Certification has evolved, under tension, to satisfy complex aims of standards-setting, membership, and assurance that training standards are met. Prior to 1946 there was neither individual Association membership nor certification. A 1947 by-law amendment created individual memberships. A response to the influx of new members was appointment of the “Committee on Procedure for Certifying Institute-Endorsed Names for Membership in the Association.” Thus was embodied the controversial idea that the Association was more than a membership organization.
A 1948 amendment assigning BOPS the duty of receiving applications for membership linked membership to educational standards. Because application for membership could be made only two years after graduation, it was generally inferred that membership standards were greater than those required for graduation. BOPS appointed the Membership Committee in 1949 to review applications for membership.
Between 1950 and 1977, the Membership Committee developed application procedures based on the by-law provision that BOPS certify that the standards for training had been met by the graduating institute. The kind and amount of information requested in the application changed over time, though it was always based on reports of clinical work. The application requested information from supervisors, training analysts, and the graduating institute. Active members were invited to comment in confidence about the character and fitness of each applicant. Thus was the review of training combined with the test of an individual's ability to conduct an analysis. The applicant who was not recommended for membership received a letter of explanation from the committee with a copy to the institute, but there was little other feedback.
In contrast, following the Membership Committee's decisions, the committee chair met with institute representatives providing feedback about the deferred applications. The committee anticipated that graduates would return to the institute for assistance, but help — thought by many to contaminate the application — was not always forthcoming. Members and graduates believed that the Membership Committee judged both the effectiveness of an institute and the worth of its graduates.
Eventually, to demystify the procedure, observers from institutes not represented on the committee were invited to participate in Membership Committee meetings. Later, interviews were added to subsequent reviews for those whose applications had been deferred.
It was widely believed throughout the Association that the membership procedures in place were used to monitor the progress of institutes by withholding certification of their graduates. Early attempts to ease tensions by assigning certifying and accrediting functions to separate organizations (for example, the National Board of Psychiatry and Neurology) were unsuccessful. In 1977, the membership passed an amendment authorizing BOPS to issue a certificate to those who had met the standards for training. The Committee on Certification replaced the Membership Committee. The only gain was that certification was no longer linked to membership, to the extent that a graduate could apply for certification without applying for membership.
The greater change was that the Committee on Certification now made explicit what had previously been implicit. It was the individual's ability to work as an analyst that was certified, not the institute's training program.
However, the procedures of the new certification committee were based upon those of its predecessor. It was not clear that any burden had been lifted from the applicant to demonstrate that training had met APsaA standards, nor was more help offered those whose applications were deferred. The Committee on Certification's guiding concept was to perform a longitudinal review of the training experience, in contrast to the institute's series of latitudinal assessments at annual progress reviews and graduation. The committee's review would provide documentation of the applicant's growth as an analyst and, by inference, that training standards had been met.
During the 1980s, tensions continued to build. Increasing numbers of graduates chose not to apply for certification, considering it redundant, unfair, and stifling. Periodically the Committee on Certification, BOPS, and ad hoc groups reviewed procedures. Changes were proposed and adopted, but the procedure remained essentially that of Membership Committee days. In 1992 Dan Buie and Morris Peltz
published the report of the Task Force to Study Certification, which had been commissioned by BOPS chair Marvin Margolis in 1990 in response to growing criticism. The Committee on Certification incorporated the findings of this report into its own ongoing reviews.
Simultaneously, those dissatisfied with the gatekeeping function of certification pressed for change to allow institutes' graduates to become active members without further review of credentials. After initial defeat, a compromise facilitated passage of a 1992 de-linking amendment, providing a review of a graduate's credentials by the Membership Committee of the Executive Council before he or she became an active member. Unless certified, active members could not vote on by-laws issues, serve as executive councilors, Fellows of BOPS, or officers of the Association.
The Committee on Certification recommended procedural changes consistent with the new situation. Active membership became a requirement to apply for certification. Reports of all treatments conducted under supervision were replaced by three, then later two reports of the applicant's best work. Reports from supervisors and from the institute were eliminated. A revised application form requested only the information needed to determine eligibility. Applicants' names were no longer circulated for comment by the membership. The certification committee chair no longer met with institute representatives, and institutes no longer received copies of the committee's letters to applicants. Applicants and reviewers began communicating by telephone. The task of the committee broadened to include supplying whatever information the applicant needed to address the committee's questions.
Thus the certification process shifted from a review of the training experience to an assessment of the applicant's current function as an analyst. In 1994, discussion groups were added to the existing workshops at APsaA meetings to clarify the process. An interview eventually became a part of all applications. Further changes include making review of the written applications anonymous and conducting interviews and reviews of written work at a single meeting of the Association.
Subsequent by-law amendments eased the passage to active membership by eliminating the credential review for affiliate members upon graduation. Another by-law amendment in 2001 gave full voting rights and ability to
serve as officers and on committees to all active members. Certification is now required to serve as a Fellow of BOPS and for training analyst appointment.
Although these are dramatic changes, tensions continue. The debate goes beyond certification to the relationship between Board and Council and to the training-analyst system itself. Further change will come as the membership struggles to sort out the inherent contradictions built into our complex organization.
Arthur L. Rosenbaum, M.D., was appointed to the Committee on Certification in 1998 and served as chair 1990–96. He has served as Fellow of BOPS and executive councilor. He has been a member of the Committee on Institutes and is now a member of the Ethics Committee. A training analyst, he is currently director of the Katan Treatment Center of the Cleveland Psychoanalytic Society and a member of the Cleveland Psychoanalytic Foundation. (This is an edited and updated version of a similar article published in TAP in 1999.)