Hi, John. Thanks for your interesting observations / questions. While
I am not currently on the IACP Standards Committee, I am one of its
former chairs and was a principle author of the Standards to which
you refer. Let me emphasize that this is my own response and opinion,
not that of the IACP or the Standards Committee. Since I also count
myself among those who trained you and many others in Collaborative
Divorce, I thought that I should at least respond to your comments.
Preliminarily, note that these are Minimum Standards for
Collaborative Practitioners and Minimum Standards for a Collaborative
Basic Training [emphasis added]. They were not intended to be, nor
are they, aspirational guidelines. When Janis Pritchard, of Medicine
Hat, AB, and I co-chaired the Standards Committee, we were committed
to preparing aspirational guidelines. This does not appear to be a
priority for the current Standards Committee, and I hope that the
projected is resurrected at some time. Additional and continuing
training would certainly be among aspirational guidelines.
From an historical perspective, the only "Basic" trainings available
in 2002 and 2003, when the Standards were drafted, were one and two
day programs. I would estimate that, at that time, probably a third
to a half of the basic trainings were only one day long. It was the
view of those on the Standards Committee that 12 hours constituted
the minimum acceptable duration of basic trainings.
Today, I believe that part of the coming of age of Collaborative
Practice is reflected in its far broader use in dispute resolution.
As it is more widely known, the problems and concerns of the
disputants have become more complex and the need for greater
sophistication and additional training for the professionals has
become increasingly evident. I continue to believe that the Standards
are acceptable as minimum standards. I believe that a 12 hour
training can adequately prepare legal professionals to represent
clients in a relatively straight-forward case. [As we all know,
experience is the best teacher, and people have to start somewhere.]
I defer to my mental health and financial colleagues for their views
with respect to what is currently adequate for their respective
disciplines. I also believe that any conscientious practitioner will
hone skills with further training and education.
I also believe that to really be prepared to work in a full team
[mental health professionals, financial specialists, and legal
professionals] environment, a practitioner needs skills training
unique to that person's discipline PLUS training with respect to
working with teams in a co-equal, mutually respectful manner. Team
work is not something that just happens. It is the second paradigm
shift for each discipline, and it requires training and time at a
training for practice. I believe that just the team part of a basic
training requires ten plus hours.
Your invitation to Collaborative Practice trainers to comment makes
the point that "people who go to trainings assume that that prepared
them to do collaborative cases." To me, that poses another topic of
equal import: clear communication by the trainers of what is being
offered and, perhaps even more important, a commitment by the person
seeking training to understand what the trainer is offering. I am
going to continue comments on that assertion in a separate post.
Anyway, enough of my ranting. What do others think?
George Richardson
At 11:48 AM -0400 10/3/07, John Crouch 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
