his article is written in response to the controversy that is facing the field of therapeutic recreation in terms of professional identity. Who are we? Who do we serve? What are our professional values? Are we first and foremost recreation professionals, or do we more closely identify ourselves with medical clinicians as treatment professionals? The issue has manifested itself in some localities as a widening gap between those therapists who identify themselves with clinical treatment settings and those who serve the disabled in community-based or non-clinical programs.

As stated by Carol Ann Peterson in her book, Issues in Therapeutic Recreation (Sagamore, 1989), "From the beginning, it appears there has been a debate over the basic issue of whether therapeutic recreation is or should be therapy oriented or leisure oriented. It becomes apparent that our profession has an identity problem. Philosophical disagreement and indifference contribute to this identity crisis. What is felt to be needed is a decision by the profession to endorse, support and develop within one of the two basic orientations — therapy or leisure."

The emergence of the American Therapeutic Recreation Association (ATRA) in 1984 appeared to represent a splitting of therapeutic recreation professional organizations into two separate groups of professionals. The purpose of ATRA is to serve those professionals working in clinical settings in therapeutic recreation. ATRA's stated philosophy appears to represent the position that therapy is of primary importance.

The National Therapeutic Recreation Society's (NTRS) Philosophical Position Statement of 1982 described therapeutic recreation as a continuum of services including treatment, leisure education and recreation participation. All three are important aspects of service to the ill and disabled with no one service being more important than any other. All therapeutic recreation professionals, no matter what the setting, should have equal status and respect in the field.

It appears that the National Council for Therapeutic Recreation Certification (NCTRC) standards are also impacted by the different philosophical orientations. Internships must reflect the therapy orientation that includes assessment, planning and implementing program and/or treatment plans, documentation, and evaluation. Internships completed at therapeutic recreation non-clinically based settings are no longer accepted unless they include the above mentioned process.

Criticism of NCTRC Certification

There has been increasing criticism of the NCTRC plan in recent years. Some of the major criticisms are: 1) the cost of $100 to sit for the exam each time it is taken and additional travel and study expenses; 2) the exam represents a curriculum change since courses must reflect what professors think may be expected on the exam; and the date of the exam was not announced until 1989 and the first test was administered in 1990, faculty and students did not have adequate notice of, or information about the exam; 3) the lack of "grandparenting" that requires professionals who are currently certified to pass an exam in order to retain certification, even though this is standard practice within other health professions; 4) non-clinical and leisure oriented professionals who have taken the NCTRC exam feel that the exam is slanted toward therapy rather than leisure oriented settings.

A number of therapeutic recreation practitioners and educators throughout the country have been sharing concerns with each other and with NCTRC to bring about change. At the Midwest TR Symposium in St. Louis, a group of educators and practitioners expressed reservations about how the certification program was being administered and about policies such as grandparenting. A comparable group had met earlier in Texas to discuss similar concerns. Both groups circulated and sent petitions asking NCTRC to reconsider its position of the grandparent issue. The NTRS Board of Directors sent a resolution asking NCTRC to reconsider the grandparenting issue, and the American Association of Leisure and Recreation (AALR) Board of Directors sent a resolution asking that the exam be delayed to allow time for further study of the grandparenting issue. NCTRC has stood firm against grand-

parenting despite receiving the petitions and resolutions.

NTRS membership survey results

NTRS members were surveyed in July of 1990 as to their opinions concerning whether NTRS should develop a separate certification plan. Of the 3,130 surveys mailed to NTRS members, 1,731 surveys were returned, which represents a 54 percent response rate. Seventy-nine percent of those responding said NTRS should develop a new certification plan for therapeutic recreation.

An ad hoc committee was appointed by the president of NTRS to prepare a plan to be presented to the NTRS Board of Directors for consideration. The certification plan was presented to the NTRS Board at its annual meeting at the NRPA National Congress in Phoenix on Oct. 11,1990. The NTRS Board voted to accept the NTRS certification plan in principle, but asked the committee to make revisions and refinement of the initial plan and to work with the National Certification Board of the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) as well as the NRPA Professional Development Committee to coordinate efforts. In the meeting of the incoming board of NTRS,a motion passed to conduct an additional survey of NTRS members to poll their opinions again and to ask for input on the proposed plan before it is adopted.

