There has been a great deal of discussion within both The American and the Psychoanalytic Consortium regarding the issue of external accreditation. Much of it has been controversial. Since the Confederation of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies of the United States (IPS) has been excluded from membership in the Consortium, it has been having its own discussions about external accreditation, as well as about its options for being involved in achieving it.
In view of Marvin Margolis's description of a more optimistic climate within the Psychoanalytic Consortium regarding the inclusion of new organizations (see “San Diego: A Turning Point,” TAP 31/3), it seems fitting for the IPS to outline its views regarding external accreditation. But first, some background about the IPS.
The IPS is an independent, multidisciplinary organization, currently comprising the Institute for Psychoanalytic Training and Research, located in New York; the Los Angeles Institute and Society for Psychoanalytic Studies; the New York Freudian Society; and the Psychoanalytic Center of California, located in Los Angeles. The IPS was formed after the four groups became component society members of the IPA, each group having been individually accredited through a rigorous evaluation process. The IPS has approximately 400 individual members, who become affiliated by virtue of membership in their respective component societies.
In 1991, a steering committee of representatives from each of the four societies began discussions to form a coalition based on strong common roots and a common vision concerning psychoanalysis in the United States, including the external accreditation of psychoanalysis. In 1993, a confederation was established, with a board of directors made up of two representatives from each of the societies. The board began to meet once a month to discuss issues of current common concern. The IPS became officially incorporated early in 1996, having obtained the approval of its bylaws from the boards of each of its member societies. Its primary function was — and remains — to represent independent psychoanalysis around the world.
Since its inception, the objectives of the IPS have involved various commitments in representing its members. First, the IPS has two representatives in the IPA House of Delegates as part of the North American delegation. The House has three representatives on the IPS Executive Council, thereby providing direct representation of the societies in policy decisions of the IPA. Second, the IPS sends two representatives to the meetings of NAIPAG (North American IPA Groups), along with The American and the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society. Third, the IPS seeks to safeguard the professional interests of the members of its societies by participating in the protection of standards of training and the practice of psychoanalysis in the United States.
Members of the IPS are involved in many of the clinical, research, administrative, and intellectual spheres of the IPA. The IPS cosponsored the IPA congress in San Francisco in 1995, with representatives on the Program and Local Arrangements Committees and speakers in the opening ceremony. The congress was preceded by a fundraising pre-congress film event in New York City, sponsored by the eastern wing of the IPS, and it was followed by an IPS-sponsored post-congress in Los Angeles on the subject of film and psychoanalysis. Subsequently, the IPS was represented on the Planning Committee of the 1997 Barcelona Congress, and it is participating in the Santiago Congress in 1999.
The IPS has conducted several bicoastal membership meetings so that its members can meet and become acquainted with each other and with the issues that are of concern to the board and to the membership. These meetings offer the opportunity for members to provide input and guidance to the board. The IPS is also host to an annual national scientific conference. The conference is clinically oriented; small groups meet informally to stimulate active discussion of clinical material brought by all participants, around a broad theme, similar to the format of the biennial meetings of the European Psychoanalytic Federation and the Psychoanalytic Federation of Latin America. The first conference (“The Frame: Making It, Keeping It, Breaking It”) took place in Palm Springs, Calif., from January 30 through February 1, 1998.
Out of a major concern for ensuring the highest standards of training and practice in psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy in the United States, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, Division 39 of the American Psychological Association, and the National Membership Committee on Psychoanalysis in Clinical Social Work established the Psychoanalytic Consortium. The Consortium, as well as other concerned parties, successfully opposed the attempt of the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis (NAAP), and its subsidiary organization the American Board for Accreditation in Psychoanalysis, to become officially recognized as national accrediting bodies in psychoanalysis.
From the beginning, the IPS, which was one of the groups vigorously opposing NAAP's application, has attempted to gain entry into the Consortium, seeing its concerns as consistent with those of the Consortium. The IPS is dedicated to the development and protection of a national standard for psychoanalysis in the United States and believes that such a standard should recognize a broad range of individuals who have contributed to psychoanalysis, and at the same time offer the necessary protection to the public by insuring the criteria and quality of training programs in psychoanalysis. To date, some organizations in the Consortium have been adamantly opposed to the IPS joining the Consortium. That position seems to be changing as the Consortium's board seems to be coming to a better agreement.
The IPS filed a letter of intent with the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (CORPA) in December 1996. This caused concern among some members of the Consortium. The IPS sent the letter because it felt strongly that it should be included in any accreditation negotiations (and continues to feel so). It seemed crucial at the time for the IPS to take action to assure that its voice be heard in the dialogue regarding the accreditation process. The IPS board also thought that there was a deadline to preserve the option of applying under the requirements of CORPA, prior to the responsibility for recognition being assumed by CORPA's successor, the Council on Higher Education Accreditation on January 1, 1997. The letter of intent was simply a notification to CORPA that the IPS was considering filing an application. The IPS has not filed an application to be an accrediting agency for psychoanalysis in the United States and has no desire to have that role by itself. It firmly believes that no single institution should be the sole accrediting body, and it is committed to working with as wide a group as possible in the accreditation process within the Consortium.
Terrence McBride is the IPS Board of Directors' information officer.
The majority of the IPS members are psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists. While many of them do belong to one of the professional organizations in the Consortium, a significant minority does not. Eight percent of IPS members who have graduated from IPS institutes are not represented by The American, the Academy, Division 39, or the Committee on Psychoanalysis. Further, there are various analysts who do not have a psychology, social work, or medical license. In its California organizations, there are marriage, family and child counselors, RNs, and research psychoanalysts who are not in any of the discliplines represented in the Consortium. Currently, the IPS includes 30 members who are not licensed in the traditional mental health professions.
To be a voice for its own members is of course only a small part of the broader responsibilities faced by any accrediting body. However, it is centrally important that capable and rigorously trained analysts who are not graduates of a psychology, social work, or psychiatry program be represented, as well as those who are. It is the view of the IPS that it is well-suited to speak and act for those individuals not otherwise represented, since it has had extensive experience in developing training programs for them. The IPS looks forward to coming to a collaborative understanding with the Consortium and its organizations and to working with them in the future, not only on the issue of external accreditation but on other issues of mutual concern as well.