Jenna Lyons, B.A., Isaac Taitz, B.S., Brittany Friedman, B.A., Sydney Webster, B.A., Shannon Schiavoni, B.A., Sarah Silverman, M.S., Jamie Silverberg, B.A., and Gene Cash, Ph.D. Center for Psychological Studies, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL ABSTRACT Public policy advocacy is vital to the survival of the psychology profession (Fox, 2008). Heinowitz et al. (2012) found that limited awareness of public policy issues is a significant barrier to advocating and recommended that training should promote advocacy issues and strategies. Healthcare professionals with advocacy training report increased competence and plans to advocate (McPherson et al., 2012). This study hypothesized that individuals in the mental health field with public policy advocacy training will be more involved in advocacy efforts. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Advocacy in the field of psychology is defined as the process of attempting to influence policy makers to make changes that will meet the needs of clients, health care systems, and overall public health (Trusty & Brown, 2005). Heinowitz et al. (2012) identified limited knowledge of public policy issues as one of the greatest barriers to advocacy, illustrating how it is not an unwillingness to advocate, but rather an unfamiliarity with relevant issues which contributes to lack of involvement. McPherson, Mirkin, Heatherley, and Homer (2012) examined health care professionals’ responses to public health advocacy training and determined that the majority of healthcare professionals who attended public policy advocacy training (76%) subsequently reported feeling more connected to an advocacy team. It was, therefore, hypothesized that mental health professionals and graduate trainees who have received specific advocacy training would be more actively involved in advocacy compared to other individuals without similar training and that the amount of training would be positively related to the level of involvement. METHODS Participants The study sample consists of mental health practitioners, faculty members, and trainees affiliated with universities in the Southeastern United States (N=64; Males=11.1%, Females=88.9%; Mean age = 29 years) Participant occupations included Student (77.8%), Mental Health Professional (13.9%), Faculty Member (5.6%), & Lobbyist (1.4%). Measures and Procedure Online survey assessed advocacy involvement and barriers. Survey questions were adapted from an inventory by the National Initiative for Children's Healthcare Quality (NICHQ) designed to evaluate the perceived need for and effectiveness of advocacy training by healthcare professionals (McPherson et al., 2012). Statistical Analyses Used frequencies to analyze whether the dependent variable (hours spent in advocacy) was positively skewed in the same direction as the independent variable (hours spent in training). Bivariate correlation was used to analyze the significance and magnitude of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Follow-up linear regression and ANOVA were conducted to compare means, to determine the relationship coefficient, and to develop a scatterplot of the linear relationship between variables. DISCUSSION Bivariate correlation analysis revealed that reported hours of advocacy training is significantly correlated with reported hours of advocacy involvement r(62) =.766, p <.001. Linear regression analysis confirmed the significant relationship F(1, 62) = , p <.001 and revealed that on the average for every one hour spent in advocacy training, participants would spend hours in advocacy efforts. Results support findings by McPherson et al. (2012) that specific and intensive training in public policy advocacy can help to overcome barriers preventing health care and mental health professionals alike from engaging in advocacy. Results support findings by Heinowitz et al. (2012) that intensive training circumvents the competency barrier; results also corroborate Myers and Sweeney’s findings (2004) that advocacy training leads to advocacy involvement. Strengths, Limitations, & Future Research This research study fills a major gap in the literature on the relationship between public policy advocacy training and advocacy efforts of those in the mental health field. The convenience of using recruitment to an online survey resulted in a wide variety of participants from different geographical areas, education levels, and mental health professions. Results may have been skewed by the disproportionate number of participants reporting no specific public policy advocacy training. Studies should be conducted reviewing the efficacy of student and professional organizations which promote advocacy. Organizations in graduate programs may help to overcome barriers found by Heinowitz et al. (2012), and provide opportunities for advocacy training to students. Future studies could compare the extensively studied advocacy efforts of health care professionals (McPherson et al., 2012) to advocacy involvement among mental health professionals. RESULTS REFERENCES Fox, R. E. (2008). Advocacy: The key to the survival and growth of professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 633–637. Heinowitz, A. E., Brown, K. R., Langsam, L. C., Arcidiacono, S. J., Baker, P. L., Badaan, N. H., Zlatkin, N. I., & Cash, R. E. (G.) (2012, July 2). Identifying perceived personal barriers to public policy advocacy within psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(4), doi: /a McPherson, M. E., Mirkin, R., Heatherley, P. N., & Homer, C. J. (2012). Educating health care professionals in advocacy for childhood obesity prevention in their communities: Integrating public health and primary care in the be our voice project. American Journal of Public Health, 102(8), e37-e43. Myers, J. E., & Sweeney, T. J. (2004). Advocacy for the counseling profession: Results of a national survey. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 466–471. doi: /j tb00335.x Trusty, J., & Brown, D. (2005). Advocacy competencies for professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 8, 259–265. Please send correspondence to: