The standards have always been presented as "aspirational" rather than
"gatekeeper" standards. Meaning, IACP made a policy decision not to be
telling people that they could or could not take cases with less under their
belts than the standards specify as a minimum, while at the same time we
wanted to allow a way for practitioners who DO make this investment in skill
building to differentiate themselves to the public from those who have not.
I think (from memory, not having re-read recently) that the standards make
it clear that we think those standards make clear by their own terms that
they are the minimum that practitioners should have by way of training and
experience before they are ready to do adequate quality work with clients.
And equally clear, this is only the floor; these are truly minimum
standards of practice and we are looking to practice groups to require much
more by way of relevant continuing education and training and other
appropriate learning experiences (case conferencing, etc.) and
trust-building experiences (e.g. attendance at meetings) as well as
adherence to practice group protocols, in order to continue as a member in
good standing.
The statement that strikes you as somewhat circular refers to what sequence
of expectations re training practitioners must affirm they have satisfied in
order to be permitted to identify themselves on their personal pages on the
IACP website as having met IACP minimum standards. No one should be so
identifying themselves on the website unless they can affirm that they have
met all those minimum standards, not just the two-day basic training.
Without all those elements of the minimum standards in place, a
practitioner has not yet satisfied the minimum expectations of the
international community regarding training. Beyond that, it's caveat
emptor, but how can the emptor exercise a caveat unless the local community
emphasizes to the public the difference between practitioners who have, and
who have not, met these standards? Personally, I'd encourage practice
groups to make use of this expectation as both a carrot and a stick in terms
of public education/marketing, and in terms of membership (with appropriate
grandfather/grandmothering provisions and perhaps provisional membership for
those still working on satisfying minimum standards.).
Best, pht
On 10/3/07, John Crouch <divorce@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IACP Standards call for 15 hours of additional training, in
addition to the 12 hours of basic collaborative training and 30 hours
of mediation or similar training. The additional training can be
advanced mediation, communication skills, interest-based negotiation,
or more collaborative training (including the rest of your basic
training if it was 16 or 24 hours???).
Does anyone think that the 15 hrs. additional training, should be a
prerequisite to doing collaborative cases? And if it isn't, what are
the IACP Standards really for? Their own definition of what they are
for is basically circular: "The IACP sets the following basic
requirements for a professional to hold
herself/himself out as a Practitioner who satisfies IACP Standards
for Collaborative Practice in family related disputes."
I would especially like to know what the CP trainers out there
think, since people who go to trainings assume that that prepared
them to do collaborative cases.
--
John Crouch
Arlington, Virginia
703-528-6700
divorce@xxxxxxxxxxx <divorce%40patriot.net>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
