Max Littman, LCSW
March 19, 2025
The IFS community continues to wrestle with complex questions about how best to practice the model with fidelity. Some practitioners call for a purist approach, aiming to preserve the model’s essence as Richard Schwartz developed it. Others advocate for greater openness, believing that adaptation based on the needs of clients and the nuances of clinical practice is not only inevitable but essential. Then there are those who propose add-ons, integrating complementary modalities or adjusting techniques to meet the varied internal dynamics of those they serve.
This ongoing debate has only intensified with recent developments restricting access to training for non-licensed therapists and the emergence of training options outside of the IFS Institute, raising concerns about inclusion, gatekeeping, and the potential exiling of practitioners. At the same time, valid concerns exist about the harm that can occur when practitioners apply IFS without sufficient training, understanding, or ethical grounding.
How do we navigate these tensions in a Self-led, non-shaming, and non-exiling way while honoring the heart of the model and accounting for potential harm?
Fidelity vs. Flexibility: The Complexities of Practice
Practicing IFS with fidelity means adhering to the core tenets of the model: engaging with parts, fostering Self-to-part relationships, engaging with our own parts as to hold Self energy while being with a client’s system, and establishing conditions for healing within our client’s internal system. Yet the nature of therapeutic work often demands flexibility. Clients bring intricate histories, presenting parts with different degrees of willingness, protectors with varying degrees of rigidity, and exiles carrying complex burdens. Some clients may need more structure, some may need more space, some may need more somatic practices, some may need a more relational approach, some may need psycho-education. There is no one-size-fits-all path.
Adaptation, when done thoughtfully, can reflect a therapist’s capacity to be in relationship with the client’s system, rather than rigidly applying steps. Some adaptations can actually deepen the practice of IFS, enhancing attunement and supporting healing. On the other hand, diverging too far from the model while still labeling the work as IFS risks confusion and harm, to clients, the therapist, and the model itself.
The Alchemy of Choice Points in IFS
One of the gifts of IFS therapy is the awareness brought to a near-infinite number of choice points that emerge in a single session and across the arc of a therapeutic relationship. Although choice points can be overwhelming for our parts as practitioners and therapists, they offer an array of trailheads to follow or even notes to be played into a harmonious, Self energetic flow. At every moment, both we and our clients are faced with decisions such as whether to explore a particular part, deepen into an emotional experience, pause for reflection, extend our own Self energy, trust in our client’s Self energy, or offer curiosity toward a protector. While training and experience provide helpful frameworks, there is no singular “right” choice point to take.
In fact, an alchemy often occurs in IFS work, a dynamic interplay between the therapist’s Self energy and parts, and the client’s Self energy and parts. When both systems are open, the session naturally flows in directions that facilitate healing. This emergence is not something to be tightly managed or controlled. Instead, it invites a spirit of curiosity, trust, and responsiveness.
While it can be tempting to analyze or scrutinize a session’s choices afterward, attempting to pinpoint the “perfect” intervention or choice point, doing so may diminish the organic wisdom present in the therapeutic process. Competent, ethical practice is not solely determined by whether each choice point was objectively correct. It is often revealed in the therapist’s ongoing willingness to stay attuned, self-reflect, and repair if needed.
The Cost of Gatekeeping and Exile
Efforts to regulate and manage the application of IFS, particularly through limiting training access to licensed therapists, may stem from an understandable desire to ensure safety and competence. However, this approach risks exiling practitioners with deep lived experience, wisdom, and skill who may lack formal licenses but have offered profound healing work. Furthermore, concerns arise in me when critical perspectives on IFS practice, often shared in public forums, adopt a reductionistic or shaming tone. While these perspectives may reflect genuine care for maintaining the integrity of the model, they can also shame and exile practitioners who are doing valuable, ethical, and effective work. To any that may resonate with this, I hope you feel seen. Additionally, there are reports of IFS consultation groups and practices where standards are inconsistent, and practitioners may not receive the guidance necessary to deepen their skills. Acknowledging these concerns without resorting to harsh judgment can allow for constructive dialogue and systemic growth.
While hours of practicing the model with clients or peers, engaging in ongoing consultation, whether peer or led by an experienced practitioner, and receiving one’s own IFS therapy are valuable, these practices alone do not guarantee ethicalness or fidelity to the heart of the model. Continued learning through readings, trainings, and retreats can foster growth, but ethical practice also requires humility, self-awareness, and a commitment to ongoing reflection and repair.
Additionally, when some call for a “pure” version of IFS, it raises important questions: Who gets to define what purity is? And what might be excluded in the process? Many practitioners are using IFS in profoundly helpful ways, adapting the model in directions that serve their clients and even expanding IFS into new territories where it can grow and evolve. Excluding or dismissing these practitioners can result in stagnation, keeping the model from reaching its full potential.
IFS itself emerged from and integrates elements of other traditions, including family therapy, mindfulness practices, psychodynamic approaches, and Hakomi. As the model continues to evolve, it expands to incorporate deeper understandings such as cultural influences, neurodiversity, and non-ordinary states of consciousness. This ongoing evolution reflects the very essence of IFS: an openness to curiosity, learning, adaptation, and swimming in the unknown together.
