Attorney Articles | 2010 Demographic Survey

Articles by Legal Department Staff

The Legal Department articles are not intended to serve as legal advice and are offered for educational purposes only. The information provided should not be used as a substitute for independent legal advice and it is not intended to address every situation that could potentially arise. Please be aware that laws, regulations and technical standards change over time. As a result, it is important to verify and update any reference or information that is provided in the article.

2010 Demographic Survey

The Typical California MFT
2010 CAMFT Member Practice and Demographic Survey

Mary Riemersma, Executive Director
The Therapist
July/August 2010

CAMFT has completed the compilation of the data on the recent practice and demographic survey of clinical members. Approximately 4,200 surveys were mailed to a random sample of CAMFT’s clinical members. Six hundred sixty-eight responses were received, resulting in a representative 16 percent rate of return.

The executive summary of responses is being mailed to all who participated in the survey and who submitted a verifiable request to obtain the data. Additionally, anyone who participated in the survey may also request a complete copy of the results; however, most therapists should find that the executive summary of responses adequately addresses their questions and concerns.

Note the “boxed” information on page 33, which provides an overview, based upon the survey, of the typical MFT in California. Twenty-three percent of MFTs are in Los Angeles County. The percentage in LA County in 2008 was 26 percent, 2006 was 25 percent, 2004 was 25 percent, 22 percent in 2002, 25 percent in 1997, 26 percent in 1995, 27 percent in 1992 and 1990, and 33 percent in 1988. Other areas of the state with a large concentration of MFTs continue to be: East Bay (11 percent); Orange County (7 percent); the Counties of Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo (5.7 percent); Santa Clara County (6.6 percent); the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake, and Napa (8.7 percent); San Diego County (6.9 percent); San Francisco County (5.2 percent); and Inland Empire (4.3 percent).

The “typical” MFT is female. This survey indicates that 78 percent of those responding are female, compared with 78 percent in 2008, 78 percent in 2006, 79.8 percent in 2004, 75 percent in 2002, 72 percent in 2000, 74 percent in 1997, 72 percent in 1995 and 1992, 68 percent in 1990, and 70 percent in 1988. The variance is likely due to the numbers of persons who, by choice or neglect, do not respond to the survey. The average age of the typical therapist continues to rise, albeit modestly. This survey revealed that the average age is now 56.4 years, only slightly higher than the 55.7 years revealed in 2008, the 55.6 years revealed in 2006, compared to 54.6 in 2004, 53 in 2002, 52 in 2000, 51 in 1997, 49.5 in 1995, 47.5 in 1992, 46 in 1990, and 45.5 in 1988. It is interesting to note that only 3.6 percent of MFTs who responded to the survey are under the age of 35. In fact, there are a substantially greater number of therapists 65 and older (nearly 23 percent) than there are therapists under 35, which is likely not surprising since therapy is a profession that can be practiced well beyond normal retirement and many do not enter the profession until mid-life.

While the typical MFT is Caucasian, this survey indicates 11 percent of respondents indicate an ethnic origin other than Caucasian. This number compares with 11 percent in 2008, 10 percent in 2006, seven percent in 2004 and 2002, the 2000, 1997, and 1995 surveys reveal six percent, and the 1992 survey had slightly less than five percent of respondents whose ethnic origin is other than Caucasian. Nearly three percent are Latino, greater than one percent is African American, and nearly three percent are Asian/Pacific Islander. Nearly two percent of respondents indicate multiracial/multiethnic origin.

There has been a downward fluctuation from a number of years ago for MFTs with doctoral level degrees. The current survey reveals that approximately 14 percent of those responding to the question have doctoral level degrees. This compares with 12 percent in 2008, 15 percent in 2006, 18 percent in 2002, 21 percent in 2000, and 17.5 percent in 1997. Fifty-six percent of MFTs have, as their highest relevant degree, a degree granted in marriage, family and child counseling/marital and family therapy, compared with nearly 56 percent in 2008, 51 percent in 2004, 50 percent in 2002, 46 percent in 2000, and 42 percent in the 1997 survey. Approximately 34 percent have as their highest relevant degree, a degree in psychology, clinical psychology, or counseling psychology, which compares to 30 percent in 2008, 39 percent in 2006, 39 percent in 2004, 38 percent in 2002 and 41 percent in the 2000 survey. Nearly 80 percent of respondents indicated that they graduated from an accredited institution, compared to 80 percent in 2008, 71 percent in 2004, 73 percent in 2002, and 70 percent in the 2000 survey. Nearly 13 percent indicate they do not know whether or not their schools were accredited or approved. A little over three percent indicate that they are now pursuing another degree, which compares with four percent in the prior two surveys. Nearly four percent indicate that they are pursuing another license, which is up slightly from the prior survey.

