January 2014

The Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice (CAPP) was pleased to award and distribute $480,000 in grants to 41 SPTAs in 2014. These grant funds are exclusively derived from the membership dues paid by licensed psychologists to the APA Practice Organization. The grants were awarded to help defray expenses in the areas listed below.

2014 Awards

Alaska
(Organizational Development): The AK-PA utilized its grant funds to cover lobbyist fees as well as a little less than half of the part-time Executive Director’s salary.

Arkansas
(Organizational Development): The ArPA used its organizational development grant to help fund its part-time Executive Director and related expenses. The grant enabled the central office to maintain outreach and CE projects, as well as provide support to the Board of Directors and its committees and task forces. The organization was also able to hold several special events, including a 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. 

Canada
CPAP utilized its CAPP grant funding in order to develop and implement several initiatives, including the Mind Your Mental Health Campaign. The funds also went towards supporting the salary of a part-time manager.

Colorado
(Legislative): As one of the few remaining states without mandated continuing professional development credits, the CPA used its legislative grant funding in order to support passage of HB15-1067 -- a bill to require such credits of psychologists in Colorado. The entirety of the grant went towards paying the association’s contract with The Capstone Group. Their efforts were successful; the bill was signed into law by the governor on April 8, 2015, and went into effect August 8, 2015. 

Connecticut
(Emergency): The CPA utilized its emergency grant to help fund printing costs associated with the amicus brief filed in support of an appeal regarding the decision in a Connecticut eyewitness identification case. The remaining funds were allocated to the establishment of a CPA emergency fund to be used for unexpected costs related to similar advocacy initiatives. 

District of Columbia
(Organizational Development): The organizational development grant funding allowed the DCPA to accomplish an increase in membership and membership involvement; to enhance accessibility of the DCPA website; and to increase the activity of its committees. The funds also enabled the association to hire a lobbyist to fight a new law that prohibits DC providers from billing for services rendered to Medicaid clients. 

Delaware
(Organizational Development): The DPA received an organizational development grant in order to subsidize the cost of a part-time executive director provided through an independent contractor. Without the grant, DPA would not have been able to provide needed administrative support for its advocacy, membership, and continuing education programs. 

Florida
(Legislative): The FPA used its legislative grant funding for lobbying services to fight the refiling of a bill by the Florida Association of Behavior Analysts for independent licensure. After successful lobbying efforts by both FPA members and their lobbyist, the bill died in committee. 

Georgia
(Legislative): The GPA used its legislative grant funding in order to cover direct expenditures related to HB395, a bill to explicitly define “psychological testing” in state law which would delineate the boundary between psychologists’ and master’s-level mental health professionals’ scopes of practice. In particular, the grant helped fund lobbying services and intra-organizational communication necessary to generate a grassroots movement among members. 

Idaho
(Organizational Development): The IPA received a $13,000 organizational development grant. Of those funds, $4,000 went to basic advocacy and lobbying efforts and $9,000 went towards the executive director’s salary; all office equipment and related maintenance/replacement, office space; as well as storage for the association’s files and supplies. 

Idaho
(Legislative): The IPA received a $40,000 legislative grant to promote their prescriptive authority initiative. Of the funding, $8,000 went towards lobbying services to introduce and promote the RxP bill. An additional $14,775 went towards the legal fees of David Leroy, the state’s former Attorney General and Lieutenant Governor for his extensive work on the bill. The remaining funds went towards executive director support, a legislative reception, additional lobbying efforts, and various costs related to office administration. A total of $35,344 was spent directly on the RxP initiative and $15,032 still remain in the fund. 

Illinois
(Legislative): The IPA utilized its legislative grant funding to ensure passage – and later, implementation – of its RxP initiative. 

Indiana
(Organizational Development): The IPA received an organizational development grant in order to support the Executive Director’s salary, as well as the retainer of a lobbyist. Additionally, the funds were able to help subsidize the cost of a CE Program Administrator, which enabled the association to more effectively advertise their CE offerings as well as provide staff for CE events.

Kansas
(Organizational Development): The KPA utilized its grant funding to help offset staffing costs, including the retention of a lobbyist. 

Kentucky
(Legislative): The legislative grant the KPA received provided for the retention of its long time lobbyist for an additional year of consultation and advocacy. The funds also provided support for increased advocacy training, the preparation of advocacy materials, and support for increased travel and communication among KPA leadership and Advocacy Committee members. 

Louisiana
(Organizational Development): The LPA used its organizational development grant to send out a database-wide mailing to licensed psychologists inviting them to renew their membership or join the LPA. A portion of the grant funding was used to revamp the LPA website, as well as host the annual conference.

Louisiana
(Legislative): The LPA utilized its legislative grant funding to pay a lobbyist’s retainer. The lobbyist worked with the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Hospitals to agree on policy language that would enable Louisiana public schools to accept licensed psychologists’ diagnosis of ADHD for special education classification.  

Maine
(Organizational Development): The MePA used grant funds to rehire its previous lobbying firm as well as to subsidize a portion of the Executive Director’s salary. It also used the grant to reinvigorate its Early Career Psychologists Committee, in particular pushing to have postdoctoral fellows reimbursed for services by MaineCare in an attempt to retain the state’s new, young psychologists. 