Personally, parts of me get stirred when I see statements in public IFS forums that are highly critical, reductionistic, blaming, or shaming toward those who practice IFS in a way that diverges from a strict interpretation. These parts long for a community that holds space for differing perspectives with curiosity and compassion.
Moreover, while training levels such as Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, or even certification imply a degree of experience and competence, they are not guarantees of ethical practice or adherence to the spirit of the model. Many competent, compassionate practitioners may lack formal credentials, while some certified or credentialed practitioners may engage in harmful or unskilled practices. The credentialing system is an attempt at guardrails, but it is not an infallible measure of safety.
Finally, we can never fully know, evaluate, or assess the quality and integrity of IFS being delivered in most sessions with most clients because its effectiveness depends on a complex interplay of the therapist’s attunement to the client’s system, the client’s internal dynamics, the relational context, and the subtle, often unspoken aspects of the therapeutic interaction, all of which are fluid and constantly evolving. Additionally, confidentiality and the need to maintain the safety of the therapist-client relationship prevent the recording or outside evaluation of these intimate, personal exchanges, and expecting such recordings would place unrealistic demands on both the therapeutic process and the preservation of trust.
The Inaccessibility of IFS Training
IFS training, particularly through the IFS Institute (IFSI), is often prohibitively expensive and time-intensive. Many mental health professionals, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, simply cannot afford the cost of these trainings or the loss of income from stepping away from their practice for extended periods. The multi-level structure of IFSI trainings, while designed to build skill and understanding, further reinforces this inaccessibility. Only the most privileged therapists tend to have the financial and logistical flexibility to complete the full series of trainings, engage in ongoing consultation, receive supervision, and participate in their own IFS therapy. While these elements are essential for ethical practice and deepening one’s understanding of the model, the assumption that all practitioners have equal access to them ignores the vast disparities in power and privilege within the mental health field.
I write this from the perspective of a highly privileged therapist who has completed Level 1 training, engaged in ongoing IFS therapy, paid for years of consultation, and attended numerous unofficial trainings and retreats. There is no doubt that I am a better person, a more skilled therapist, and a more grounded presence because of these experiences. But none of this makes me “superior” or inherently more appropriate than other emerging IFS therapists. Many practitioners who lack the same financial resources or opportunities demonstrate incredible competence, insight, and care in their work. It is harmful to assume that the absence of formal IFSI training equates to a lack of readiness or capacity to practice this model with integrity.
Furthermore, the narrative that rigorous training through the IFS Institute is the sole path to competence can inadvertently perpetuate exclusion. Many therapists receive excellent training from alternative programs like IFSCA or directly from experienced and well-regarded IFS consultants and teachers. These practitioners often demonstrate high levels of competence, ethical grounding, and deep attunement to their clients. Dismissing or diminishing their expertise based on the absence of an IFSI certification further entrenches inequity and reinforces gatekeeping dynamics.
True commitment to the integrity of IFS requires acknowledging and addressing these systemic barriers. Advocating for more accessible training options, financial assistance, and alternative pathways to certification is not a dilution of the model but a vital step toward dismantling the exclusionary systems that restrict its growth and impact. Until these inequities are meaningfully addressed, calls for thorough and ongoing training risk upholding the very power imbalances that IFS, at its core, seeks to heal.
The Reality of Harm and the Need for Accountability
It is also true that harm can and does occur in IFS spaces. Some clients report feeling retraumatized when working with practitioners who lack skill in navigating complex trauma or systemic oppression. Others feel confused when therapists deviate significantly from the IFS model without transparency. These harms must be acknowledged, not minimized.
While it is tempting to try to eliminate all risk through strict control, the reality is that risk is inherent in any therapeutic relationship. No system can fully prevent harm, and no practitioner can guarantee a harm-free experience. But the IFS community can foster accountability through ongoing consultation, peer support, and self-reflection; practices that center Self energy and a commitment to repair when ruptures occur.
Self-Led Boundaries: Attending to Risk Without Exile
So how do we hold all of this with Self energy? A Self-led response to these concerns calls for clear, compassionate boundaries that attend to safety without resorting to shame, control, or exclusion. Here are some possibilities:
- Honoring the heart of IFS: Encouraging practitioners to maintain fidelity to the core principles of the model while allowing space for respectful innovation and adaptation.
- Providing transparency: Practitioners who integrate other modalities or significantly adapt the model can acknowledge this to clients, ensuring informed consent and clarity.
- Promoting ongoing growth: Certification and training can be seen as milestones, not endpoints. Competency is a lifelong journey supported by consultation, supervision, and personal parts work.
- Creating inclusive paths: Instead of relying solely on licensure as a gatekeeping mechanism, the community can explore alternative pathways for skill-building, mentoring, and accountability.
- Addressing harm without shaming: When harm occurs, a Self-led response involves repair, acknowledgment, and commitment to growth, rather than punishment or exclusion.
Sitting With the Question
The question remains: how do we uphold the integrity of IFS while honoring the diverse experiences and wisdom practitioners bring?
There is no “perfect” answer, only a continued commitment to curiosity, courage, and compassion while acknowledging there will be messiness. In the same way we encourage our clients to turn toward their systems with curiosity rather than judgment, we can approach these dilemmas with a willingness to listen, learn, and hold multiple truths.
For feedback and comments, I can be reached at max@maxlittman.com.
I provide private practice mentorship, consultation, and therapist/practitioner part intensives.
