Ray West's View on the Name Change
Since we are near the time when voting on the ATRA name change will begin, I want to offer some final thoughts I have in support of the motion to change the name of the organization to the American Recreational Therapy Association (ARTA).
While I very much appreciate all of the thoughtful and heartfelt comments so many have posted, it seems the focus of comments has moved towards our personal opinions and loyalties and away from what is the best "business" decision regarding the name of the organization in the market place of health care and human services and facts that support this decision. Our beliefs and loyalties are very important and they drive much of what we do, but if we vote on whether to support or not support changing the name of the organization based mostly on the discourse among those who have posted to the ATRA Members’ Forum or based primarily upon our personal opinions or loyalties we risk making a mistake with a very important decision for the future of this organization and its voice as a national professional organization. In other words we run the risk of making a decision based upon personal beliefs or loyalties or talking among professional colleagues that may be inconsistent with our marketplace and employers. The results can be devastating to the organization and the profession it represents.
Several have commented on the desire to have “one voice for the profession”. Since 1966 we have had the National Therapeutic Recreation Society (NTRS) to represent the interests of “therapeutic recreation” and it looks like some form of this organization will be around for some time in the future to represent “TR”. ATRA was founded to represent the needs of recreational therapists in health care and human service agencies that could not be adequately represented by NTRS and it has done well with the resources it has available. Consider where recreational therapy might be today if we didn’t have ATRA for the past 25 years. The role and value of two national organizations representing “therapeutic recreation” has been debated the entire history of ATRA. Many joint efforts between the organizations to have “one voice for the profession” on particular issues of mutual concern have met with very limited success. It is time to change the name of ATRA to ARTA so the name is consistent with the purpose, mission, vision, values, definition and resource priorities of the organization. Having two national “TR” organizations is unnecessary, redundant and confusing. If ATRA became ARTA it would reduce confusion by having only one organization representing TR, NTRS. ARTA would represent RT as ATRA does today. ARTA and NTRS could still work together on issues of mutual interest to attempt to present “one voice for TR”, when that is in the best interests of the organizations. With ARTA we would have a name for the organization that is not only consistent with the current focus, priorities and resource allocations of ATRA, but also consistent with all stakeholders (including health care policy makers) use of the term ‘recreational therapy.’
In the 25 year history of ATRA we have seen the numbers of members grow when the organization was new and then decline, we have seen the numbers of those certified by NCTRC grow and then decline, we have seen the numbers of those employed as recreational therapists, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, and the number of recreational therapists employed in hospitals steadily decline over the past thirty years. During this time, we have also witnessed the numbers of other allied health disciplines grow to meet increased demand for their services. We have also witnessed the financial health of their professional organizations, which has not only sustained the organizations in challenging times, but also advanced their interests in the marketplace and with employers and other stakeholders. Can we afford to allow this professional decline of recreational therapy to continue?
It can be debated whether changing the name to ARTA will affect the numbers of members or the financial health of the organization or the organizations’ ability to support and advance the interests of recreational therapists in health care and human service agencies, but, are our personal opinions, personal preferences or loyalties for the term recreational therapy or therapeutic recreation, our dream of ‘one profession’ or the desire to maintain the status quo going to continue to limit the opportunity to explore change that may very well improve the organization and the support for members and the profession? Can we afford the risk of not trying something different to improve the national organization representing recreational therapists in health care and human service agencies? Can we afford the risk associated with continuing to do the same thing over and over while expecting different results that we have not seen in the entire history of NTRS and ATRA? Can we continue to allow personal opinions and loyalties to limit us from making a “business” decision that may enable us to better reach our potential to help more patients and consumers? What do we really risk by changing the name to ARTA and trying a different approach to advance the recreational therapy profession? Maybe we risk our future, by not changing to ARTA.
I am voting for ARTA with the hope of an improved future for recreational therapists in health care and human service settings.
Ray West, ATRA Past-President and Disguished Fellow
While I very much appreciate all of the thoughtful and heartfelt comments so many have posted, it seems the focus of comments has moved towards our personal opinions and loyalties and away from what is the best "business" decision regarding the name of the organization in the market place of health care and human services and facts that support this decision. Our beliefs and loyalties are very important and they drive much of what we do, but if we vote on whether to support or not support changing the name of the organization based mostly on the discourse among those who have posted to the ATRA Members’ Forum or based primarily upon our personal opinions or loyalties we risk making a mistake with a very important decision for the future of this organization and its voice as a national professional organization. In other words we run the risk of making a decision based upon personal beliefs or loyalties or talking among professional colleagues that may be inconsistent with our marketplace and employers. The results can be devastating to the organization and the profession it represents.
Several have commented on the desire to have “one voice for the profession”. Since 1966 we have had the National Therapeutic Recreation Society (NTRS) to represent the interests of “therapeutic recreation” and it looks like some form of this organization will be around for some time in the future to represent “TR”. ATRA was founded to represent the needs of recreational therapists in health care and human service agencies that could not be adequately represented by NTRS and it has done well with the resources it has available. Consider where recreational therapy might be today if we didn’t have ATRA for the past 25 years. The role and value of two national organizations representing “therapeutic recreation” has been debated the entire history of ATRA. Many joint efforts between the organizations to have “one voice for the profession” on particular issues of mutual concern have met with very limited success. It is time to change the name of ATRA to ARTA so the name is consistent with the purpose, mission, vision, values, definition and resource priorities of the organization. Having two national “TR” organizations is unnecessary, redundant and confusing. If ATRA became ARTA it would reduce confusion by having only one organization representing TR, NTRS. ARTA would represent RT as ATRA does today. ARTA and NTRS could still work together on issues of mutual interest to attempt to present “one voice for TR”, when that is in the best interests of the organizations. With ARTA we would have a name for the organization that is not only consistent with the current focus, priorities and resource allocations of ATRA, but also consistent with all stakeholders (including health care policy makers) use of the term ‘recreational therapy.’
In the 25 year history of ATRA we have seen the numbers of members grow when the organization was new and then decline, we have seen the numbers of those certified by NCTRC grow and then decline, we have seen the numbers of those employed as recreational therapists, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, and the number of recreational therapists employed in hospitals steadily decline over the past thirty years. During this time, we have also witnessed the numbers of other allied health disciplines grow to meet increased demand for their services. We have also witnessed the financial health of their professional organizations, which has not only sustained the organizations in challenging times, but also advanced their interests in the marketplace and with employers and other stakeholders. Can we afford to allow this professional decline of recreational therapy to continue?
It can be debated whether changing the name to ARTA will affect the numbers of members or the financial health of the organization or the organizations’ ability to support and advance the interests of recreational therapists in health care and human service agencies, but, are our personal opinions, personal preferences or loyalties for the term recreational therapy or therapeutic recreation, our dream of ‘one profession’ or the desire to maintain the status quo going to continue to limit the opportunity to explore change that may very well improve the organization and the support for members and the profession? Can we afford the risk of not trying something different to improve the national organization representing recreational therapists in health care and human service agencies? Can we afford the risk associated with continuing to do the same thing over and over while expecting different results that we have not seen in the entire history of NTRS and ATRA? Can we continue to allow personal opinions and loyalties to limit us from making a “business” decision that may enable us to better reach our potential to help more patients and consumers? What do we really risk by changing the name to ARTA and trying a different approach to advance the recreational therapy profession? Maybe we risk our future, by not changing to ARTA.
I am voting for ARTA with the hope of an improved future for recreational therapists in health care and human service settings.
Ray West, ATRA Past-President and Disguished Fellow
posted by Hoosier RT | 4:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home