The Board on Professional Standards has chosen Lawrence Chalfin, current chair of the Committee on Institutes, as its chairman-elect. He will assume the chair at the May 1994 meeting in Philadelphia, Prior to the vote, the nominating committee recommended, and the Board approved, a change in its procedure. Henceforth the committee will be elected by the Fellows, and the chair of BOPS will designate the committee chair from among its members.
Chalfin's election was but one highlight of the BOPS meeting held in San Francisco on May 19. There BOPS and its committees took additional steps in the ongoing movement toward increased responsiveness to the needs of candidates and members of affiliated institutes, while remaining mindful of its mission to maintain rigorous standards of training and practice. A number of committees have modified rules and regulations that have come to be viewed by many as obstacles to advancement and are now seen as less necessary in protecting standards than had been thought. These trends are evident in the reports of the committees on Certification, Institutes, Membership, Nonmedical Training, and IPA Training Standards.
Arthur Rosenbaum, chair of the Certification Committee, reported on a growing sensitivity toward the hurt often experienced by those seeking certification. While the basic format is unchanged, with three case reports required, these are now to be selected by the candidates themselves, who are free to present what they consider their best work. The process is intended to test a candidate's ability to conduct analyses, as expressed in written reports, which should show progress in the analytic process. There is a need here, of course, to separate those unable to conduct analyses from those who simply cannot convey in writing their ability to do so. The committee is attempting to provide telephone feedback to deferred applicants as soon as possible in the process.
An appeal and proposal from the Los Angeles Institute led to extensive discussion. There is something of a generational gap at that institute, resulting from internal problems in the 1960s and 1970s, and a number of “lost” members have been identified and approached. The leadership presented a proposal designed to facilitate their certification, hoping that this might lead members of that generation to apply for training and supervising analyst status. The proposal was that those who graduated more than seven years ago would be required to present two cases instead of three, one of each sex, and that should a large enough number of applicants emerge the committee would organize interviews on site in Los Angeles.
Arguments against the proposal stressed concerns that this measure might become more widely applied and might conceivably lead prospective applicants to delay, waiting for less stringent requirements to be adopted. There was also a genuine concern that tampering with procedures in any way might lead to a lowering of standards. It was argued that the main problem is to motivate interest in certification, and that lowering standards will not help.
At the same time, there seems to be a growing sense that requiring a third case rarely adds information not readily available in the two best cases presented; that reducing the work required of applicants will not diminish the ability of reviewers to judge quality; and that this change would continue the trend to ease requirements without lowering standards. It was suggested that any such reduction in the requirement might be made optional and that those who so desire would be allowed to submit three cases. The committee is learning to rely more on the quality of its processes than on numerical requirements. This is in keeping with continuing efforts to separate certification reviews from institute reviews, and to review graduate analysts rather than their progress as candidates.
Finally the request by Los Angeles was sent back to committee, so that the Board's discussions could be taken into account before the matter is returned to the Board for action.
Samuel Rubin reported for the Committee on Child and Adolescent Analysis. “Immersion” in the practice of child and adolescent analysis as a precondition for certification as supervising analysts in that field is currently under review. The committee is also considering a proposal to certify applicants in child and adolescent analysis only, without their first being certified in adult analysis. This is a response to increased applications from individuals trained in centers, such as Hampstead, that do not require completion of a course in adult analysis. The proposal elicited general support, with a more definitive report expected at the next meeting of the Board.
Lawrence Chalfin, reporting on the Committee on Institutes, described site visits at Cincinnati, New Orleans, Topeka, and Seattle. The subject of finances related to training and practice surfaced during site visits and subsequent discussions in the committee; in Chalfin's memory, this was a new subject in these settings. In past years, waivers have been granted for several condensed analyses by candidates; COI will undertake studies to evaluate these waivered analyses on an ongoing basis.
Newly certified training and supervising analysts include George G. Fishman and Elliot Schildkrout (Boston); Edward N. Brennan, Eugene J. Mahon, and Mark Mankoff (Columbia); Franklin G. Maleson (Institute of the Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis); Lee Shershow (Los Angeles); John R. Macgregor, Jr. (New Orleans); Edith R. McNutt (New York); Ira Brenner (Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Institute); Melvyn Schoenfeld and L. Noah Shaw (NYU); and Alan J. Stern (UNC-Duke). Joining the ranks of child/adolescent supervising analysts are Martin Miller and Robert L. Muellner (Boston); Jerome Karasic (Denver); Philip Herschenfeld and Steven J. Wein (New York); and Ruth M.S. Fischer (Philadelphia Psychoanalytic Institute). Geographic Rule Training and Supervising Analysts recently certified are Jon A. Shaw (Baltimore-Washington/Miami) and David B. Rowlett (Seattle/Phoenix), while Robert Galatzer-Levy (Chicago/Boston) and John Hitchcock (Pittsburgh/Topeka) have been made Geographic Rule Child Supervising Analysts.
Richard Fox reported for the Committee on Membership that fifteen applicants were reviewed, and noted that the average age of the recent group of applicants was 46, a fact that raises questions. Are candidates entering training later in life? Is training taking longer? The committee will be working with the institutes to study these trends as they develop.
Phyllis Tyson, who chairs the Committee on Nonmedical Training, reported that for the first time all requests for waivers were approved. This was largely the result of increasingly effective preapplication counseling of institutes by the committee, which is attempting at present to develop more user-friendly procedures while maintaining the highest standards. In a major shift, the committee will be focusing more on the processes pursued by an institute in its evaluation of a nonmedical applicant, and less on the candidate's formal credentials. In addition, a process of “rolling approval” is being developed whereby applicants may be granted provisional approval to begin training between major committee meetings. This innovation was approved by the Board.
As part of the report from the Committee on Research and Special Training, Deanna Holtzman called on Peter Loewenberg, who reported on an all-University of California conference held at Lake Arrowhead, California, and attended by a large contingent of UC academics, either psychoanalytically trained or interested in the application of psychoanalysis to their fields of study. The meeting was cited as a paradigm for future conferences.
Homer Curtis presented a preliminary report of the Committee on IPA Training Standards. Questions have arisen because applications for membership in The American have been received from individuals trained in IPA-approved institutes in the U.S. that are unaffiliated with The American. Can the same criteria used in granting membership to those trained in IPA institutes overseas be used to evaluate this new group of applicants? The committee asked that local societies discuss the issue so that it may be decided at the next meeting of The American. It is conceivable, should the question be answered in the affirmative, that an applicant could be granted membership without being a member of any local society.
Richard Fox next delivered a wide-ranging report for the Task Force on Strategic Planning, touching on questions as diverse as (1) why a number of graduates and candidates are choosing not to join The American even when the opportunity is present; (2) the need for a formal tie between a national candidates organization and The American; (3) whether the work and responsibility required of elected officers might warrant monetary compensation; (4) restructuring of the Central Office; (5) the possibility of establishing a directorship modeled on the position long filled by Mel Shabshin in the American Psychiatric Association; and (6) the possible redesign of scientific and administrative meetings.
The Board acted on a number of recommendations made by the Task Force, voting to allow affiliate membership upon matriculation at an institute, rather than at the beginning of seminars or supervision. The Board also discussed creation of a National Candidates Council. It was recommended that the discussion be continued by candidates and faculty at the local level in the fall. The issue will be reviewed again by the Board in December. Finally, the Task Force on Board/Council Structure and Functions, co-chaired by Robert Pyles and Carl Davis, recommended changing the bylaws governing untimely succession to the chair of BOPS. Thought was given also to instituting a Board of Directors of The American, under which BOPS and Council would be co-equals, but this will require further deliberation.