Minnesota
(Legislative): The MnPA utilized its legislative grant funding to achieve a number of initiatives, including the addition of psychologists in new Medicaid payment models as well as a Medicaid rate increase for outpatient mental health services. The MnPA also worked to ensure that psychologists were included as healthcare professionals who are able to be certified to lead and direct Behavioral Health Homes. 

Mississippi
(Organizational Development): The MPA utilized its organizational development grant to offset nearly 42% of the Executive Director’s contract payment.

Missouri
(Legislative): The MOPA used this grant for funding a lobbyist to encourage passage of the Health and Behavior Codes as well as to prevent the expansion of managed care. Lobbying efforts were successful in passage of a bill that will place a psychologist on the Mental Health Commission, which guides the Department of Mental Health. 

Missouri
(Organizational Development): The MOPA used its organizational development grant to provide for the Executive Director’s salary as well as other forms of administrative support in addition to streamlining MOPA operations. Additional support was given to MOPA’s special committees, including a Diversity Committee, which helped to organize mental health assistance in the Ferguson area following the death of Michael Brown. 

Montana
(Organizational Development): As a very small SPTA, the MPA used its organizational development grand to support overall operational costs, including the employment of a part-time Executive Director.

Nebraska
(Organizational Development): The NPA utilized CAPP grant funding to support the salary of its Executive Director. It also used the funds to digitize its operations, which helped to increase the number of new, retained members by 133% in 2014. 

Nevada
(Organizational Development): As a small SPTA, the NPA utilized its grant funding to provide for the vital support of its central office operations, including the salary of its Executive Director and the retainer of the in-house lobbyist. 

New Hampshire
(Organizational Development): As a very small SPTA, the NHPA used its organizational grant funding to maintain office operations and increase financial stability. 

New Hampshire
(Legislative): The NHPA plans to utilize its legislative grant funding to modernize existing continuity of care regulations in New Hampshire. As of September 21st, it had not yet accessed these funds. 

New Jersey
(Emergency): The NJPA used its emergency grant for lobbyist services that allowed the organization to combat the influence of a website specifically created by the state psychiatric association to attack a prescriptive authority bill (www.protectnjpatients.com). The funds were used to create materials focusing on the severe issue of access and the shortage of psychiatrists as well as a successful 20-year history of psychologists’ prescribing; leadership in both parties have referenced the materials in voicing their opposition to the bill.

New Mexico
(Organizational Development): The NMPA utilized its organizational development grant to assist in helping fund the salary of the executive director as well as a one-day-a-week financial secretary. This allowed the association to shift its focus from staff survival to generating more income and greater membership. 

North Carolina
(Legislative): The NCPA utilized its legislative grant funding to hire a second lobbyist to assist with several challenges faced in the 2015 legislative session, in particular a bill regarding autism insurance coverage.  

North Dakota
(Organizational Development): As a very small SPTA, NDPA utilized its organizational development/ongoing subsidy funding to maintain its central office for another year. The organization has been monitoring several interim legislative committees’ work, in particular the Human Services Committee, which has been charged with studying the behavioral health needs of North Dakotans in the new reality of the oil boom and the influx of new residents. 

Oklahoma
(Organizational Development): The OPA used its organizational development grant to hire an Association Management professional to address its staffing needs, which included providing an Interim Executive Director as well as a CPA to manage OPA’s financial affairs. The funds were also used for various administrative and organizational upgrades to take OPA into the 21st century.

Rhode Island
(Organizational Development): As a very small SPTA, the RIPA utilized its grant funding to maintain critical office operations. The association also used the grant to fund a lobbyist to fight Article 19 in the Governor’s Budget Proposal; the article would have placed all non-prescribing providers under an omnibus board that lacked representation from psychologists. Lobbying efforts were successful and Article 19 was not included in the final budget. 

South Carolina
(Organizational Development): The SCPA utilized its grant funding to support a number of expenses related to organizational development, including: membership expansion and retention efforts; website enhancement and development; supporting the salary of the Executive Director; providing for continuing education programs; as well as, for the first time in many years, hiring a lobbyist to monitor legislation impacting psychologists in South Carolina.

South Dakota
(Organizational Development): As a very small SPTA, the SDPA used its grand funding to provide for central office operations, which they administered through an association management firm. The funds also went to a number of other initiatives including educational/networking opportunities, newsletter publication, membership development and lobbying services. 

Vermont
(Legislative): The VPA received a legislative grant in order to lobby state policymakers regarding Vermont’s health care reform bill. Their two major areas of success were 1) an increase in Medicaid reimbursement for independent mental health and substance abuse treatment professionals and 2) aiding the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation in defining mental health as primary care. 

Vermont
(Organizational Development): The VPA received an organizational development grant to subsidize part of the cost of meeting a base salary for a full-time Executive Director position. 

West Virginia
(Organizational Development): The WVPA used its organizational development grant to maintain the executive director’s salary. In addition, the funds also helped support the association’s in-house lobbyist. This allowed the organization to be successful in passing a bill that will require two hours of continuing education regarding the mental health issues of veterans. 

Wyoming
(Organizational Development): The WPA utilized its organizational grant funds to partially support the Executive Director’s salary. The funds were also used to support travel, lodging, and related expenses so that a WPA member could lobby state government officials. 

Wyoming
(Legislative): The WPA utilized its legislative grant to further support lobbying expenses. Additionally, the funds provided the necessary support so that WPA members could attend the Wyoming Coalition for Medicaid Solution meetings prior the 2016 legislative session.