Interview with Matt Grammer LPCC-S, Founder, CEO, Therapy Trainings®

This interview is with Matt Grammer LPCC-S, Founder, CEO, Therapy Trainings®.

As a Founder & CEO in higher education with deep roots in mental health counseling, how do you describe your current mission and the communities your programs serve?

My mission right now is pretty simple: make high-quality education actually usable for the people doing the work. I come from the counseling world, so I’ve seen how often clinicians are asked to meet high standards with limited time, money, and support. I built my programs to close that gap.

We primarily serve mental health professionals across the U.S., including counselors, social workers, marriage and family therapists, psychologists, and those working toward licensure. A lot of them are in private practice, community agencies, schools, or hospitals, and many are juggling heavy caseloads while trying to stay compliant, ethical, and current in their work.

At a broader level, the communities we serve are the ones those clinicians support every day. When therapists have access to affordable, relevant, and practical education, it directly impacts the quality of care clients receive. That’s what drives me. I want continuing education to feel supportive and empowering, not like a box to check.

What pivotal experiences in adolescent therapy, crisis intervention, and program development led you to build your organization in higher education?

My early clinical work was primarily with adolescents and families in high-acuity settings. I spent years doing crisis intervention, risk assessment, and stabilization work with teens who were dealing with trauma, substance use, severe emotional dysregulation, and family system breakdowns. Those experiences stay with you. You quickly learn what theory actually holds up in the room and what doesn’t when someone is in real distress.

As I moved into program development and leadership roles, I started designing services that supported both clients and clinicians. I saw how often staff were expected to manage complex clinical situations without adequate training, supervision, or practical tools. Many programs relied on outdated models or one-size-fits-all approaches that didn’t reflect the realities of crisis work.

That gap is what ultimately pushed me toward higher education. I wanted to build training that was informed by real clinical experience, not just academic theory. My organization grew out of a desire to translate what actually works in adolescent therapy and crisis settings into education that clinicians can use immediately, whether they’re in private practice, schools, residential programs, or community mental health.

When building CEU-bearing curricula, what criteria guide your decisions on which therapist competencies to prioritize?

I start with what clinicians are actually struggling with in the room, not what looks good on a course outline. If a competency helps therapists make better decisions, reduce risk, or feel more confident with complex cases, it moves to the top of the list.

I prioritize skills that directly impact client safety, clinical judgment, and ethical practice. That includes assessment, boundaries, documentation, crisis response, and adapting evidence-based approaches to real-world settings. I’m also very focused on competencies that support clinician sustainability, such as managing burnout, working within scope, and navigating systems without losing the human side of the work.

Another big factor is relevance across settings. I look for competencies that apply whether someone is in private practice, community mental health, schools, or supervision roles. Finally, I ask whether the material is practical. If a clinician can’t use it on Monday morning, it probably doesn’t make the cut.

From your case management and community outreach work, what is one practice exercise you include in trainings that reliably helps clinicians translate learning into sessions with adolescents?

One exercise I come back to again and again is a guided “real session breakdown.” I ask clinicians to bring a recent adolescent case where they felt stuck, escalated, or unsure of their next move. We then walk through the session step by step: what the teen said, what the clinician felt internally, what intervention they chose, and why.

From there, we slow it down and map alternative responses in real time. Not hypotheticals, but concrete language they could have used, questions that might have shifted regulation, or ways to involve caregivers differently. The key is helping clinicians notice their own internal cues, urgency, frustration, anxiety, and how those shape their clinical choices with adolescents.

It works because adolescents are incredibly sensitive to tone, pacing, and perceived control. This exercise helps clinicians move from abstract concepts like “co-regulation” or “trauma-informed care” into moment-by-moment decisions they can actually use in session. Almost every time, clinicians say it changes how they walk back into the room with their teens the very next week.

How do you measure whether a training meaningfully changes clinical outcomes for youth or families?

I look at this on a few levels at Therapy Trainings®, because meaningful change rarely shows up in just one metric.

First, we track short-term practice change. After a training, we ask clinicians very specific questions about what they are doing differently in sessions. Are they changing how they assess risk, structure sessions, involve caregivers, or respond to escalation? When clinicians can clearly name and describe those shifts, that tells me the training landed in a practical way.

Second, we pay close attention to clinician confidence and decision-making. In youth and family work, hesitation and uncertainty often drive poorer outcomes. When clinicians report feeling more grounded, more intentional, and less reactive in complex situations, especially around crisis, boundaries, or family dynamics, that is a strong indicator of downstream impact.

Finally, we look at indirect client outcomes through supervision feedback, program reports, and longitudinal follow-up when available. That includes things like:

• Fewer crisis escalations
• Improved engagement from adolescents
• Stronger caregiver collaboration
• Better treatment continuity

While we are realistic about how many variables affect client outcomes, consistent patterns across clinicians and settings tell us the training is changing how care is delivered.

For me, the most meaningful signal is when clinicians say, “This changed how I show up with kids and families.” When that happens at scale, client outcomes tend to follow.

