This is the sixth of a series of articles designed to inform the membership of the functions of the Association's various offices, governing bodies, and committees.
The Committee on New Training Facilities (CNTF) is responsible for facilitating the formation and development of a new institute from its inception through the status of new training facility, then provisional institute, and finally accredited institute.
Historically the CNTF is the continuation of the original Committee on Institutes that was formed in 1948 by The Board both to assist the existing institutes and to foster the development of new institutes. Because there was a growing number of accredited institutes, the original Committee on Institutes was divided into two committees; the Committee on Accredited Institutes (COAI), which monitored the accredited institutes, and the Committee of Institutes, which became the CNTF and continued its function of overseeing the beginnings of training facilities to full accreditation. Later the COAI became the current Committee on Institutes.
This specialization of function has proved advantageous for the development of new institutes in keeping with the standards of The Board, and has freed the Committee on Institutes from these burdens so that it can attend to the accredited institutes (cf. Newsletter, January 1983).
Central to the functioning of the CNTF is the concept of a sponsoring institute — an accredited institute that agrees to undertake the task of giving birth to a new institute. The idea of attaching the potential new training facility to a “parent” institute was developed by the CNTF to make it possible for a committee working from the national level to monitor a growing new institute. In effect, the sponsoring institute becomes an extension of the CNTF.
For example, a sponsoring institute is the source of training analysts for a new training facility. It first appoints them as training analysts in its institute and then applies for a waiver under the “geographic rule”, which relieves these training analysts of some of their responsibilities in the sponsoring institute so that they may devote time to the potential new training facility. The application for waiver is referred to the CNTF by the Chairman of The Board. Likewise, candidates in the new training facility are actually candidates in the sponsoring institute. Should the new training facility fail to develop, these candidates are guaranteed their training without applying to another accredited institute.
Both of these ideas are consistent with policies of The Board. The former acknowledges the principle that the title of Training Analyst does not adhere to the individual, but is granted to him by an accredited institute only as long as he fulfills its standards and does not resign from it. The latter is a recognition that a candidate cannot be a candidate in an institute that does not yet exist. The CNTF has the important function of protecting the interests of candidates who enter psychoanalytic training through a new training facility.
In addition, the sponsoring institute serves as a model upon which the organizational structure of a new training facility is based. It does not function as a template, because the new facility cannot be expected to be a clone of the sponsoring institute. Rather, it participates in a complicated dialogue with the members of the new facility and the CNTF, as everyone concerned attempts to create a new and unique institute that expresses the standards of The Board.
For example, the sponsoring institute provides the committee structure for the new training facility and includes its members on the committees. As growth occurs, these combined committees separate, making a dialogue between them possible. Gradually, the new training facility takes over functions formerly shared with the sponsoring institute. Classes and supervision also shift to the locale of the new training facility.
Stages can be described that mark transition points in the development of new institutes; however, it is recognized by the CNTF that these steps are not followed in a rigid fashion. Some new facilities grow rapidly and smoothly until accredited; some grow rapidly, retrogress, and then begin to grow again. The CNTF avoids stereotyping the exact form and timetable by which a new facility develops. For example, the number of geographic rule training analysts (GRTAs) in a new facility is an important factor in deciding its stage of development. When there are one or two GRTAs, the new facility usually is considered more an extension of the sponsoring institute; when the number of GRTAs is between three and five, these are usually considered new training facilities; when five or more GRTAs are present the new training facility may be eligible to become a provisional institute.
But the precise point of transition from one stage of growth to another is not determined by the number of GRTAs alone. The CNTF takes into account other factors that are part of growth, such as: a stable source of candidates so that the new training facility can anticipate having regular classes; a demonstrated supply of analytic cases to support training; growth of non-training analyst faculty to serve as instructors and to work on the committees, as well as to provide a pool for future training analyst appointments; etc. Only when there is balanced growth can
the CNTF apply the proper label.
