Guest Post by Aaron New: More Citation Problems at the American Association of Christian Counselors

“I started looking because I was curious.  I kept looking because I was suspicious.  I continue looking because I am incredulous.”  I wrote these words over a month ago in the middle of discovering significant number of problems in the writings of Tim Clinton.  But they are still true today – I continue to look and I am still incredulous.

Warren and I have been documenting citation problems in the writing of Tim Clinton and the American Association of Christian Counselors.  My Twitter thread grew long enough, it became nearly impossible to follow without being threaded into a single page.

I refuse to believe this is an unimportant topic.  And so, despite a tepid response initially from many readers, I haven’t let it go.  In fact, I began to wonder if I needed to broaden my search.  Questions began nagging me.  If Dr. Clinton is setting this kind of example, who is following?  Is this a common practice among other leaders (both formal and informal) in the AACC?  Is what I have found reflective of a broader culture within the AACC?  I didn’t like the questions, but I decided they needed answers.  What I have found so far has been disappointing and Warren has been gracious enough to give me space to share some of my discoveries.

Enter Eric Scalise

Eric Scalise has long been involved in the AACC.  For many years, he was the Vice President for Professional Development.  A quick glance at his LinkedIn profile suggests he was heavily involved in leading the AACC.  After that and for some time until very recently, he was the Senior Vice President of the AACC.  His LinkedIn profile does not describe his duties during that time, but it is reasonable to assume they were leadership responsibilities equal to or greater than before.

Since Dr. Scalise appeared to be Dr. Clinton’s right-hand man for many years, I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised by what I found in some of his writings.  But I was.

In Christian Counseling Today (vol.17, no.1), Eric Scalise and Tim Clinton co-authored an article, “Manifesting Christ: The High Call of Every Christian Counselor.” (click the link for a large picture; a pdf is here.)

The material in yellow shows up word for word (or nearly so) in one article by Eric Scalise here (below highlighted in yellow). And the material in orange shows up word for word (or nearly so) in another article by Eric Scalise here (below in orange circle). Unless I am mistaken, it seems the most likely possibilities are 1) Scalise used large sections of the original article without giving any credit to his co-author, Clinton.  Or, 2) The words in yellow and orange always belonged to Scalise, but Clinton’s name was added to the first article anyway.  Either way, there seems to be a problem of author attribution.

Late Insufficient Citation

Even more notable is an article in Christian Counseling Today (vol.20, no.3) by Eric Scalise, “The Neurobiology of Trauma and Traumatic Relationships.”  It was published in 2014. (A reprint of that article is still available on the AACC website.)  Here are some highlighted excerpts from that article:

While not always in the same order as in the source articles, the material in yellow comes from another source word for word (or nearly so), “Understanding Complex Trauma, Complex Reactions, and Treatment Approaches” by Christine Courtois.  It was published online in 2010. And all the material in pink comes from yet another source word for word (or nearly so), “Complex Trauma in Early Childhood” by Kim Cross.  It was archived online as early as 2008. Excerpts are below for comparison.

It is worth noting that Scalise does make a citation (#1) for a different Courtois source in his article.  I have two observations about that: (1) A significant amount of copied material shows up well before that citation.  (2) Scalise says the “observations are based on the work of Courtois.”  In reality, they are the observations of Courtois.  It appears that he or someone working for him copied the words of Courtois and added the words of Cross to them.

I have discovered other, perhaps less serious infractions (like where Scalise appears to co-opt the words of Jay Neugeboren).  But this is enough for me now to read all of Scalise’s writings with suspicion.

More to Come

In addition to Scalise, I’m on the trail of at least one other AACC insider..  If/when I can complete that research, perhaps Warren will allow me another post to provide an update.  And at some point, it may be also worth re-visiting the story of Les and Leslie Parrott using ResultSource to boost their book sales.