The number of respondents who participated in both a written and an oral examination was 67 percent, which is down from 72 percent in the 2008 survey, 83 percent in 2006, 88 percent in the 2004 survey, and 85 percent in the 2000 survey. Less than one percent of respondents indicate they have taken no exam whatsoever. As an aside, 58 percent of respondents believe an oral exam is necessary or beneficial for the profession, as did 66 percent in 2008, 64 percent in the 2006 and the 2004 survey; while over 70 percent of respondents indicated an oral examination was necessary/beneficial for the profession in the 2002 survey. We presume this drop was spurred by the elimination of the oral examination. Approximately 37 percent of respondents indicate that they hold licenses or credentials other than MFT; these include, among others, in order of priority: teacher, pupil personnel services, minister, and nurse. Greater than 11 percent express an interest in acquiring a license as a professional counselor when it becomes available. Other credentials that are held that do not require a license, in order of priority, are: alcoholism and drug abuse counselors, biofeedback therapists, employee assistance professionals, sex therapists, and expressive arts therapists.

On average, MFTs are now acquiring only the minimum prescribed hours of continuing education (18 hours), consistent with the 18 hours per year requirement. This number compares to 20 hours in 2008, 22 hours per year in 2006, 20.5 per year in 2004, 18 per year in the 2002 and 2000 surveys, which was right on the MCE requirement. Eighteen hours shows a downward trend in continuing education from the early years and is also likely right on the MCE requirement because of the economy. While the number in the 1997 survey was below the number required for MCE each year (13 hours—clinicians likely waiting to take courses with the advent of mandatory continuing education), respondents indicated an average of 20 hours in the 1995 survey, 19 hours in the 1992 survey, 48 hours in the 1990 survey, and 51 hours in the 1988 survey. Mandatory continuing education requirements have had a limiting impact on professional development, e.g., many therapists do only what is required by law to complete.

Forty-one percent of the LMFTs responding to the survey indicate employment in the public sector, at least part time, within a position using their skills as marriage and family therapists. This number is up from the 2008 survey where the number was 40 percent, 31 percent in 2006, and close to the 2004 survey where the percentage was 38 percent. There has likely been both a decline and an upsurge in LMFTs working in the public sector. The decline is likely due to budgetary circumstances and the fact that there is a larger number of LMFTs who are working in the public sector than the survey indicates, but these persons have chosen to not be members of CAMFT and therefore were not surveyed; or they are members, but chose to not respond to the survey. At the same time, there has been increased utilization of LMFTs in general. Such settings include, among others, County Mental Health (the largest percentage), Educational Institutions, Employee Assistance Programs, Correctional Treatment Facilities, Child Protective Services, Family Court Services, County Probation, and Social Services. Services in the public sector include, in order of priority, counseling/ psychotherapy, case management, intakes/ referrals, supervision, administration, education, family counseling/reunification, community prevention/education, and social services.

Thirty-three percent indicated employment in the private sector on either a part-time or full-time basis. MFTs who work in the private sector, work in the following settings, among others, in order of priority: non-profit and charitable corporations, multidisciplinary groups, educational institutions, hospitals, outpatient clinics, managed care companies, and MFT professional corporations.

The typical therapist who works in the private sector, on average, spends slightly under 14 hours per week doing counseling/therapy. This number compares to slightly over 14 hours in the 2008 survey, 15.5 hours in the 2006 survey, 15 hours in the 2004 survey, 18 hours in the 2002 survey, 15 hours in the 2000 survey, 16.5 hours in the 1997 and 1995 surveys, 17 hours in the 1992 survey, 22 hours in the 1990 survey, and 21 hours in the 1988 survey. Obviously, a significant number of MFTs also work in settings other than private practice where they also see patients. For those who are employed in the public sector, such persons also perform an average of slightly under 14 hours per week of therapy/counseling.

