.g., placements ranged from 10 to 20 hours per week, and sites screened practicum students in various ways: grades, interviews, resume of past experience, or submission of videotaped role-play.

Participants discussed how counseling center administration justifies the use of staff time for training.  Rationale included an increase in collaboration with academic affairs, an increase in the visibility of the counseling center, providing supervision opportunities for staff who are interested, increasing the availability of outreach programming, and (for those with internships) an increase in the visibility of the university.