Thank you for posting these links. I looked at this briefly, and it seems like a program that has managed to keep the therapeutic essence of art alive, while fulfilling the administrative requirements of being a program--a rarity. It is not a new idea; the superiority of the artist-in-residence model was touted years ago by art therapists like Shaun McNiff and Pat Allen, as an alternative to the "clinification" of art therapy (Allen).
I hope that art therapists will seek to learn from such a program with an open mind, rather than view it as something misrepresenting itself as art therapy. Many Art Therapists unfortunately distance themselves so much from their own creative process as artists that people like the ones in this program are forced to print a disclaimer that they are not art therapy. We have arrived at an absurd situation where the few places that still offer art-making that is actually therapeutic have to take defensive action to protect themselves against art therapists. Why not collaborate? Are art therapists afraid they might actually learn something from artists?
One last note: when a field professionalizes and appropriates a natural process like healing through art-making--which is a little like charging people for the air they breathe--its members should not be surprised when they encounter this natural process under a different name. In my opinion, this encounter should elicit wonder, respect, and maybe curiosity, but not litigious territoriality.