The typical MFT spends five hours each week doing treatment planning, report writing, insurance billing, and maintaining progress notes. Fifty-three percent compared to 62 percent in 2008, 58 percent in the 2006 survey, 60 percent in the 2004 survey, 58 percent in the 2002 survey, and 65 percent in the 2000 survey, spend one to five hours per week doing treatment planning, report writing, insurance billing and maintaining progress notes; 26 percent spend six to ten hours per week compared to 20 percent in 2008, 22 percent in 2006, 23 percent in the 2004 survey, and 24 percent in the 2002 survey. Seventy-two percent of MFTs are involved in some professional activities each week not related to counseling or therapy, in addition to the work they do as therapists. These activities include such responsibilities as administration, consulting, providing education and training, writing, or public speaking. Sixty percent of respondents do no marketing or promotion of their services each week, while 32 percent engage in one to two hours each week of marketing and promoting their practices. Fifty-six percent do some volunteer or pro bono work each week. About 22 percent regularly get personal psychotherapy each month, while about 52 percent regularly get supervision/ consultation each month.

The average annual income (before taxes) from the practice of the profession, including work within both the private and public sector, was $52,886, compared with $55,890 in 2008, $54,718.50 in 2006, $50,431.42 in 2004, $51,964 in 2002, $46,954 in 2000, $44,753 in 1997, and $41,905 in 1995. Clearly, the recession is taking its toll. It is interesting to note that about 21 percent of MFTs have gross incomes from the practice of the profession of $80,000 or more, while 16 percent of the profession have incomes under $20,000. It is, of course, impossible to determine if the under $20,000 earners are by design or by happenstance. The higher incomes have grown since the prior survey as have the lower incomes.

Interestingly, when asked about change in the level of income from counseling or therapy in the last two years, approximately 24 percent indicate their practices have increased somewhat or significantly, approximately 29 percent indicate their practices have remained about the same, and about 40 percent indicate their practices have declined. These figures are significantly more negative than the prior survey. When asked about overhead, over 73 percent indicate overhead costs are under 30 percent, and nearly 48 percent say overhead is less than 20 percent.

Persons with doctoral degrees (Ph.D., Psy.D., Ed.D.) generally have higher annual incomes than do MFTs who have masters level degrees. Those with doctorates have an average annual income before taxes of $72,164.84, compared with $71,000 in the 2008 survey, $66,315.40 in 2006, $62,884.93 in 2004, $62,838.76 in 2002, $60,522 in 2000, $57,420 in 1997, and $53,824 in 1995; whereas those with masters degrees have an average annual income before taxes of $50,689, compared with $53,640 in the 2008 survey, $52,482.43 in 2006, $48,320.37 in 2004, $47,851.21 in 2002, $43,363 in 2000, $42,052 in 1997, and $38,040 in 1995. Similarly, men have higher incomes than do women, $66,282 for men and $51,174.65 for women. In 2008 the average was $64,047 for men and $52,891 for women. This disparity between men and women actually increased between the 2008 and 2010 survey, and had decreased between the 2006 and 2008 survey and the 2004 and the 2006 survey, however, the 2004 survey showed a widening disparity from the 2002 survey. And, as one might expect, those who have been licensed for a longer period of time have higher incomes and higher hourly fees than those who are more recently licensed.

The undiscounted usual and customary fee charged for an hour of individual psychotherapy/counseling performed by the typical MFT was $104.81, down from $106.70 in 2008, which was up from $96.30 in 2006, $93.95 in 2004, $86.79 in 2002, $78.16 in 2000, $73.31 in 1997, $76.31 in 1995, $72.85 in 1992, and $74 in 1990. On the other hand, the average actual fee charged for an hour of individual psychotherapy/ counseling performed, which includes discounted fees, was $85, down from $87.08 in 2008, up from $79.15 in 2006, $76.87 in 2004, $73.31 in 2002, $66 in 2000, $61 in 1997, and $60.88 in 1995. The lower hourly fees account for fees diminished due to managed care, sliding fee scales, patients’ lessened ability to pay, the economy, as well as other competitive and economic factors. Only about 17 percent of MFTs never use a sliding fee scale. Fifty-eight percent of MFTs offering a reduced fee or sliding scale have $50 or above as their lowest fee charged. Seventy-two percent of the lowest sliding fees used by MFTs are $40 or above. Thirty-seven percent of respondents indicated their lowest fee on the sliding scale is $60 or more. The average for the lowest sliding fee was $46.93 in 2010, $46.11 in 2008, $49.70 in 2006, $43.68 in 2004, $42.23 in 2002, $38.41 in 2000, $37.50 in 1997, $36.26 in 1995, and $33 in 1992. Those who use a sliding fee do so, in large part, based upon the client’s stated ability to pay (81 percent), with no verification of income.

