The idea for a survey of candidates done by candidates occurred to me during the 1994 December meetings of The American, where I attended the inaugural gathering of the Affiliates Council. It was during this meeting that I first heard candidates from around the country describe their training experiences. As I listened, I discovered that hidden among my other idealizations was the presumption that all of our institutes are the same. From there it was a short step to wondering how they do things in Seattle, in Kansas, in New York City, etc. Because many delegates of the Affiliates Council shared my presumption about our institutes, they shared my interest in learning more about each other's training experiences. As a result, the Council enthusiastically voted to pursue the survey.
Right after that meeting of the Affiliates Council in 1994, Joan Lieberman and I informally polled candidates to get ideas for survey questions. Later we sat in the lobby of the Waldorf and put together a first draft of the survey. Work continued until May 1995, when copies of the final survey forms were sent out to delegates representing twenty-seven institutes. There was one form for questions about the institute, and another form for questions about individual candidates. The institute survey included questions like: How active is your local candidates association? Is your faculty taught how to teach? Is there a policy about changing supervisors? Are candidates represented on the curriculum committee? Are candidates prepared for certification? The individual survey asked for demographic data about the candidate and then focused on questions like: When did you begin each of your cases? Do you feel free to/have you ever changed supervisors? What are the fees you pay for supervision? What fees do you collect for control cases? How many months have each of your cases been in treatment?
The data collection phase of the project is still under way. At this point, we have received back eighteen institute survey forms and approximately 250 candidate survey forms. Considering how busy most candidates are with training, family earning a living, and finding some time for recreation, this return rate seems encouraging. Nevertheless, we will continue to gather more data while we proceed with entering the survey information into a database for computer analysis. Lee Brauer has offered his expertise and the support of the Committee on Psychoanalytic Practice to help with the statistical analysis.
How active is the candidates group at your institute? 28% said very, 39% said somewhat, 22% said “little,” and 11% said none.
Are courses taught to the faculty on how to develop teaching skills? 22% said yes and 78% said no.
Are candidates represented on the Curriculum Committee? 66% said yes and 34% said no.
Are candidates represented on the Education Committee? 17% said yes and 83% said no.
Are candidates taught how to be prepared for certification by The American during their training? 56% said yes and 44% said no.
Does your institute financially help candidate representatives attend meetings of APsaA? 95% said no and 5% said yes.
Does your institute directly address issues of practice development for candidates? 34% said yes and 66% said no.
Is there any policy or procedure about changing supervisors? 56% said yes and 44% said no.
Are there institute policies that regulate the cost of the training analysis? 100% said no.
Although the bulk of the data about individual candidates has yet to be analyzed and tabulated, just eyeballing the numbers provides a few interesting facts.
For example, when candidates were asked what percentage of their income is spent on training, the range was from 10% to 100%. Only 16% of the candidates who responded to the survey have ever changed supervisors, and only 4% of the candidates have ever changed training analysts.
While most candidates reported being in a training analysis that meets four times a week, 25% of the candidates reported being in a training analysis that meets five times a week, and a few candidates reported meeting at more or less than these usual frequencies.
As we gather more data and as the data is entered for statistical analysis, it will be possible to make measured comparisons by institute, candidate age, gender, degree, level of satisfaction, number of cases in treatment, progression, level of involvement with The American, cost of training, etc. At some point in the hopefully not-too-distant future, and with the help of the Committee on Psychoanalytic Practice, a comprehensive, formal report will be generated and distributed to each institute through their delegate to the Affiliates Council. Our larger goal, however, will be to make this information about the candidates' experience available to anyone in The American who can use if for the betterment of psychoanalytic training.