The emphasis on Issues of Psychoanalytic Practice during my term as president began with a special brainstorming and planning meeting in New Orleans. A group of interested leaders, including the chairs of four standing committees of the Executive Council that deal regularly with these issues, spent two and a half hours discussing how to approach more vigorously and in new ways the urgent problem of the decline in available cases for our members' practices. Steve Sonnenbergs minutes of the meeting contain a number of new strategies and points of view that a recently appointed steering committee, which I will head, is seeking ways to implement. Lee Brauer's article on the preliminary findings from his committee's recent survey of psychoanalytic practice (elsewhere in this issue) also tells of new initiatives under his committees' aegis scheduled for the December meetings.
I recall that durning my own candidacy in the late 40s and early 50s I had confident expectations of a full psychoanalytic practice as soon as I was authorized to undertake independent analysis. My experience contrasts sharply with that of not only today s candidates but analysts of all degrees of experience, as disclosed by the new survey. “Tidbits From the Survey” were distributed at the Executive Council Meeting in New Orleans, and some of them are excerpted in Dr. Brauers article. A distressing finding demonstrated in one graph indicates that nearly 80% of the respondents have low to moderate satisfaction with how The American fosters their careers.
Troubling as some of the survey's findings are, however, another graph shows a fairly high level of identification with analysis. Also, there continues to be burgeoning scientific interest and activity, as reflected in the numbers of papers submitted to journals, the popularity of scientific meetings nationally and at the local society level, and an increased interest and participation in psychoanalytic research of various kinds. Our scientific and educational functions still flourish amid ferment and change, though psychoanalytic practice has fallen on increasingly hard times.
Part of our program to address practice issues is to increase attendance at the established practice-promoting activities that are held by the concerned committees at our biannual meeting. I refer to the workshop on psychoanalytic practice under Dr. Brauer's committee, another on peer review by Sheila Hafter Gray, as well as the Network Meetings sponsored by the Committee on Public Information under Steve Sonnenberg and on Government Relations and Insurance under Norman (Drew) Clemens. These four committee chairs also plan to meet between our national meetings to intensify and coordinate their efforts to help our members.
Additionally we plan to create a Town Meeting discussion format on Issues of Practice at our Meeting of Members in December. This forum format will afford an opportunity for discussion and information sharing, and I urge everyone to attend the Meeting of Members and take advantage of its revised format. Under the new format, reports will be distributed rather than read; residents chosen for Psychoanalytic Fellowships and our new Honorary Members elected in New Orleans will be honored; the Menninger Prize will be awarded; and we will still have time for audience participation at our forum on Practice Issues. We want to start this special Meeting of Members early to ensure enough time, so I urge you to stay on after the Plenary session.
As Dr. Brauer describes, we also plan to initiate a program of visitation to local societies or regional groups by consultant teams of experts on fostering practice. They will work at the local level with interested and concerned groups of members. Finally, we are still considering a future national leadership conference of Issues of Psychoanalytic Practice when the momentum from the aforementioned activities is underway.
Speaking of the consortium of standing committes of the Executive Council concerned with Practice Issues, Dr. Margolis and I have begun to appoint task forces to address key areas of concern in strategic planning for the future of the Association. One of these will study and recommend changes in the structure and relationship of the Board on Professional Standards and the Executive Council and their committees. Ideas for proposed changes are contained in the letter by Robert Pyles of PINE printed in this issue, and I have mentioned in earlier columns the Committee on External Credentialing, under Donald Burnham, which also falls under long-term strategic planning.
The discrepancies in the prestige and mode of functioning of the Board and Council have concerned us for some time. For example, appointments to the committees of the two bodies are for different lengths of time (according to the terms of the President and Chairman of the Board), and the Board Committee chairs meet regularly between national meetings as the Coordinating Committee. The consortium of Council Committees on Practice Issues is now beginning to do the same. Perhaps a Council Coordinating Committee is in order too. Also, the Board Committees meet at the beginning of our national meeting week, and the Council Committee meetings occur at random later in the week, and often during the meeting times of the Board on Professional Standards or the Executive Council itself when the officers can't attend. At one time it was agreed that the Board Committees would meet on Monday (as they still do) and the Council Committees on Tuesday. We need to study this matter and perhaps try to reestablish the special meeting day for Council committees that we once had. In summary, clearly separating Board and Council functions and creating a more vital Executive Council and committee structure would be our goal.
Your ideas and suggestions about these issues and your participation in the workshops, network meetings, and the Meeting of Members is most welcome and ardently sought. I look forward to seeing you in New York and to your written ideas in the meantime.