Nearly 31 percent of respondents indicated that they are reimbursed by insurance or third party payers most of the time. Sixty percent, however, are reimbursed at least occasionally to most of the time. Fifteen percent of MFTs indicated that most third party payers do not request physician referrals. Additionally, about three percent of MFTs who bill for third party reimbursements get referrals from physicians and generally find the referrals easy to obtain. Slightly greater than four percent find them difficult to obtain. This number is near the same as the 2008 and 2004 surveys where three percent of MFTs found referrals from physicians difficult to obtain, which was identical to the 2002 survey.

In order of priority, MFTs in California indicate that the following are the theoretical orientations most often used (in order of priority): Cognitive, Systems, Psycho-dynamic, Eclectic, Humanistic/ Existential, Behavioral, Object Relations, Brief/Solution-Focused, and Play Therapy/ Sand Tray. MFTs also indicate that they regularly use the following methods or procedures in their treatment of patients (in order of priority): mental imagery, journaling, guided imagery, dream analysis, meditation, play/sand tray, bibliotherapy, creative arts therapy, EMDR, critical incident debriefing, and hypnosis.

In order of priority, MFTs work with the following client issues: depression; anxiety; couples/relationship issues; self-esteem/ personal growth; life transitions including divorce, remarriage, step-parenting, retirement, birth of a child; stress and posttraumatic stress; grief/loss/death/dying; children/adolescents/parenting; addictions/ co-dependency/ACA; families; child abuse; suicide/crisis; affective disorders; job satisfaction; domestic violence; personality disorders; cultural/social problems; and gay/ lesbian issues. These responses are quite consistent with the responses from prior surveys. In order of priority, patient referrals come to MFTs primarily from the following sources: patients/clients; colleagues; managed care companies; physicians; family, friends, and neighbors; EAPs; psychiatrists; Internet searches/therapist locators; schools; other professionals; advertising/marketing; community agencies; and courts/probation. Marketing efforts found to be most successful are: soliciting other professionals, public speaking, and the use of a website.

Nearly 70 percent of MFTs refer to psychiatrists, not primary care physicians, for medications; MFTs rarely refer to psychiatrists for medications and treatment. Slightly over five percent of MFTs have hospital privileges at one or more hospitals. This number is the same as the 2008 and 2006 survey, down from six percent in 2004, nine percent in 2002, 13 percent in 2000, 19 percent in 1997, and 25 percent in 1995. This decline is likely due to the scaling back by third party payers in authorizing and reimbursing for inpatient work, the diminishing number of hospitals devoted to psychiatric work, and standards that preclude the utilization of MFTs (based upon who is reimbursed by Medicare).

When questioned about what cultures are represented by those MFTs treat, 94 percent indicated they treat Caucasians. Other cultures regularly treated, in order of magnitude, include: Latinos (80 percent), African-Americans (61 percent), Asian/ Pacific Islanders (56 percent), multi-racial (51 percent), Middle Easterners (38 percent), and Native Americans (19 percent). These numbers of cross-cultural clients treated have slightly increased from the 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1997, and 1995 surveys. Eightynine percent of MFTs indicated that they have had sufficient training to work with culturally diverse patients, even though nearly 41 percent of this number indicated that their training in diversity was not part of their formal education. The perceived competence in working with culturally diverse clients has increased slightly, however.

Twenty-nine percent of MFTs indicate that they are accessible 24 hours per day; similarly nearly 13 percent indicate that they only take emergency calls after normal business hours. Thirty-seven percent indicate that they are only available during normal business hours, during certain specified hours, or that calls are diverted to a service after normal hours. About 89 percent of MFTs maintain a 24- hour or 48- hour cancellation policy, but most exercise discretion in enforcing the policy. Ninety-one percent of MFTs provide patients with a written disclosure statement, informed consent, or notice of privacy practices pursuant to HIPAA. This number is up from 88 percent in 2008 and 75 percent in 2006. In fact, 53 percent require such statements to be signed by the patient. Twenty-two percent of MFTs keep patient records for an indefinite period of time. Less than one percent of MFTs claim that they do not keep patient records, which is as low as in 2006 and lower than was indicated in the 2004, 2002, and 2000 surveys. The fact that some do not keep records is surprising in light of the legal requirement to do so.