The decision about how and when to change the designation of a new facility is a delicate and complex matter that requires the CNTF to weigh many factors. The first decision, when an extension of a sponsoring institute should be considered a new training facility, is made by the CNTF in cooperation with the sponsoring institute and representatives of the potential new training facility. Each subsequent transition — from new training facility to provisional institute and then to accredited institute — requires a full site visit from the CNTF that is closely modelled on that done by the Committee on Institutes. In fact, the qualifying site visit done on a provisional institute to determine if it is ready to become accredited is done by a site visit team that has a member of the Committee of Institutes on it. This is done to ensure a smooth transition in monitoring by The Board.
It is only when a new training facility becomes a provisional institute that the CNTF functions in place of the sponsoring institute. The provisional institute can carry out all functions of an accredited institute from appointing training analysts, to selecting candidates, to advancing candidates, etc. If a provisional institute retrogresses by losing training analysts, candidates, or faculty before adequate replacements are available, it may be unable to remain autonomous. The CNTF can recommend that the sponsoring institute take over sponsorship until such time as further growth occurs. Once again the CNTF acts to protect the education of the candidates and to preserve the standards of The Board.
The process just described is intricate. It requires the CNTF to occupy many different positions in regard both to the new facility and to the sponsoring institute. To accomplish this task, the CNTF is organized into small subcommittees that are responsible for extensions, new training facilities, and for provisional institutes. The work of all these subcommittees is reviewed at the semi-annual meetings of the entire CNTF, thus giving the subcommittees the benefit of the skill and knowledge of all the members.
In the past, the Board has called upon the CNTF to assist it in helping analysts who belong to a group that has withdrawn from an accredited institute and who wish to continue their work as psychoanalytic educators by forming a new training facility. These situations are incredibly complex. Not only are there difficult emotional issues at stake, but there are also ecological and administrative problems to resolve. For example, training analysts who have withdrawn from an accredited institute and lost this status must be reappointed; candidates may be caught in a tug of war between their training analyst and the institute in which they are in training; a new institute forming in the same area as the one from which the analysts have withdrawn may impose major ecological stresses on the old institute; etc.
At present only one model exists by which the CNTF can discharge its responsibilities to The Board, namely, through the process of sponsorship. Training analysts can be re-accredited by the sponsoring institute and new candidates protected by becoming candidates in it. Although every effort can be made to tailor this process to fit the special nature of each situation, it remains burdensome and difficult.
The CNTF functions to uphold educational standards so that the growth of psychoanalysis does not create a group of second class institutes or second class candidates.
To accomplish its purpose, it works closely with the Committee on Institutes as a provisional institute is being considered for full accreditation; it keeps informed of the policies of the Certification Committee and the Membership Committee, so that it can make sure that the education of the candidates is kept in tune with changing policies; it passes on its knowledge of when and how child training can be incorporated into a new institute; and it keeps informed about the activities of the Committee on Psychoanalytic Education, so that new research can be passed along when appropriate. All of this is done by a free flowing network of communication among these committees, fostered by the semi-annual meetings of the Coordinating Committee.
This overview cannot do justice to the vast range of issues with which the CNTF concerns itself, but it may give some impression of the fact that it handles all of the problems that psychoanalytic education creates, from the easiest to the most difficult. Fortunately, the early leaders of the Committee established a tradition of open-minded, frank, and spirited discussion as the best means to find creative solutions for the continuous stream of challenges that confront the Committee.
As a result, much wisdom has accumulated among the members of the committee that has been passed on by word of mouth. Some of it is being organized in an Operational Manual that will be completed soon; however, it is anticipated that this will expedite discussions, not eliminate them.
Although the CNTFs membership is diverse, its members share a belief in the importance of their role in helping psychoanalysis create new “children” that both carry on and add to its current family. Everyone who is lucky enough to serve on the CNTF considers it a rare privilege and a marvelous experience.
David M. Sachs, M.D., Chairman Philadelphia