The American reached an historic turning point in December when the Board on Professional Standards enthusiastically adopted a plan that will permit free-standing institutes to achieve accreditation and will help their members to become members of the American. Free-standing institutes are training centers not associated with the APsaA that have experience in training psychoanalysts. Until now we have developed all of our own training centers internally, whether through the Committee on New Training Facilities or through splits in one of our own institutes.
Sometimes psychoanalytic training has developed outside the American because mental health professionals who were not physicians found admission to our programs impractical or impossible; sometimes it is because of theoretical differences about psychoanalysis. In some cases, the views of independent groups and our own have gradually moved closer together, and some of free-standing groups will welcome the chance to affiliate with us. Reconciling the interests and views of independent institutes with those of the American's members, institutes, and societies isn't a simple matter, but in the conviction that it was possible I appointed a Task Force on the Accreditation of Established Institutes, chaired by David Carlson, with Ronald Benson and Ralph Engle, BOPS chair-elect, as members.
The Carlson task force agreed that some new mechanism for affiliation was timely and would benefit both psychoanalysis as a discipline and our Association. As the task force observed in its final report,
Recent years have witnessed a growing convergence in the world of psychoanalysis. Members of other groups publish in our journals more often and appear in our national and local programs more often, just as our members appear in their meetings. Theoretical and technical differences, while still important, have in some instances diminished more than is commonly realized. At the same time the Consortium, the PEP CD-ROM project and other joint endeavors have demonstrated the benefits to the psychoanalytic community of working together; and recent years' political and economic pressures have underlined the importance of unity.
The task force faced an enormous challenge. It needed to develop procedures that would respect the histories and cultures of free-standing institutes and the interests of their members while maintaining the standards and principles that define our national educational system. Clearly, compromises needed to be made. The task force successfully clarified issues and developed solutions.
The new procedures rest upon the following cornerstones.
First, the standards adopted by the Board reflect years of study and debate, and we are unlikely to change them without compelling evidence that they can be improved. Acceptance of a second set of standards that were not in accordance with our current standards would risk promoting divisiveness within a new and larger organization and risk redefining our minimum standards in a downward direction.
Second, it is possible to create structures that will help independent groups develop toward full congruence with the Standards and Principles of Psychoanalytic Education of the Board on Professional Standards while they enjoy a meaningful interim affiliation with us and develop toward final full accreditation and integration into the American.
Third, since each free-standing institute is unique, we must clearly enunciate the principles by which we will be guided and be prepared to flexibly develop a mutually acceptable process for achieving accreditation.
Fourth, the work of maintaining liaison with institutes interested in affiliation, of studying the issues that develop, and of keeping the Board informed will require the full-time attention of a standing committee.
The new procedures recognize that freestanding training facilities can be categorized into two groups based on their organizational history and development. The Carlson task forces report described the situation as follows:
We are confronted by two fairly distinct sorts of independent institutes: long-established institutes, usually founded before 1980, with well-defined structure and procedure and training and supervising analyst systems and newer groups with newer traditions and varying administrative arrangements. The two kinds of groups can be distinguished in part by age, but most reliably by their degree of structuralization, i.e., the degree to which an administrative apparatus has been usefully elaborated and the degree to which it functions in a relatively stable way.
Proceeding from this understanding, the task force recommended, and BOPS established, separate procedures for the accreditation of long-established institutes and recently established institutes.
In either type of institute, the new procedures call for recognition of the established institute as an allied institute of the American Psychoanalytic Association once (1) the training facility's membership and governing body indicate its intention to move toward acceptance of the Americans standards, (2) all new training analyses and supervised cases are being conducted at a five- (or at minimum four-) times-per-week basis, and (3) a consultative committee has vouched for the administrative soundness of the program.
Ongoing training analyses and supervisions would continue unaltered, as would the appointments of current supervising and training analysts. Certification would be available to graduates of the independent program on the same basis as it is for our current graduates, based on the review of five- (or at minimum four-) times-per-week work.
In the case of newer facilities, existing supervising and training analyst appointments could be renewed up to five years, by which time all supervising and training analysts would be required to have achieved certification by the American and to have passed review by a facilitative committee of BOPS. In older facilities, current supervising analysts could be grandparented, provided only that they agreed to conduct future training analyses and supervisions at the five- or minimum four-times-per-week standard. After a transition period, during which time graduates of the institute would have achieved certification, requirements for appointment would be the same as those in our current institutes.
When a free-standing institute achieves allied institute status and is continuing to develop toward accreditation, it will be able to become deeply involved in the work of the Board on Professional Standards. The analysts of the allied institute will be able to take part in BOPS committees, and the allied institute would be invited to send two observers to BOPS meetings.
Although completing the accreditation process will be a significant challenge in every instance for both BOPS and the free-standing institute, it is my belief that full accreditation can be achieved by free-standing institutes in a very reasonable time frame.
The procedures for accreditation for freestanding institutes as detailed in the Carlson task force's report are available to anyone through the Central Office. BOPS has established a new BOPS standing committee, the Committee on the Accreditation of Free-standing Institutes, which is currently being formed. We invite free-standing institutes to contact the BOPS chair and begin a collegial mutual exploration of the possibility of affiliation.