All of this has left me profoundly disappointed.  The AACC certainly is not the only show in town for Christian psychologists and counselors.  But the leaders, speakers, and authors affiliated with the AACC are well-known and influential.  I have a vested interest in the field of Christian counseling and I wish that these questions did not have to be raised concerning AACC. If AACC was an actual professional association where the member voted for leaders, then members could express themselves via election of new officers. However, since AACC is Tim Clinton’s business, the members have no ability to bring change.

As it stands, there is a path forward for those involved and I’m sure they know what it is.  Some semblance of an honest and contrite apology along with a promise and a plan to do better in the future would go a long way to restoring some trust.  Until then, I’m afraid AACC and by association Christian counseling will suffer from the appearance of untrustworthiness.

 

 

Does Plagiarism Matter to Christians?

Judging by reaction to recent plagiarism cases, I don’t think plagiarism matters much to most Christians.

Of late, professor Aaron New has brought forward multiple clear examples of plagiarism involving Tim Clinton and the American Association of Christian Counseling. I have published most of them on this blog. The response has been interest from the Christian Post but other than that, a resounding yawn. The AACC’s response has been to blame interns and employees and buy software to find plagiarism before they publish it. Tim Clinton’s other organization, James Dobson’s Family Talk has removed articles with plagiarized material but without comment or apology.

Two days ago, Publisher’s Weekly first reported a settlement between Christine Caine and Carey Scott in a plagiarism case. Caine took some of Scott’s work and used it in a recent book. While Caine’s publisher settled with Scott, Caine has remained silent, without comment or apology. She hasn’t explained how Scott’s material ended up verbatim in her book and promotional material (see my post where I demonstrate Caine’s copying). Outside of a few familiar voices on social media, there is little pressure on Caine to explain herself or take responsibility for her actions. Her publisher has not responded to multiple requests for comment. Silence is the strategy.

Yesterday, World magazine’s Mindy Belz examined the tepid apology offered by author Anne Voskamp for plagiarism on Twitter. The apology for one instance of plagiarism (now deleted) was buried in a blog post in such way that it could easily be missed. She hasn’t had much else to say about it. But why should she, very few people seem to care.

And let’s not forget Mark Driscoll who was responsible for citation errors in several books. In 2013, Janet Mefferd first accused Driscoll of borrowing concepts from Peter Jones without appropriate citation. From there, I discovered additional problems in several of his books. Although Driscoll didn’t acknowledge wrongdoing, one of Driscoll’s publishers quietly corrected most of the problems over the course of a year. Today, Driscoll is back with a new book from Charisma publishing.

What is the Solution?

For her article, Belz spoke with publishing industry insiders. She reported that one answer was better plagiarism detection software. My answer is to hold authors to a high standard. They should do their own work. Fewer books would be published but given the repetitive nature of many books published by Christian publishers, that would be a good thing.

I suspect that part of the reason plagiarism is a mild sin among Christian writers and publishers is that enforcing the rules would require Christian authors to write their own material. Thus, ghostwriters and researchers would be out of work. Pretend experts and Christian celebrities would have to develop actual skills and find something novel and interesting to say without the help of paid experts and researchers.

As illustrated by the above situations, publishers aren’t regularly accountable to the public, nor do they require authors to be accountable. Scott had to go to court to get justice. She couldn’t count on Caine and her Christian publisher to do the right thing. Now that the situation is public, Caine isn’t talking. Although I don’t know what is in mind, her silence gives the appearance that she hopes her popularity will get her through this rough patch.

What has surprised me is that lack of response from Christians on social media to these cases. Only a very few members of the American Association of Christian Counselors have called for AACC leaders to be accountable. Very few evangelicals have directly appealed to Clinton, Caine, or Voskamp to take responsibility for their actions. Given the social media reaction, I suspect Christian publishers are content to ride out the few emails and calls they are getting in advance of the next book release. If many Christian consumers cared, they would go to the social media accounts of these authors and ask for answers.

As the Caine case demonstrates, plagiarism is actionable. However, in Christian circles it doesn’t appear to matter as much as it does elsewhere. Plagiarism leads to job loss or sanctions in the news room (e.g., here, here, here) and academia (e.g., here, here). When I contacted the Colson Center about Tim Clinton’s near verbatim use of a Chuck Colson op-ed in one of his articles, their response was to say nothing and let it go.

