The Committee on New Training Facilities came into being in the early nineteen-fifties. It arose from the original Committee on Institutes, in response to the rapid post-war growth of psychoanalysis in this country, which made it imperative to create an orderly process for the development of New Institutes.
The history of this committee is significant, reflecting important changes which have occurred within the Association and in the relationships of the Institutes and new training groups to the Board on Professional Standards. Originally the Committee's function could be described as investigatory and supervisory.
Both this group and the later, newly organized Committee on Institutes, were not infrequently thought of as “policemen” and viewed with some alarm and uneasiness by the Institutes. As a result of work and discussion in the Board and at local levels this attitude has changed radically and at the present time we look upon our function as one of guidance, advice, and collaboration, and I believe this is true of the groups with whom we work.
In this period of growth the method of initiating new psychoanalytic groups has changed. In the past, psychoanalytic education grew largely through the initiative of individual analysts in new locations, using the medium of “study groups.” This largely informal technique has been replaced by the “geographic analyst” concept, involving appointment, by an established institute, of a Training Analyst in the geographic area of the forming group. The “geographic analyst” participates actively in the educational activities of the Institute which has appointed him.
This step, as well as subsequent ones, is now more often taken in consultation with the Committee on New Training Facilities. In the atmosphere of trust which has developed, it is now common for a group of analysts who hope to develop a new Institute to call on the Committee early in the game. With the appointment of a “geographic analyst”, training activities begin, under auspices of the Institute which made the appointment. When the group has grown sufficiently, it may, on recommendation of our Committee, be designated a Training Center, still linked to the “parent” Institute.
The next step, if all goes well, is the recognition of the group as a Provisional Institute. Finally, the Board on Professional Standards, acting again on the recommendation of our Committee, may change the “Provisional” to full status, and a new Institute is born. [Editor's Note: For a concrete example of this process, readers are referred to the account of the genesis of the Seattle Institute, which appeared in the December, 1967, issue of the Newsletter.]
At present the Committee on New Training Facilities consists of fifteen members, all of whom are experienced in the various aspects of psychoanalytic education. Geographically, the members cover the entire country and represent thirteen established Institutes.
To facilitate work with developing groups, the Committee has been organized in recent years into subcommittees, usually composed of three members, and each sub-committee has been given responsibility for a newly-developing geographic area. The sub-committee is in year-round contact with the new group, offering consultation, guidance and the benefits of its own and the full Committee's experience. The subcommittee meets twice each year with active members from the local area. Site visits are made when indicated. All the aspects of the developing educational program are discussed fully and freely in the full Committee and with representatives of the geographic area.
Currently, the Committee is working actively with eleven new geographic areas, ranging from groups in the planning stages up to and including an established provisional institute.
Our Committee, which works hard and travels frequently to handle its far-flung responsibilities, consists of the following members: Drs. Carl Addato (New Orleans), Bernard Brodsky (New York), Donald L. Burnham (Washington), Kenneth T. Calder (New York), Arnold M. Cooper (New York), Homer C. Curtis (Philadelphia), Stanley Goodman (San Francisco), Paul Gray (Washington), Charles Kligerman (Chicago), David Leach (Detroit), L. Borje Lofgren (Stock-bridge), James T. McLaughlin (Pittsburgh), Malvina Stock (Boston), and Gertrude R. Ticho (Topeka).
The task of fostering the growth of new educational centers in psychoanalysis is one that the Committee regards as a serious and challenging responsibility. The success with which we accomplish this task will be reflected in the quality of psychoanalytic education throughout the country.