In July of last year, the American Board for Accreditation in Psychoanalysis (ABAP) and its parent body, the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis (NAAP), failed in an attempt to be recognized as the sole accrediting agency for psychoanalysis in the United States (TAP). At that time, the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA), deferred action on the ABAP/NAAP application, leaving the door open for resubmission.
On January 6, 1992, COPA's Committee on Recognition met to hear testimony and review a renewed application for initial recognition; ABAP/NAAP had submitted additional documents to bolster its original petition. At this second review, testimony in opposition to the application was again provided by the American Psychoanalytic Association, represented by Donald L. Burnham, M.D. and Oscar Legault, M.D., the American Psychological Association (Division 39), this time represented by James W. Barron, Ph.D. and Russ Newman, Ph.D., J.D., and the New York Freudian Society, again represented by Harriet I. Basseches, Ph.D. Two additional organizations testified, the Academy of Psychoanalysis, with Paul Chodoff, M.D. as spokesperson, and the Council of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapists, represented by its president, Miriam Pierce, C.S.W. As in the earlier testimony, ABAP/NAAP was criticized as unrepresentative of the psychoanalytic community, with a membership standard below that of mainstream psychoanalytic programs.
The statement issued by COPA following the January review again deferred action, “until such time as applicant shall submit new and additional evidence to show compliance with Recognition Provisions.” As in July, the applicant was cited as failing to comply with three COPA provisions: “1. That applicant does not comply with Recognition Provision A4.
in that it has failed to demonstrate that it accredits programs which are generally accepted as preparing for the entry level into a profession or occupation, and 2. That applicant does not comply with Recognition Provision B1. in that it has failed to demonstrate that its accreditation protects the interests of students, benefits the public and improves the quality of teaching, learning, research, and professional practice, and 3. That applicant does not comply with Recognition Provision B2. in that it has failed to demonstrate that evaluative decisions are accepted by the appropriate communities of interest such as educators, educational institutions, other accrediting bodies, practitioners, employers, and public agencies.“
As COPA bylaws preclude absolute rejection of an applicant for initial recognition, ABAP/NAAP can reapply indefinitely until such time as another accrediting body is recognized. Although some view this situation as a clear invitation or even a mandate for mainstream psychoanalysis to propose an alternative accrediting agency, Chodoff in his testimony argued that psychoanalysis is not currently homogeneous enough for accreditation to be appropriate. For its part, the American considers accreditation very much in order. Consequently, Donald Burnham has been exploring the issue for the American and has initiated discussions with the New York Freudian Society, the Council of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapists, and Division 39 in an effort to head off the determined attempts of ABAP/NAAP to usurp the role of accrediting agency. In the meantime Harriet Basseches has worked out an agreement with COPA coordinator Marianne R. Phelps to keep all concerned parties apprised of the ABAP application's current status.