In academia, we will continue to enforce high standards of plagiarism. However, it is jarring to realize that our students will enter a world where plagiarism matters less when they work in media organizations which promote Christianity than in places which do not identify as Christian.

 

Like this article and want to see more like it? Support this blog at Patreon.com.

[email-subscribers namefield=”NO” desc=”Subscribe to receive notification of new posts.” group=”Public”]

Image: Warren Throckmorton

What Does the American Association of Christian Counselors Foundation Do? Part Two

On September 24, I started a series of articles on the American Association of Christian Counselors Foundation. Specifically, I am examining what the foundation does. In that first article, I wrote that the AACCF exists to serve the American Association of Christian Counselors, the private business owned by Trump advisor and Family Talk Radio director Tim Clinton.  In this article, I compare the stated mission of the AACCF with the expenditures reported on the organization’s IRS 990 filings.

AACCF’s Mission

What the AACCF is supposed to do depends on the audience. To consumers, the AACCF funds programs which aren’t a priority “in a for-profit business model” which is what AACC is.

The AACC Foundation IS OUR NON-PROFIT WORLDWIDE RESOURCE that exists to encourage the development of Christian counseling worldwide through funding of various programs that are not priorities in a for-profit, business model, but are nonetheless crucial to the comprehensive development of a Christian counseling ministry.

What are those programs? Currently, the AACC website lists the Christian Care (referral) Network, the New Century Marriage Initiative, the International Association of Christian Counselors, and student scholarships to AACC conferences.

Elsewhere in the past, AACC included disaster relief in the list. A current website lists a suicide prevention program called Suicide Pair Initiative. I can’t find any evidence of any activity by AACC to put this into motion but AACC has been promoting it since late 2016.

In contrast, on the 990 forms submitted to the IRS, AACCF declares their mission:

In case that’s hard to read, here it is again:

To assist in providing a biblical, Christian ministry of the gospel, hope, encouragement and strength to as many people as possible by providing books, tapes and supplies to counselors who can benefit from this service.

To the public, the AACCF mission sounds charitable and benevolent. To the IRS, the main activity is more accurately disclosed as a vehicle for the sale of books, tapes and supplies. About 96% of AACCF’s revenues comes from sales of books and supplies; the rest comes from donors. About 98.5% of all revenues ends up going back to the AACC (Tim Clinton’s business) via various fees (employee rental, office rent, etc.). According to the 990 forms from 2002 through 2016, only 1.4% ($122,387) has gone to the charitable causes described on the AACC website.

AACCF’s Priorities

So what charitable purposes did AACCF help? There are so few I can list them by year.

2004   Conference scholarships –       $ 2,424

2005   International scholarships – $20,800
Hurricane relief- God Chasers –      $20,000
Mission Trip- Bev Iglesle                     $10,000

2010 – Tuza Project Seminary scholarships $16,427
Tuza travel expenses                                                $ 1,827

2011 – Johnson City TN (tornado relief)     $10,507
Charlottesville, VA (tornado relief)               $12,957

2012 – (Not listed – unknown)                              $ 142

2013 – Tuza Project – travel expenses $23,423

2014 – Tuza Project – travel expense    $ 3,880

In some years, the AACCF declared nothing on their 990 which matched up with any of the purposes listed on the AACC website (e.g., scholarships, marriage initiative, suicide prevention, international counseling associations, etc.). For instance, in 2016 the AACCF took in over $222,000 in contributions but didn’t show grants to any of the priorities listed on the AACC website. The funds went back to AACC via fees for services provided by AACC to AACCF. Of course, there is no bidding process for AACCF to get a good deal on these services. People donate money so that AACCF can spend those funds on services provided by AACC. At least, that’s the story told by the 990 in 2016.

