In 1946 the Board established a Committee on Institutes stating that “the inspection and evaluation of the work of the institutes was one of the essentials and continuing functions of the Board on Professional Standards which might be carried out by a visiting committee.” It was not until 1958 that the periodic review of institutes was reaffirmed as an established program and from 1962 on, two institutes have been site visited each year by members of the Committee on Institutes, resulting in an interval of about 10 years between site visits.
Throughout the years the Committee on Institutes has placed strong emphasis on its consultative and educational functions in addition to its evaluative function. Ideally, a site visit should be a consultative exchange about an institute's program and work. It seems that the anxiety about being evaluated has lessened considerably; the institutes have been very cooperative with the Committee and its site visit program. Some have even welcomed a site visit with hopes of observations and recommendations that would help lessen difficult tensions, solve particular problems, or provide suggestions that would improve the institute's ability to maintain better the training standards of the Board.
As a result of a continuing review, the Committee on Institutees reaffirmed its basic functions in its May and December 1976 reports to the Board:
Consultation through the site visit program, resulting in observations and recommendations made to the institutes.
An educational function, especially related to the site visit follow-up program and the various Committee Workshops.
An evaluative function whereby it is the Committee's responsibility to see that the educational standards of the Board are upheld by the institutes. The Committee on Institutes holds that, as the representative of the Board to each institute, it has responsibility to all the institutes, to our members, to our candidates and the public to see that the standards of training as developed by the Board and the collective institutes are maintained by the individual institutes.
The follow-up programs have had the purpose of continued contact with an institute between site visits. This has been particularly important when there were serious problems. If an institute was functioning well, the follow-up program could consist of one or two meetings with institute representatives to determine how things were progressing and the effect of the site visit and its recommendations. It has become apparent to the Committee on Institutes that there is need for countinuing contact with all the accredited institutes to deal effectively with existing or developing problems. Coincidently, the Ad Hoc Committee for Los Angeles, in its final report to the Board in December of 1976, made a similar general recommendation, stating “that the Board on Professional Standards should consider a new mode of relating to its institutes. This new mode should provide a continuum of communication with institutes ranging from consultative liaison to an advisory/consultative relationship requiring shared responsibility in crucial decision making when an institute is in trouble. Within this range could be shaped a varied mix of collaborative functions, including special educational services for institutes functioning well enough, but wishing and requesting consultation around specific problems.”
The Committee on Institutes has established small liaison subcommittees to meet with representatives of each institute at least once a year during one of the meetings of the American. Each institute will be asked to prepare an annual report of its activities, educational program, administrative policies, and problems, if they exist. Many institute directors already prepare such reports for local purposes so that this should not be a particularly difficult task. The collection of such data and information each year should make preparation for site visits a much less burdensome and expensive undertaking that it is at present. These liaison subcommittees will make possible readily available channels for institute requests for advice, help and consultation.
The Committee on Institutes has agreed that if there is a serious problem in an institute it should be discretely but promptly reported to the Board for its consideration and opinions. This would be done only after notifying the institute that such a report would be made and after consultation with the Officers of the Board and with the Coordinating Committee. Educational issues of general interest that are observed from site visits should also be reported to the Board on a regular basis.
The Committee will site visit four institutes each year so that each accredited institute will be visited every 5-6 years, rather than every 10 years. Through these programs the Board, through its Committee on Institutes, can perform its accrediting and re-accrediting functions of institutes in an optimal manner.
Leon Ferber
Chairman