The Board on Professional Standards (BOPS) extensively discussed two important credentialing issues, external accreditation of institutes and internal certification of graduates, at its December 16 meeting. Against a backdrop of concerns by Division 39 of the American Psychological Association regarding the APsaA's policies and structure, the Board endorsed continuing negotiations with the Psychoanalytic Consortium to establish an external credentialing body. BOPS also voted to initiate what were felt to be improved and fairer certification procedures for APsaA members.
Board chair Donald Rosenblitt introduced Calvern Narcisi and Leon Hoffman, chairs of the Joint Committee on External Credentialing. They reported that Consortium negotiations to create a provisional document on standards of analytic training have progressed minimally since June. At that time, Division 39 raised the spectre of suing the APsaA for antitrust violations.
Division 39's initial complaint involved the APsaA's ongoing efforts to establish an analytic institute in Minnesota. Division 39 felt the APsaA was deliberately damaging the development of an independent psychoanalytic institute. This complaint spread to a greater Division 39 concern that because the APsaA was such a powerful organization, processing both membership and accreditation functions, other analytic organizations were at an unfair competitive disadvantage. Division 39 has referred this complaint to its legal arm, the Group for the Advancement of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis in Psychology (GAPPP).
Narcisi cautioned that external credentialing is now of even greater importance because the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis (NAAP) and its subsidiary, the American Board for Accreditation in Psychoanalysis (ABAP) — a group whose training standards the APsaA finds unacceptable — have adopted a new strategy of attempting to gain accrediting authority in individual states.
A second point of uneasiness was the Consortium's failure to include the Independent Psychoanalytic Societies (IPS) in its accreditation deliberations. Both Board and Council agreed in December 1997 to officially join with the Consortium in its Committee on External Credentialing, with the condition that the APsaA would work to include the IPS in the deliberations. Several fellows of the Board questioned why, after a year, the IPS was not a member of the committee.
Steven Ellman and Barbara Stimmel, board members of the IPS, addressed the Board. Ellman said that Division 39 had created criteria for committee membership that excluded the IPS. However, the IPS was changing its organizational structure and would soon be able to pass this hurdle. He added that the IPS, composed of four disparate institutes, can offer the Consortium experience in “surmounting the narcissism of individual differences.”
Photo by Merin S. Stewart
Robert Pyles, president of the APsaA, stated that the American wanted effective external credentialing as soon as possible and wished to avoid entanglement in a destructive lawsuit. He reaffirmed that the American will stay at the table.
The Fellows discussed this issue at length. Some questioned the wisdom of negotiating with a partner threatening a lawsuit. Some wondered if external accreditation could ever be established within the Consortium.
Rosenblitt said he had long wrestled with these issues and advised that the American make every reasonable effort to develop external credentialing: “There is too much good that could come from it to throw it away.” He reaffirmed the American's commitment to the IPS. With changes in the IPS structure, he hoped that “the rubber would meet the road” and the IPS would be included. Rosenblitt considered the extensive Board discussion “a cautious endorsement” to proceed. (At the time this issue of TAP was published, it was reported that all four partners in the Consortium had agreed on a provisional standards document to be circulated to their organizations.)
BOPS voted to accept the Committee on Certification's proposal to modify certification procedures. A major change is that the initial certification evaluation would consist of a written presentation of two cases and an oral presentation of a third. The committee felt this would provide a better opportunity to evaluate the work of many applicants fairly. Previously, the evaluation was on three written cases and, if questions arose, a subsequent oral presentation was an option. Only about half the applicants passed the initial written presentations, but of those deferred who elected to present orally, about 90 percent passed. Since deferral could be a demoralizing experience, the committee felt that including an initial oral component would provide additional valuable information, in all likelihood increasing the acceptance rate. Other major certification changes included providing for as much applicant anonymity as possible and requiring a case that ended “as a result of significant analytic progress” instead of a “classically” terminated case.
Certification Committee chair Michael Singer presented the informative report of the committee, which had deliberated in September. “The truth is that certification is a necessary means of assuring and insuring that we have a system of peer review which attempts to measure analytic competence,” the report said. Recognizing that some dissatisfaction about certification is unavoidable, it went on to say that it was the Board's responsibility to certify in order “to maintain the integrity of our standards in the eyes of the public and our members.”
The Fellows did not question the need for and value of certification. (This topic was the subject of much discussion on the Association's e-mail list prior to the Fall Meeting.) Discussion centered on the possibility of allowing the applicant the option to choose either the new or the old certification method. In a close vote, the Board voted not to establish an option except in unusual situations.
Robert Cummings summarized the final report of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Board Structure and Function. A major concern of the task force is that the Board operates within an organization with extensive membership functions. This creates the potential of undue influence on the credentialing functions of BOPS. For example, the Board's budget has remained static, although the budget for the Council's membership functions has expanded dramatically. Because of current budget restrictions,
BOP's Coordinating Committee and the Committee on Certification took significant cuts. Most dramatically, Project 2000 received no funds at all.