There was one other expenditure listed as a grant in 2014. However, it was given to a for profit business belonging to Tim Clinton. I detailed this arrangement in my last post. Clinton’s men’s weekend adventure Wildfire Men’s Weekend lost money in 2014. Two donors gave $220,000 to the AACCF apparently with knowledge that the nonprofit would give those funds to Tim Clinton’s for profit business. The AACCF also took $10,000 of unrestricted funds to give to Clinton’s for profit business. Imagine the surprise of donors who thought they were helping international counselors get to a conference, or maybe pitching in for disaster relief. Instead, some of those funds went to the “for-profit business model” that the Foundation isn’t supposed to fund.

It is hard to take AACCF’s public mission statement seriously when the charitable giving goes to support the for-profit business. An examination of the 990 forms shows clearly where the priorities are.

Anyone can review AACCF’s 990s at ProPublica.

Professional Associations Should Be Accountable and Transparent

By most measures, the American Association of Christian Counselors appears to be successful. The AACC conferences feature big name Christian celebrities and, according to AACC owner Tim Clinton, often sell out. Although there is no way to verify it, promotional material boasts that the business has “nearly 50,000 members” (see Tim Clinton’s president letter on the About tab).

Mental health professionals and students familiar with other professional organizations might wonder why Tim Clinton has been the president of AACC since he took over in 1998. There are no past presidents, or a president elect as with other associations. This is because the AACC is Tim Clinton’s for profit business. Members don’t take part in governance of the organization, there is no governing board or council, and no member involvement in setting policy.

Disadvantages of the For Profit Model

Over the years, I have studied and been involved in professional associations. In the late 1990s, I was on the board of the American Mental Health Counselors Association as president elect, president and past president of the association. I have served on committees of the American Counseling Association, an umbrella group for several counseling associations. For awhile, I was on AACC’s do-nothing advisory board. From these observations, I can say that there are some advantages to member driven groups (ACA/AMHCA) over a private business model (AACC).

Transparency

An obvious advantage is that typical nonprofit associations* are more transparent than for profit private businesses. Members pay dues and can get access to financial records showing how their dues are spent. Tax exempt organizations file 990 financial disclosure forms with the IRS which are then made available to the public. Not so with the AACC. The AACC did spin off a nonprofit foundation which does report operations on IRS 990 forms and I have started a series analyzing that Foundation.  However, the AACC Foundation doesn’t collect membership fees. Members can guess but they don’t know how their dues are spent by AACC. They don’t know how much are spent on salaries, or member services or any important measure of organizational efficiency.

Accountability

Transparency serves accountability to members. In a member driven organization, members can raise concerns about how staff and officers spend money and make policy. They can have input into the budgeting process. If members don’t like what is happening they can voice their discontent directly to those who make the policies via processes spelled out in the by-laws.

In member driven organizations, officers are elected to represent members. These officers rotate and allow wide representation of interests. Clinton may create a board as a part of the illusion that the AACC is a professional organization, but it has no power. The members of the board of reference could vote to do something but if Clinton doesn’t agree, it doesn’t matter. In a real professional association, the members matter. Their voice carries weight via a vote for state officers, regional officers and national officers. In this way, the organization’s leaders are accountable to the members.

Another aspect of accountability is a functioning ethics process. AACC has a code of ethics. However, I know an individual who wanted to file a complaint but was routed to the public relations director instead of the ethics committee. In such cases, the sensitive matter of an ethics complaint should go to the ethics committee charged with handling such cases, not to a gate keeper. The members of the ethics committee were never identified.

Pushing Products or Providing Services?

AACC constantly pushes dubious products and certifications. Through AACC, you can become certified as a Professional Life Coach through the Board of Christian Life Coaching. Dina Jones is the executive director; she’s also the director of professional relations for AACC. There are four certifications one can achieve, each with a $199 application fee and a biennial $149 renewal fee. Of course, AACC has something called Light University which offers courses in life coaching which will help meet the requirements.

There are more. You can also be certified by the Board of Christian Professional and Pastoral Counselors, and the Board of Christian Crisis and Trauma Response. Just like the life coaching certification program, these boards all have levels of certification with high price tags and renewal fees.

