Psychoanalytic education and practice are growing in new areas of the country, creating a demand for well-trained analysts willing to relocate. Some centers are looking for teaching analysts, others for potential Geographic Rule Training Analysts. Some areas with no plans to develop training facilities of their own want a training analyst who will commute to, and be appointed by, a neighboring institute, and at least one medical school is seeking analysts for faculty positions.
Historically, The American's institutes generally developed near psychiatric residency programs and had some form of association with them. That pattern has altered, though, as interest in psychoanalysis has ebbed in some of these centers. Less often remarked, however, because most analysts practice in the older, more established centers, is the fact that some departments once unfriendly to analysis are now more receptive. Meanwhile, the eligibility of clinical psychologists and others for full training suggests that some areas which previously could not support analytic training or practice will now have that ability.
Still to be seen is whether delinkage itself will spur a demand for experienced analysts in new areas. Now that certification is not required for full membership, locations that once lacked the five full members necessary for a study group, or the ten for a society, may qualify and begin to organize. And where this occurs, a growing interest in teaching is usually to be found. Already The American has begun to hear from new groups seeking recognition.
As psychoanalytic training burgeoned in the 1950s, the Board on Professional Standards decided that newly formed institutes required consultative help and that The American needed some assurance that the quality of training being offered was up to standard. The result was the original Committee on Institutes, which did much of the work now done by the Committee on New Training Facilities (CNTF). It took a great amount of work and experience before established institutes agreed to accept the extensive review and consultation procedures now taken for granted.
Today CNTF involves itself with new facilities from the earliest stages, in some cases helping a local group find a sponsoring institute, in others advising a potential sponsoring institute on what is involved. The commitment to sponsor a new facility is a serious one, something akin to parenthood in that it is impossible to imagine in advance all that will be demanded, or all the joys.
CNTF remains closely involved with the new training facility throughout its development. Committee members meet regularly with representatives of both the sponsoring institute and the training facility, follow the progress of each candidate, and monitor the development of faculty, policy, and administration. In recent years the committee has become more active in recruiting faculty and in encouraging older institutes to develop satellites.
New training facilities are sponsored by accredited institutes in areas that lack approved training programs. Typically they begin with as few as two or three geographic rule training analysts and a handful of potential faculty. Early on, candidates may commute to the parent institute for supervision and course work, which are shifted to the local site as rapidly as class size and faculty development permit. When eventually the facility has enough experienced faculty, including training and supervising analysts, and when CNTF is satisfied with the quality of its programs and appointments, it becomes a provisional institute now sponsored by the committee. Full accreditation usually follows once a provisional institute has demonstrated its ability to perform the entire range of administrative and educational functions independent of the initial sponsor to succeed in this, the fledgling institute requires faculty who do not shirk the often rather dreary administrative tasks and who recognize the compelling need for group work and civility in overcoming the tensions that inevitably will arise.
New training facilities are operating today in Miami, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Arizona, and New Jersey, and one is being organized in Portland, Oregon. In the last year institutes in Atlanta and Dallas have passed from provisional status to full accreditation.
This lengthy process for bringing new facilities along has served psychoanalysis well. Standards have been maintained, new facilities and sponsoring institutes have been able to draw on a rich body of experience, and committee members have learned a great deal that is useful in their parent institutes. Nevertheless, the next few decades may see a major change as training comes to expand more through the development of extensions and existing institutes. In many locations this offers great advantages. Fewer local candidates and members are required than would be the case for a new training facility, so high quality training can be provided applicants who might otherwise be unable to train, or who might have to settle for programs of lesser quality.
Extensions of existing institutes take a variety of forms. Usually a geographic rule training analyst is the minimum staffing requirement; to insure that candidates' training is not interrupted, it is preferable that there be at least two. Beyond that, all of the training may be done at the parent institute or, if suitable faculty are available locally or faculty can commute from the parent institute, instruction may be given at the extension site. As long as there is no intention ultimately to develop a new institute, CNTF need not be involved, though it remains available for consultation. Life in an extension is generally much more relaxed than in a new training facility, as there is much less need to develop structure and the parent institute can be relied on indefinitely for all the many functions of an institute. From the point of view of the parent institute, extensions provide stimulating teaching opportunities for faculty and help prevent the development of lower quality programs in neighboring areas, programs that eventually will attract desirable applicants if no other training opportunity is made available.
At this point, some societies and institutes are more aware of the potential for expansion than others are. In Michigan, Don Spivak coordinates a variety of extension activities in outlying areas, some of which will evolve toward psychoanalytic training opportunities; and just this summer Houston-Galveston has appointed a Strategic Locations Committee to keep in touch with developing groups of analysts in cities such as Austin and San Antonio. James Robinson, a former CNTF member, chairs the committee which aims not to develop new institutes but to extend training where it is needed and wanted. The work of Drs. Robinson and Spivak, and of their committees, provides a model for institutes interested, as all should be, in the extension of training to presently unserved areas.
David A. Carlson chairs the Committee on New Training Facilities.