In a precedent setting action, the Board on Professional Standards approved by a majority of 50 to 2, the Committee on Non-Medical Clinical Training's recommendation for waivers permitting 11 institutes to train 18 non-medical mental health professionals.
Carl Davis, Chairman of CNMCT, indicated that a total of 24 applications from 14 institutes had been submitted, the Committee being able to review all of them, some more than once, as additional materials requested from the Institute were received by the Committee. In instances where the waiver was not recommended by CNMCT, letters either have already been sent or will be sent to the institute outlining the reasons and indicating steps that might be taken should the institute choose to resubmit the application to CNMCT. The hardworking Committee met not only for a double session during the May meetings of the American, it also convened for a special weekend meeting in the New York offices of the American during April.
Davis indicated that there is a considerable backlog of potential applicants for waiver comprised of non-medical candidates currently in partial training at accredited institutes, professionals in the community who had held off on applying until this first go-round was over, and applications already in process from institutes who found themselves unable to meet the established deadline.
Davis introduced a proposal to insure that institutes would not be inconvenienced by delays in processing the applications of this perceived backlog. His Committee would undertake to process all suitable candidates from this pool by May 1988. He asked that the institutes rigorously follow the requirements of the Gaskill plan which mandates that institutes not begin training non-medical applicants until waivers are granted to the institutes. In addition, the Committee will submit to the institutes a special format for the application which should facilitate the process. In return, the Committee will agree to work double sessions at each regular meeting of the Association, and in addition will hold either one or two special weekend sessions at the office of the American if it becomes necessary in order to process the backlog of applications for waiver.
Davis reiterated that his Committee does not set policy regarding non-medical clinical training other than to assess the individual applications for waiver. All questions in regard to the effects of the introduction of non-medical training on the individual institutes, and on the American Psychoanalytic Association as a whole, must be monitored by the institutes themselves, the Committee on Institutes through its liaison committees, and the Board on Professional Standards. He emphasized that the Committee looked to the Board for guidance in all matters.
While the vote of the Board was 50 to 2, in favor of CNMCT's recommendations, many questions and concerns were aired by the Fellows and Councilors regarding this action both before and after the vote was taken. Hartman, of the New York Institute, one of the two who opposed the recommendations for waiver, was among those concerned that not enough information was provided by the Committee on the successful applicants. Comparing the CNMCT report with those provided by CORST when they request waivers from the Board for research candidates, Hartman stated that he would want more data on the candidates themselves, and on how they were selected, and whether specific standards had been developed for making such decisions. Davis responded that if the Board wanted such summaries, he would provide them, but that a considerably more lengthy report would be required than for CORST; his committee had reviewed over 30 pounds of documents which included discussion of education, supervision, and clinical assessment. He noted that the issue of confidentiality is a consideration here, perhaps requiring some permission from the applicants themselves for open review of their credentials.
Robert Michels, of Columbia Psychoanalytic, who also voted against the recommendation, noted that one-third of the candidates had degrees other than Ph.D.'s in psychology, some of which degrees were unfamiliar to the members of the Board, and some contested within their own professions. Shelley Orgel, in acknowledgement of the concerns expressed by some Fellows for getting adequate information, agreed that, in future reports, more data should be provided about background and training, not data that would infringe on confidentiality, but enough to familiarize the Board with the nature of the schools attended and the degrees earned.
Davis, questioned about the numbers of candidates in partial training, responded that he does not know, but that in one institute, there were as many as nine candidates in such training, and in others, five or six. He noted that institutes may not apply for waivers for all of them, but he feels it likely that waivers will be requested for the majority. His proposal would insure that no institute in the future would begin partial training before a waiver was granted to the institute, though, he suggested, one might begin a training analysis while awaiting the outcome of the CNMCT's deliberations, assuming the individual would want analysis in any case.
Davis' report, and the work of the Committee as a whole, received applause and unanimous approval by the Board.