The problem is that there is no assurance that these credentials mean anything to anybody. A license with a scope of practice for independent work in a state is what is needed to legally operate as a mental health provider. Health insurers don’t require any of these certifications. These certifications didn’t arise due to a need among professionals or clients; they came about because they generate income for AACC.

Nonprofit associations spend time working on member needs. Members are involved in meaningful ways developing policies and practices that respond to actual needs among the members. Different incentives operate in the for profit sector. Instead of responding to what members want, AACC has to sell members on the idea that these certificates are what they want.

What We Need

Christian mental health professionals have professional associations to join (e.g., APA, AMHCA, NASW, AAMFT). However, many also want to come together with a group of professionals of like belief for fellowship and reflection on our vocation. I am leaning toward Christian Association for Psychological Studies as a place for that.

For many students in graduate programs, it will take courage to ask hard questions about AACC. Some grad programs are affiliated with the organization. Some professors pad their resume with presentations at AACC conferences and are reluctant to speak out. Some leaders in AACC don’t like the situation but are likewise afraid to give up the benefits of being in a favored position.

The fear of speaking out that I continue to hear from psychology professors and students around the country highlights some of my concerns about AACC. Dissent in professional groups should not result in shunning. It clearly does in AACC world. I am rooting for the graduate students to do things differently.

 

*I realize there are differences between nonprofit and not-for-profit organizations but I am referring to all groups which are not in business to make a profit for the owner or shareholders.

 

Dear AACC – Maybe Someone Should Look at All Your Content

Courtesy of Aaron New, here is another attribution problem at AACC. This article “The Case for Faith: Celebrating Hope in Mental Health Care” posted by “Emily” with authorship attributed to Eric Scalise and Tim Clinton in January of this year is mostly lifted from a book by Siang-Yang Tan and Eric Scalise titled Lay Counseling: Equipping Christians for a Helping Ministry.

Here is just a little bit of the article. The words in italics are taken directly from Tan’s and Scalise’s book. Someone took the article, added a few sentences, put Clinton’s name on it and posted i.

Spirituality is mysterious, but real. It has offered countless millions a place of refuge, solace, comfort, hope and a deeper sense of purpose and meaning—especially in times of tragedy or crisis where grief and despair crouch at the doorstep of the soul seeking to rob a person of vitality and life. Although spirituality continues to be an evolving construct among the social sciences, thus far, the research literature generally affirms its profound and dynamic impact on mental health and mental health counseling. Why is it then—in a multicultural and postmodern society—that some practitioners and counselor educators continue to avoid or even disparage this potential client strength when it comes to treatment planning and desired therapeutic outcomes?

Some may remember that in the early days of mental health research, Freud referred to religion as nothing more than a mass neurosis. McMinn et al (2009) report that psychologists do not assess religious and spiritual issues in most cases and do not therefore include them in treatment plans. Thankfully, this important dimension of the human experience is not being completely ignored (Briggs & Rayle, 2005; Young et al, 2007). Dobmeier and Reiner (2012) note that the 2009 standards from the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and related Educational Programs (CACREP) specify some level of spiritualty integration in two of their core curriculum requirements. Religion and spirituality can no longer be simply viewed as an emotional or psychological “crutch,” but for the potential client strengths they consistently represent in the literature.

Now here is the relevant section of the Lay Counseling book.

If you read along in the article and the book, you will find that most of the article is taken from the book with minor alterations. There is a section on ethics codes from ACA and APA which I can’t find in the book. Nothing on the AACC website page says the article is excerpted from the Lay Counseling book.

In any case, here we have a case where Tim Clinton’s name appears on an article when there is no connection in the source document. I don’t know Dr. Tan, but have heard he is pretty nice fellow. Lay counseling has been Dr. Tan’s life work. My guess is he won’t do much about this but it is a pretty shabby way to treat a long time supporter.

PS – If you are reading this and have ever donated to the AACC Foundation, please contact me.