I am trying to decide between a phd and masters in Community Psychology. I am pretty certain I do not want to be an educator or conduct research in an academic setting. Would a masters degree be a better choice for me? Recently I have graduated with an MA in marriage and family therapy but I found I wanted to do more than just therapy and think Community Psychology will help me better integrate my interests ( human rights, policy, advocacy etc). Could you tell me what I can do with a phd that I wouldn't be able to do with just a masters?
You raise great questions about the pros and cons of pursuing a masters versus a PhD in order to be able to achieve your goals. You mention that you do not intend to work as an educator or conduct research in an academic setting. You also mention that your interests are in the important areas of human rights, policy, and advocacy). You are likely to get different responses from different people to this question so I encourage you to talk to a variety of people about this issue.
My view is based on holding a PhD and teaching students for three decades who were pursuing masters degrees in community psychology. Most of these students were mid-career professionals who had discovered that a masters would assist them in their positions. Many of these positions (but not all) were in nonprofits and my students often reported that in order to do their jobs better or move up in their organization, they needed a master's degree. The graduate course work emphasized many skills that the students reported as finding helpful to the work they were pursuing. I noted above that they were midcareer because this seemed to be relevant to the value they found in the program. They brought considerable experience to the graduate program and this helped them know what their work setting required.
Most of these graduate students did not expect to pursue a PhD and did not anticipate that such a degree would be helpful for the work they intended to do. This is where things have become interesting, however, in recent years. Various funding agencies (federal, state, and foundation) increasingly are encouraging partnerships between nonprofits and academia or are increasingly expecting that program development and implementation will be evaluated or based on best practices (often based on research). I'm hearing from leaders of nonprofits who say that they are finding that having a doctorate can be very helpful in building these partnerships and strengthening their work. Some branches of the National Institutes of Health, for example, fund centers that include partnership elements (such as community outreach and engagement elements) and, again, people who primarily engage in practice are finding that a PhD can be asset in this work. So, the answer to whether a doctorate is helpful or needed outside of teaching or research is becoming more complicated.
Recently, SPSSI (the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues--Division 9 of the American Psychological Association) hosted a national conference ("The Road Less Traveled") in Washington DC on social policy and how the work of psychologists can have a greater impact on policy. Many of the attendees were people who work in policy arenas outside of academia. They were amazing people making a difference in bringing together bodies of research to try to ensure that research makes a difference. Some of the speakers had doctorates and some masters. People were asked directly about what level of education they saw as important. They repeatedly said that from their perspective what was important was the content of program and whether it was largely theoretical in its focus or whether an emphasis was placed on solutions-focused work. The latter, in their estimation, prepared people for a broader range of careers.
So, you asked a great question that opens up lots of possibilities.