Article archive / February 2021
Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 2. Source pages: 2.
by Julie Nelson The psychology board is in need of our help. They have serious financial and organizational problems and are trying to fix these issues by passing new laws that create more regulations, more red tape, and more costs for psychologists.
Last week the board acknowledged that they will exhaust their financial reserves and be unable to pay their bills by 2022. The chair, Dr. Amy Henke, said the board must find ways to "raise revenues." It now seems clear that some part, maybe the largest part, of their motivation for putting forth new legislation is to help solve their financial problems.
They want to create a new, fee-based program for registering assistants, add new fees for miscellaneous services, start providing and selling continuing education, and raise psychologists’ licensing fees. While they’re at it – creating and lobbying for changes in the law which is not a good idea because it centralizes their power – they are also rewriting the scope of practice, expanding their own charter, giving more authority to the complaints subcommittee, changing the composition of the board, and exempting their investigations from Open Meetings Law, so reducing transparency.
It won't work. They are treating the symptoms. What is needed is a full analysis and reform of procedures and outcomes. Einstein said it like this: “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”
A piecemeal approach, using legislation as a change tool, is not the correct approach. The board has not located the correct problems to be solved. As Irv Lane is famous for saying, "They are enthusiastically running around solving the wrong problem."
Nor do any of these false remedies address the hidden issues that constantly plague Louisiana psychologists pulled into the compliant process. A prime example is that it now requires about $30,000 to defend yourself against a minor complaint that it Is ultimately dismissed. Recall that the base rate for disciplinary actions has remained stable over the years with an extremely low rate of two or three in 1000 psychologists. There are no increased dangers to the public, no one requires new regulations or restrictions. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to impact a base rate that low– –but who cares about psychological science?
The board is developing new procedures for the sole purpose of maintaining old procedures. Personnel and material are expanding and consume resources without a clear picture of how these changes result in better outcomes.
A comprehensive organizational diagnosis and reengineering effort is probably needed. As far as I can recall, no comprehensive reform has been done since the origin of the board, in the 1960s. Modern challenges call for modern organizational designs. A reengineering effort is long-overdue.
The good news is that the board’s problems could be solved effectively with the right evidence-based, organizational analysis and design methods, which would include innovations and truly effective solutions.
How many psychologists does it take to change a light-bulb? Only one but the light bulb really has to want to change.
In this case it's the reverse––How many light-bulbs do you need in order to change a psychologist?
[Julie Nelson is a licensed psychologist, journalist, consultant, and publisher of the Times. She also holds other positions in the community. However, her opinions here are those of her own, and do not represent any group or association. She and the Times receive no compensation other than paid advertising. Email her at drj@drjulienelson.com, ––she welcomes feedback.]
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.