Approximately 49 percent of MFTs are not affiliated with any PPO, HMO, EAP, or other managed care panel. Forty-one percent of those not affiliated do not affiliate because the therapist chooses to not participate in managed care; eight percent indicate that they do not affiliate because the panels are filled—up from six percent in 2008, seven percent in 2006, and five percent in 2004, seven percent in 2002, and down from 11 percent in the 2000 survey. Fifty-one percent indicate that they are on one or more panels. Twenty-five percent are affiliated with four or more panels. The key problems expressed in dealing with managed care companies include (in order of priority), the reduction in fees from what is normally charged, the burden of increased paperwork, limitations on treatment authorized, delays in reimbursement, managed care panels are filled, and confidentiality is compromised. Twenty-five percent of MFTs have experienced a decrease in income as a result of managed care, and at the same time, it has led to many (nearly 41 percent) accepting only clients who are willing to pay out-ofpocket.

The majority of therapists (nearly 81 percent) are paid at the time services are rendered; the number was 80 percent in 2008. Generally speaking, reimbursements are often delayed when treating victims of crimes. In about 36 percent of cases, claims are 120 or more days past due when paid. The majority of MFTs (91 percent) do not treat for Workers’ Compensation and 84 percent do not treat CHAMPUS/Tricare. Generally speaking, managed care companies pay MFTs within 60 days of billing and insurers (not managed care) likewise generally pay within 60 days of billing (89 percent of the time). The general feeling (81 percent) with regard to fees paid by managed care companies was that the fees are slightly to significantly lower than the therapists’ usual and customary fees. This percentage is nearly as significant as 2008 where 92 percent believed that the fees were slightly to significantly lower. In 2006, this statistic was 67 percent, and similar to the 2004 survey where 91 percent so responded. Thirty-two percent of those responding to the question indicate that the average number of treatment sessions authorized by managed care is six to ten sessions; about 13 percent indicate that the average number of treatment sessions authorized is five or fewer sessions; and 30 percent indicate 17 to 26 sessions. Thirtyfive percent of respondents believe that the number authorized is rarely sufficient. There was a mix of responses with regard to the reasonableness of managed care contracts, however, 41 percent indicated they are generally reasonable. Further, most therapists do not attempt to negotiate unreasonable managed care contracts. With regard to advocating on behalf of patients for continued treatment, most (95 percent) respondents do advocate on behalf of their patients when necessary. Only a handful of therapists (four percent) have filed complaints with the Department of Managed Health Care; and of the nominal number who have, 38 percent believed filing the complaint was worthwhile.

Approximately 10 percent of respondents indicate that passage of the “parity law” has opened new doors for employment. When asked about HIPAA, 61 percent of respondents indicate that they are covered entities, 23 percent indicate they are not covered entities, and four percent don’t know if they are covered entities pursuant to HIPAA. The number of MFTs who indicated that they “did not know” was 23 percent in the 2008 and 2006 survey. Interestingly, 12 percent comply with HIPAA even though they are not required to comply. Most MFTs carry professional liability insurance; only about three percent do not. Seventy-eight percent of MFTs are insured with the CAMFT endorsed program, CPH and Associates. Approximately 10 percent are insured through the American Professional Agency. About seven percent have insurance provided by their employers. Eighty-seven percent select a policy with coverage limits in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence/$3,000,000 aggregate, $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $5,000,000 aggregate, or $2,000,000 per occurrence/$4,000,000 aggregate.

It appears that the number of therapists who are willing to supervise interns and trainees continues to be flat. Approximately 74 percent of MFTs do not supervise interns or trainees. This number was 76 percent in 2008, 75 percent in the 2006 survey, 72 percent in the 2004 survey, and 76 percent in the 2002 survey. Approximately 12 percent of MFTs provide supervision for non-profit and charitable corporations, and six percent supervise interns in private practice. In 44 percent of the situations where interns and trainees are being supervised, no fees are charged to clients for the services of the interns or trainees. Approximately 19 percent of interns are paid based upon a percentage of the fees they generate, up from 15 percent in 2008, and 18 percent in the 2006 survey. Only 23 percent of interns make over $25 per hour for the hours worked, which was 18 percent in 2008 and 14 percent in the 2006 survey. This number compares with the most frequently charged fees for the interns’ or trainees’ services, when they are paid, which is somewhat equally spread between $21 to over $81 per patient session.

Most often, no third party is billed for the services provided by interns or trainees. Nearly 27 percent, however, indicate that third party payers are billed for interns’ services and that third party payers generally reimburse. In 43 percent of the cases where MFTs are providing supervision to interns and/or trainees, supervisors believe they would benefit from additional training in supervision. This percentage was 71 in 2008 and 44 percent in the 2006 survey. About 29 percent believe that they have had sufficient training to provide supervision, compared to 26 percent in 2008, 28 percent in 2006 and 34 percent in 2004.