A related concern was that some APsaA leaders have expressed their views on occasion about Board educational functions, such as new training facilities, certification, and waivers. The committee was concerned that their sincerely held beliefs and desire to improve the American could be experienced as influence.
The task force's report suggested that BOPS have independent financial support, that the Association create structures to protect the Board's credentialing functions, and that representatives from the public sit on the Board. Cummings said that the task force's recommendations were consistent with the regulations of the Committee on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (now the Council on Higher Education Accreditation) for accreditation organizations within a larger membership organization. He emphasized that the committee did not advocate complete externalization.
President-elect Richard Fox said he was troubled because the tone of the report might reinforce an adversarial attitude toward BOPS. He believed the strength of the Association has been the synergy between the membership and educational functions. He added that the officers did not intend to compromise the functioning of the Board. Treasurer Newell Fischer said that the treasurer worked for the Association, both Council and BOPS. This was said, in the context of significant cuts for many committees of Council, including the Budget and Finance Committee and Steering Committee. Ronald Benson, who served on the Ad Hoc Task Force on Board Structure and Function, said isolation was not the intent but that BOPS should be the final authority of accreditation functions. Pyles was concerned about increasing BOPS isolation and advised building more bridges than fences.
Rosenblitt concluded that the report was controversial in the best way because it addressed very important conceptual issues. The Board accepted the report, with one Fellow in opposition and seven abstaining. Its mission performed, the task force was discharged. Rosenblitt then appointed a new Ad Hoc Committee on Board Structure and Function to continue to explore these issues. It will be chaired by Morton Reiser.
Jerome Winer reported on the COPE study group on the functionally impaired faculty analyst. The group made three recommendations to deal with this difficult problem:
Each institute form an assistance committee.
BOPS form an assistance committee to advise institutes how to handle problems.
The BOPS assistance committee collect and disseminate information.
The Board approved the report overwhelmingly. It will be discussed by institutes, and in May the Board may vote on final approval.
Phyllis Tyson returned as chair of the Committee on Preparedness and Progress (COPAP) for one year in order to shepherd the eligibility by-law amendment proposed by the committee. BOPS expressed comfort with the revised wording of the amendment. Three waiver requests were passed, but Rosenblitt asked COPAP to prepare for BOPS a concise explanation of COPAP waiver procedures for those who do not meet the new eligibility criteria of the eligibility amendment.
The Board approved seven new training analysts. Judith Chertoff from Baltimore-Washington, Patricia Martin from Cleveland, and Stephen A. Tew from Houston-Galveston were accepted. Also approved were Charles Fisher from San Francisco, Ronald Furedy from Seattle, Scott L Carder from Southern California, and J. David Miller from Washington. Appointed Geographic Rule Supervising Analysts were Alan Z. Skolnikoff for St. Louis and Morris L. Peltz for Topeka. Hugo J. Zee was appointed Geographic Rule Supervising Analyst for Florida.
Ronald Benson, chair of the Committee on Institutes, reported that the two institutes in Philadelphia plan to inaugurate crossover supervision. Supervisors from one institute will supervise candidates from the other. This is another significant step in the process of healing the ill-will caused by the 1949 institute split in Philadelphia. The supervisors are J. Alexis Burland, Philip Escoll, Ruth S. Fischer, and Henri Parens from the Institute of the Philadelphia Association and Kenneth Cohen from the Philidelphia Institute.
Remigio Gonzales, chair of the Board Committee on Membership, reported that in addition to evaluating academic associates, the committee will soon begin evaluating IPA members who wish to join the American. The Membership Committee will be working with the IPA Ad Hoc Membership Committee, with the goal of assuming full responsibility for this function in the future.
Robert Cummings read the report of Cornelius Heijn on the new draft of the revision of Principles and Standards of Training. Eligibility and suitability standards have been completely rewritten. Adult standards are now better integrated with child and adolescent standards. The revision explains the reasons for establishing the various standards.
Harvey Rich, president of the American Psychoanalytic Foundation (APF), reported assets of $448,000. This reflects a growth of $40,000, after grant disbursements of $70,000. APF has supported diverse projects including the Public Forum, sponsorship of visiting professors, and creation of institute telecommunication sites.
Michael Singer, Chair of the Certification Committee, reported that twenty-seven members had been certified [see box on this page]. The committee evaluated twenty-five first-time applicants and fourteen continuing applicants.
Elected to the Nominating Committee for Board Chair were Michael Singer, David Carlson, Warren Procci, Alvin Robbins, and Harold Wylie.
Ralph Engle, chair of the Committee on Ethics, mentioned that the final revision on the new ethics guidelines was going to institutes for last-chance comments before a Board vote in May.