What is new about the proposed plan?

The rationale for the proposed certification plan as proposed by NTRS Ad Hoc Committee include:

* the affirmation that therapeutic recreation is rooted in the field of recreation;
* the re-affirmation of the Philosophical Statement of NTRS of the three-part continuum of equally vital services of treatment, leisure education and recreation participation;
* a response to the diversity of present and evolving practice in the field which recognizes the broad spectrum of target populations beyond those presently accepted clients in clinical settings, such as aging persons, youth-at-risk, and persons in correctional facilities;
* the recognition that the role of therapeutic recreation in treatment and community integration coexists and should not be prioritized but rather be viewed as complimentary to each other.

Major components of the draft proposal include:

* plan to be administered by a new board that will be separate from NTRS with elected board members from eight geographic
regions;
* membership in a slate or national professional association is not a prerequisite to certification;
* grandparent clause allows persons to apply to the "new" plan if they are currently certified as CTRS or CTRA;
* student internship may be completed under the supervision of a preceptor if the agency is unable to provide a certified supervisor (to be allowed during grandparenting phase);
* renewal of certification will require Continuing Education Units or equivalent academic course work.

The plan that has been proposed by the ad hoc committee of NTRS will be administered by what is to be called the National Therapeutic Recreation Certification Board. The initial board will be appointed by NTRS, but eventually board members will be elected from the eight geographic regions established by NTRS and will include several at large representatives. The certification board will be autonomous from NTRS.

In effect, the new plan provides therapeutic recreation professionals an alternative to the present plan. The new plan would allow persons who meet the current standards to be eligible for certification by the new plan without having to take an exam. It is hoped that the eventual exam being proposed in the new plan will be more easily accessible (geographically and financially) to examinees and will represent a more balanced approach to leisure-oriented as well as therapy-oriented perspectives of practice. Interships will be possible in a wider range of settings because under the new plan a preceptor is allowed to supervise, for the first two years, in settings that do not have a certified person on staff. The new plan recognizes the NRPA/AALR accreditation of therapeutic recreation curriculum in its standards, thereby coordinating the efforts of accreditation with certification. Another benefit of the proposed plan is the inclusion of continuing education or CEUs as a component ofrecertification, thereby ensuring that professionals keep current.

Where do we go from here?

As a professional organization, NTRS is vitally concerned with promoting the field of therapeutic recreation. For this reason, I believe, that NTRS should continue its efforts at establishing a certification program for therapeutic recreation. The NCTRC is not a professional membership organization. The stated purpose of NCTRC certification is to protect the consumer of therapeutic recreation services. Since NCTRC is not a membership organization it can impose any new regulations on the certification standards that board members approve, without asking for the approval or vole of the therapeutic recreation professionals in the field.

As professional members of the field of therapeutic recreation we need a voice in our certification process. This new plan can provide increased opportunity for therapeutic recreation professionals to have input in the certification process. We need to have a certification board that is responsive and sensitive to all contingencies of therapeutic recreation. We need a certification plan that is equitable and reasonable in its policies and administrative procedures. I believe that a new certification plan is in order.

To allow for input into the process, NTRS plans to survey members as soon as possible about their opinions concerning the proposed "new" plan. Included with the survey will be summaries of the new NTRS proposed plan and the NCTRC plan to ensure that we are all informed voters. The board of NTRS is seeking its members' opinions concerning certification.

Peterson's appraisal of the situation of our identity crisis is that we must choose on philosophical position and be either therapy or leisure oriented. My position is that it is possible to coexist and, in fact, support each other in our various approaches and settings in therapeutic recreation. The field of therapeutic recreation should remain unified and should endorse both identities. We need the power and the increased professional identity that results from a combined professional group. It is my opinion that the new plan need not replace the NCTRC certification program but rather provide an alternative to that plan.

For additional information, contact NTRS President Ed Supina, Director of TR, Box 151489, Timberlawn Psychiatric Hospital, Dallas, Texas 75315-1489.

About the Author
Ann Zito is an Assistant Professor of Leisure Studies at the College of St. Francis in Joliet, III.