Few who read the headline above will readily grasp its meaning despite its considerable importance.
COPA is the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, a nongovernmental organization that sanctions accrediting bodies for institutions and programs of higher education, including most colleges, universities, and medical schools in the United States.
NAAP is the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis, as association claiming a membership of 40 independent psychoanalytic institutes, many of them rather obscure. NAAP formed ABAP, the American Board for Accreditation in Psychoanalysis, with the intent, as the name might imply, of accrediting (and regulating standards for) programs in psychoanalysis throughout the United States. As under COPA's rules there can be but one accrediting body per profession, designation of such a body is a serious matter with far reaching effects. Acceptance by COPA of the NAAP/ABAP application would position ABAP as the sole accrediting body for psychoanalytic training programs in this country.
Learning of ABAP's pending application, five United States psychoanalytic organizations sent letters to COPA expressing their opposition: the American Psychoanalytic Association, the New York Freudian Society, the American Psychological Association, the Institute for Psychoanalytic Training and Research (IPTAR), and the Academy of Psychoanalysis. On July 1, 1991, the first three of these groups accepted invitations to testify before the COPA Committee on Recognition as it considered initial recognition of ABAP. At hearings held, Oscar Legault and Harriet I. Basseches testified on behalf of the American Psychoanalytic and the New York Freudian Society, respectively. Jonathan Slavin, President of the Division of Psychoanalysis (Division 39), represented the American Psychological Association. A sixth psychoanalytic organization, the Council of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapists, was also in opposition and sent their president, Miriam Pierce, as an observer. A past president of this organization, Harvey Kaplan (also a member of the New York Freudian Society), was the first to sound the alert, informing Freudian Society president Abby Adams-Silvan of the ABAP application. Adams-Silvan then notified Presidents Joseph Sandler of the International Psychoanalytical Association and Bernard Pacella of The American.
The opposition attacked the application on the grounds that NAAP lacks universal recognition within the psychoanalytic community and that its membership standards fall well below those of mainstream psychoanalytic programs. According to a letter from Marianne R. Phelps, COPA Coordinator of Recognition, announcing the committee's decision, the application was deferred on the basis of a failure to demonstrate compliance with the following COPA provisions:
“A4. Accredits programs which are generally accepted as preparing for entry level into a profession or occupation.
“B1. Provides evidence that its accreditation protects the interests of students, benefits the public, and improves the quality of teaching, learning, research and professional practice.
“B2. Provides evidence that its policies, evaluative criteria, procedures and evaluative decisions are accepted by the appropriate communities of interest such as educators, educational institutions, other accrediting bodies, practitioners, employers and public agencies.”
COPA discouraged past explorations by the American Psychoanalytic Association for such designation on the basis that the American both accredited training institutions and certified their graduates. Approximately ten years ago NAAP made its first attempt to become the accrediting body. Since that time, NAAP/ABAP has expended great effort toward achieving that goal. NAAP/ABAP's reception at the COPA meeting in July gave the appearance that attention had been paid to the cultivation of good will.
According to the letter from Phelps, NAAP/ABAP may reapply for initial recognition by “submitting additional information to demonstrate compliance with [the above-mentioned] provisions … and another public hearing [would be scheduled]. A document reported to have been circulated by the NAAP/ABAP leadership to its members after the current application was deferred, rather than sounding the death knell for their quest for recognition, is said to read more like a celebratory victory statement. The thought that ABAP was turned down on the basis of only three provisions seems to encourage the leadership that they are close to success; moreover, they are preparing to reapply before the next COPA deadline of October 11, 1991. Clearly, NAAP/ABAP has not taken no for an answer, and the organization's efforts at achieving accreditation rights must continue to be a concern. Even more important, however, is the need to face up finally to the thorny issues posed for the profession by the question of accreditation.