The overwhelming majority of MFTs working in private practice do not hire any support staff (76 percent). Thirteen percent use a bookkeeping or billing service, and seven percent have a receptionist/secretary. These percentages are very similar to the 2008, 2006, and 2004 surveys. Seventy-one percent of MFTs utilize a computer in the practice of the profession. Computers are generally used for correspondence/word processing, billing/ bookkeeping/accounting, development of forms, and reports; for maintenance of patient records, electronic claims, marketing, faxing, scheduling, and treatment planning, among other things. Eighty percent of respondents are using the Internet for at least e-mail. Eight percent indicated they do not use the Internet. This number dropped from nine percent in 2008, which was 13 percent in the 2006 survey, and 18 percent in the 2004 survey. Approximately four percent of respondents indicate that they do some therapy/counseling over the Internet. Approximately 86 percent of MFTs are using fax machines, which is now beginning to diminish from prior years. Members also indicate they are using the Internet for other purposes including: 40 percent to be on an Internet directory, 33 percent have their own websites, 28 percent do research, 36 percent are on TherapistFinder, 14 percent market online, and 12 percent participate on a listserv, blog, or in a chatroom.

Thirty-nine percent of MFTs indicate they purchase their own health insurance coverage, 26 percent have coverage provided by employers, and 31 percent are covered under a spouse or significant other’s policy. Fifty percent indicate that they are NOT members of CAMFT chapters; and 35 percent, even though they are members, are not involved in chapters, leaving 15 percent actually involved in chapters. Seventy-six percent of those who choose to not be members of chapters give these reasons: “no time,” “no interest,” and “not worthwhile.” CAMFT membership records indicate that only 16 percent of CAMFT members are Chapter members, thus there is an apparent disparity between what members say and actually do. Seventeen percent of respondents indicate they are also members of AAMFT.

Nearly 52 percent of respondents indicate that they regularly read and save The Therapist as a reference. Over 80 percent of members believe they benefit greatly from CAMFT membership or believe CAMFT services are very good or at least adequate.

Nearly 80 percent of members are aware of TherapistFinder. The reasons given by members who are not on TherapistFinder are: 26 percent have full practices, 25 percent are not in private practice, 21 percent are not aware of TherapistFinder, and eight percent found it to be ineffective. For those who are on TherapistFinder, about 95 percent do not update their profile at all or do it only once each year. Ninetythree percent of those who are a part of TherapistFinder have received one to five patients as a result.

Forty-four percent of TherapistFinder participants would like to see advertising opportunities be made available.

When asked about what members believe is most needed to successfully market the profession in California, thirty-seven percent believe greater marketing and public relations efforts by CAMFT would be beneficial. Thirty-two percent believe that there needs to be more data to show the effectiveness of MFT services, and 26 percent believe the name of the profession should be changed. Therapists indicate that either patients understand what MFTs do (18 percent) or they understand when it is explained to them what MFTs do (64 percent). When asked what is most needed to benefit the profession, 54 percent believe inclusion in Medicare is necessary.

Other details and comparisons from this survey will be shared in future issues of The Therapist. The purpose of the survey, of course, is to provide more comprehensive, up-to-date data on the practice and demographics of the profession. We believe that the prior surveys were useful for members, the Association, and the profession, as we have sought to open new avenues for increased utilization of MFTs. These results will assist our future endeavors to expand the recognition and utilization of MFTs in the mental health care industry. As well, we hope that you find this data informative and useful as you compare where you are currently with others in your chosen profession. Finally, if you study the survey, you will note that there are MFTs who work in areas where it is often assumed that MFTs are not utilized. Thus, for those with determination and perseverance, it is possible to use some of this information to achieve positions, which may, on the surface, seem unattainable. We trust that you will put this information to work for you as well.

Anyone who did not participate in the survey may obtain a copy of the results for a fee of $40 for members or $80 for non-members, plus postage and handling. If you wish to purchase the written compilation of the results, send your written request with check or credit card information to CAMFT, 7901 Raytheon Road, San Diego, CA 92111, or fax with credit card information to 858-292-2666. Be sure to request “CAMFT Demographic Survey—2010.” It is also possible to get breakdowns of particular geographic areas for $75 per area. Additionally, if you are interested in a comparison of data that is part of this survey, but not included in the summary of responses, please call CAMFT for an estimate of charges to calculate the data—888-892- 2638.

Mary Riemersma, CAE, is CAMFT’s former Executive Director.