“The American Board for Accreditation in Psychoanalysis (ABAP) has at long last failed in its bid to become sole accrediting body for psychoanalysis in the U.S. On August 18, the Appeals Panel of the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (CORPA) upheld the decision of its Committee on Recognition (COR) to deny ABAP recognition as an Accrediting Body for Postsecondary Educational Institutions or Programs.
For many years The American, the Confederation of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies of the United States (IPS), and other psychoanalytic organizations have opposed the ABAP application. In a letter, CORPA informed the organization that “consideration of ABAP's application for recognition is now complete. The action of the Appeals Panel is final and ABAP's application for recognition has been denied.” That means no more reversals, last-minute cancellation of meetings, or appeals. The decision, however, does not rule out future bids by ABAP should it, according to the CORPA letter, “correct the deficiencies … that precluded a recognition decision.”
The American and IPS have an ongoing history of cooperation in opposing the ABAP bid. Those testifying against ABAP, a nominally independent offshoot of the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis (NAAP), have included Donald Burnham, Oscar LeGault, and Allan Rosenblatt on behalf of The American and Harriet Basseches representing both IPS and the New York Freudian Society, one of its constituent organizations. Since 1990 the NAAP/ABAP effort has been successfully opposed, with COR repeatedly deferring the ABAP application at a preliminary stage. In closed-door maneuvers, however, NAAP/ABAP succeeded in reversing that decision and moving the application along to the next stage. A hearing was then set for January 1994, with an array of third-party testifiers (The American, IPS, and others) scheduled to appear. Then, at the eleventh hour, NAAP/ABAP declined to proceed. The hearing was finally held in August 1994, the last point at which third parties were able to testify.
The outcome of the August hearing was a “failure to grant” recognition to ABAP. The applicant then launched an appeal at the next CORPA meeting, in October 1994. As reported in the NAAP newsletter, this appeal was heard, and the decision to remand the application back to COR for consideration presumably occurred at the CORPA meeting last February. At its own February meeting, COR again reviewed the file. The decision was confidential until all recognition procedures had been followed. At that point, a letter announcing CORPA's rejection of the ABAP bid was sent to all interested parties.
In presenting its decision, CORPA acknowledged third-party testimony from several organizations, including The American and IPS, and from educators and practitioners affiliated with New York Hospital–Cornell Medical Center, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, and Yale University School of Medicine.
On a separate but related front, NAAP/ABAP temporarily withdrew its application to the Department of Education earlier this year. That situation is being monitored. Obviously, the question of who shall accredit continues to be a thorny issue. This may be the time for seriously considering the formation of a more appropriate accrediting body, one that would better represent the psychoanalytic community, and an application for CORPA and/or DOE recognition.