When recruiting experts for your trainings and public partnerships with publishers like Featured, what qualities signal they can turn evidence into practical, ethical guidance for therapists and the public?

I look for people who can bridge the gap between knowing the research and understanding the room. Strong credentials matter, but they are not enough on their own. I want experts who have actually worked with clients, families, or communities and can speak from lived clinical experience, not just citations.

Clarity is a major signal. If someone can explain a complex concept in plain language without oversimplifying or becoming alarmist, that tells me they can translate evidence responsibly. I also pay close attention to how they handle uncertainty. Ethical guidance often means saying “it depends,” naming limits, and avoiding absolute claims, especially when the public is involved.

Finally, I look for alignment with values. Do they prioritize client safety, scope of practice, and cultural humility? Do they respect the realities clinicians face on the ground? When an expert consistently centers ethics, practicality, and real-world impact, I know they can contribute content that helps therapists and informs the public without causing harm.

In crisis-intervention workshops, what scenario do you use that consistently challenges even seasoned clinicians?

One scenario that reliably challenges even very experienced clinicians is a mid-session escalation with an adolescent who suddenly discloses suicidal thoughts while also making it clear they do not want their caregiver informed. The clinician is caught between maintaining rapport, assessing risk, and navigating legal and ethical obligations in real time.

We run the scenario with added pressure: limited time left in the session, a caregiver waiting in the lobby, and incomplete information about intent or access to means. The adolescent may also test boundaries by minimizing the disclosure or backtracking once the clinician starts asking direct questions.

What makes this scenario powerful is that it exposes how quickly clinicians can feel pulled into either avoidance or overreaction. It forces them to practice slowing down, using clear and developmentally appropriate language, documenting decisively, and communicating next steps with both the youth and caregiver in a way that preserves trust while prioritizing safety.

Almost every time, clinicians walk away realizing that technical knowledge alone is not enough. It is the sequencing, tone, and ethical clarity in the moment that determine whether the situation stabilizes or escalates further.

How do you adapt trainings to be culturally responsive and accessible for clinicians serving under-resourced communities without sacrificing rigor?

I start by assuming that rigor and accessibility are not opposites. In under-resourced settings, clinicians are often doing some of the most complex work with the least margin for error, so the training has to be both high-quality and realistic.

Practically, that means grounding content in the contexts clinicians are actually working in. We use case examples that reflect limited access to services, systemic barriers, language differences, and historical mistrust of systems. We also address how power, culture, and socioeconomic stressors show up in the therapeutic relationship, not as add-ons, but as core clinical factors that shape assessment, engagement, and outcomes.

From an accessibility standpoint, we focus on clarity and flexibility. Trainings are designed to be affordable, time-efficient, and delivered in ways that fit around heavy caseloads. But we do not water down the material. We still expect clinicians to think critically, apply ethical reasoning, and engage with evidence-based practices. The difference is that we show how to adapt those practices when ideal resources are not available.

Ultimately, culturally responsive training respects both the clinician and the community they serve. It acknowledges real constraints while equipping clinicians with solid frameworks and decision-making tools they can rely on, even in challenging environments.

Looking ahead two to three years, which emerging topics do you believe should become mandatory CEUs for therapists?

I think the next wave of mandatory CEUs needs to reflect how much the clinical landscape has changed, not just refine what we already require.

One major area is technology and ethics, especially around telehealth, AI tools, digital documentation, and online boundaries. Therapists are already using these tools, often without clear guidance, and the ethical implications are moving faster than regulation. Clinicians need practical frameworks for decision-making, not just warnings.

Another area is crisis competency across settings. That includes:

• suicide risk assessment,
• youth and family crisis response, and
• coordination with schools, emergency services, and community systems.

Many clinicians are encountering higher acuity clients without having formal crisis training, and that gap has real consequences.

I also believe trauma-informed care needs to evolve. We should be moving beyond introductory trauma concepts into advanced application, such as:

• complex trauma,
• developmental trauma, and
• adapting evidence-based models for clients with limited resources or chronic stress exposure.

Finally, clinician sustainability should not be optional anymore. Burnout, moral injury, and boundary erosion directly affect the quality of care. Training therapists to manage workload, ethical strain, and system pressure is not self-care fluff; it is a clinical competency that protects both providers and clients.

If CEUs are meant to protect the public and strengthen the profession, they need to keep pace with how therapy is actually being practiced today and where it is clearly headed.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge and expertise. Is there anything else you'd like to add?

I’d just add that I’m deeply optimistic about the field, even with the challenges we’re facing. Therapists are doing incredibly meaningful work in complex conditions, and most of them genuinely want to keep growing, learning, and doing right by the people they serve.

My goal, through education and partnerships, is to make that growth feel supported rather than burdensome. When continuing education for counselors and therapists is relevant, ethical, and grounded in real practice, it strengthens clinicians and, by extension, the families and communities they work with. If we can keep centering learning that is practical, humane, and responsive to the moment we’re in, I think the impact can be lasting and meaningful.