How will the aging of The American's members, the dwindling number of those newly certified, and the difficulty in meeting the immersion requirement for training analyst status affect the supply of training analysts in the near future? To answer the question, the focus must be on training analysts under 70 years of age, as those older than 70 are unlikely to begin a training analysis. Based on data provided by Lee Brauer's 1993 survey of analytic practice and information from Lawrence Chalfin and the Central Office's J. R. Abramowitz, a few conclusions can be reached. Seventy-one percent of the 3,000 members queried by Brauer responded. Of the 2,117 respondents, 540 (26%) are training analysts. Chalfin reports that for 1991–1992 the total number of active training analysts was 530. Central Office data indicate an additional 175 inactive training analysts, emeritus or retired, for a total of 705. Since Brauer identified 540 in 1993 and the total number in the Association was 705, the ratio of 705:540 (1.31) can be used to extrapolate from the number obtained in Brauer's sample to the total number in The American for any category of membership, assuming the proportion of respondents was the same for each. The data presented below are based on these extrapolated estimates.
Sixty-six percent of the total number of training analysts, or 465, are below the age of 70. Each year two factors operate to decrease this under-70 population. On average, 25 of the group will turn 70, and, on average, 3 will die. (Training analysts so rarely retire that this factor was not included.) Countering these factors, however, is the fact, based on data from 1985 to 1992, that an average of 22 new training analysts are appointed each year. Thus, each year an average of 28 analysts will be lost to the group below 70, and 22 will be added. The anticipated net loss of 6 analysts per year amounts to 1.3% of. the group.
Examination of the current pool of certified members eligible to apply for training analyst status suggests that it may not be possible to maintain the current appointment rate. There are estimated to be a total of 671 certified members, of whom only 436 (65%) are under 60, the age beyond which analysts are unlikely to apply for training analyst status. Of these, only 20%, or 87, have 16 or more hours of analytic work each week, considering only patients seen four or five times weekly. Since approximately 18% of current certified analysts have been certified during the last four years, only 82%, or 71, can meet the five-year immersion requirement for training analyst applicants. The number may be even smaller if some of these 71 have not had 16 hours per week or more of analytic work for each of the five years. If the criterion is increased to 20 hours per week, the number of certified analysts meeting-it decreases to 50.
The criterion, set at a time when analytic practices were flourishing, has not changed, while analytic practices nationally have been shrinking. The result, that only a very small number of certified analysts currently meet the immersion requirement, suggests that those analysts unable to meet it should be encouraged to apply for waivers, if a continuing supply of new training analysts is to be assured. Needless to say, enhancing private practices should remain a priority.
On the subject of immersion, it is of interest that Brauer's data indicate that 62% of training analysts work fewer than 20 hours per week with patients seen four or five times weekly. This means that less than half of all training analysts meet a moderate current criterion for immersion.
It is difficult to project the proportion of eligible certified analysts likely to apply for training analyst status, and information on the approval rate for such applicants is unavailable. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that the annual average of 22 new training analysts can be maintained. There seems to be no reason to conclude, however, that the diminution will be other than gradual. Even if the loss of training analysts under 70 doubles from 6 to 12 per year, this is a loss of but 2.6%. Accordingly, the attrition of the training analyst population will in the near future be small to negligible.