It seems particularly appropriate as the APsaA meets under the auspices of the young Denver Institute to review the procedures by which fledgling institutes are formed and helped to develop into relatively autonomous centers of psychoanalytic education and practice. The Committee on New Training Facilities is another of those hard-working committees whose activities remain shadowy to most members of the American. This article by its current Chairman dispels some of the shadows. Both it, and the article on the Committee on Institutes also speak eloquently, if indirectly, about the relevance of issues of peer review as they concern the American Psychoanalytic Association and its Approved Training Institutions.—Editor
One of the most important functions of the Committee on New Training Facilities concerns the appointment of training analysts under the so-called “geographic rule.” This Board ruling was one of several measures formulated in 1949 and 1950 as part of an effort to upgrade training standards nationally at a time when the post-war increase of interest in psychoanalysis threatened to lower the quality of training. The “geographic rule” enunciated the principle that analytic training was a function of an accredited institute and not of an individual. Thus a psychoanalyst, even if a training analyst of repute and experience, could not move to an area distant from an established institute and conduct authorized training on his own. Instead, authorization to do so must derive from appointment by an accredited institute in a nearby city which would take responsibility for the conduct of training. An important aspects of this ruling was that the training analyst appointed under this “geographic rule” was to participate in the home institute's educational and administrative functions, thus minimizing the dangers of isolation. Depending on the number and competence of training analysts and faculty, different aspects of training could be carried on in the geographic rule training facility. In a small beginning program only the training analysis would be conducted locally, and the candidate would travel to the sponsoring institute for seminars and supervision. With appropriate growth and experience, some of the latter two aspects of training might be carried out locally, often with the help of faculty from the sponsoring institute. When the young training facility had reached sufficient strength and competence and had a minimum of five geographic rule training analysts, it would be eligible for Board approval as an accredited, but still provisional, independent institute. During this provisional period of at least three years, the new institute remains under the supervision of the Committee on New Training Facilities, although now independent of the parent institute which had sponsored it. In the recent past the Denver Institute for Psychoanalysis demonstrated this evolution, having been approved as a provisional institute in 1969 and as a full institute in 1972. St. Louis and Cincinnati were given provisional approval in December, 1973.
Inasmuch as the geographic rule training analysts are the foundation of the new training facility their appointment is of great importance. This appointment is made by the sponsoring institute subject to the approval of the Board on Professional Standards. In times past, the evaluation of an analyst for such a position was too often a hasty, impressionistic process. Increasingly in the past six or seven years sponsoring institutes have, with the encouragement of the Committee on New Training Facilities, made more careful assessment of the competence and experience of the prospective appointee, in recognition of the crucial and unique role played by the geographic rule training analyst. As an example of an assessment procedure developed out of extensive experience, the Chicago method can be considered. The Chicago Institute invites promising and interested analysts in the new training area to teach and participate in committee functions in the home institute as well as in the local facility. A further step is an evaluation of the analyst's clinical acumen by means of consultations with a senior training analyst on a case currently being analyzed by the prospective appointee. The impressions gained from all of their activities, along with any other information from previous training practice and professional activities, serve as the basis for a decision regarding appointment as a geographic rule training analyst.
While the Committee is usually kept informed of the sponsoring institute's plans and intentions, its formal role in these appointments begins when the institute informs the Chairman of the Board of its intent to appoint. The Committee then requests the appointing institute to share its information and opinions with a subcommittee which studies this material, requests further information if necessary and reports to the Committee. On occasion the appointing institute has been asked to conduct further evaluation or even to defer or withdraw its intent to appoint. When the Committee is satisfied that the appointment is appropriate, it makes its recommendation to the next meeting of the Board on Professional Standards for its approval.
Through the assignment of subcommittees to work with each institute sponsoring new training facilities, the Committee on New Training Facilities has been able to work in a mutually beneficial consultative relationship with the institutes. As our experience has grown and our procedures have been refined, we have been able to pool the experience gained from all such developing programs and to share and apply it selectively and appropriately. Increasingly, this has helped us fulfill our hopes of functioning predominantly as an educative rather than as an evaluative body.
The Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Institute and Society will co-sponsor the Fifth Annual Symposium on Child Development of the Margaret S. Mahler Symposium Series. The topic will be: “The Effects of Loss of Parents (by death or desertion) on Later Development.” Participants will include: Drs. Margaret S. Mahler, Joan Fleming, Humberto Nagera, and Martha Wolfenstein. The symposium will take place on May 18, 1974 at the Germantown Cricket Club.