We have two strategic initiatives, reorganization and programmatic planning. It is crunch time for both.
The Task Force on Reorganization needs to make decisions that will lead to recommendations. I believe it is making strides.
As necessary as it is, however, reorganizing governance is inward looking while the real challenges to psychoanalysis come from the outside. The climate report spells trouble in our psychoanalytic ecology. We have lost the seat reserved at the cultural table for major ideas and knowledge, mental health care is being industrialized, and the very definition of psychoanalysis is being challenged. We have to act. Another fact of life, however, is that even as a strong 3,400-member organization, we are never going to have the numbers or dollars to do it all. We must be selective. We needed to know our priorities, so we did a survey of our members' values. Now we need to organize those priorities into a strategic plan.
We have lost the seat reserved at the cultural table for major ideas and knowledge, mental health care is being industrialized, and the very definition of psychoanalysis is being challenged. We have to act.
Crafting a strategic plan is complex and I don't have space for detail. I can illustrate the process, however, by work in the advocacy and education priorities.
The Oxford negotiations relate to the advocacy priority. In fact, the Oxford negotiations illustrate the strategic principles of selective action, targeted goals, principled arguments, and knowledgeable messengers. Oxford miscalculated in demanding records without respect for confidentiality and in demanding repayment when records were considered inadequate. When indignant clinicians protested, Oxford took the important step of convening a representative group from mental health organizations. While larger and richer organizations sent staffers, I went with Bob and Jim Pyles. We focused immediately on the ethical principles of minimum necessary standards, informed consent, and privacy protections for psychotherapy notes. We emphasized that ethics based treatment meant both quality care and good business. That position and its presentation were based on fundamental principles of ethics and good treatment. We will use what we learned whenever and wherever we can to protect access to quality care.
While advocacy, as the number four priority, is a good example of our goals, education, as the number one priority, may be even better. When I say “education,” you may think “BOPS,” but the Board on Professional Standards is just one part of our educational program. While direct psychoanalytic education is coordinated and monitored by the Association through BOPS, the actual function of direct psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic education is local. Introductory programs and quality continuing education are the educational pieces for which the Association itself is primarily responsible.
Our introductory education programs, such as the Psychoanalytic Fellowship, are designed to accomplish a first exposure to psychoanalytic ideas. A new, innovative program is the Task Force on Undergraduate Education focused on college students. This could not be more timely if we want an important seat at the cultural table. To be effective in introducing psychoanalytic ideas to undergraduates, we must (1) influence teachers, (2) influence curricula, and (3) help undergraduates connect with us.
Furthermore, to be strategically effective, our current programs must work with the task force. Student Associates must reach out to undergraduates as well as to graduate students, and our Associates Programs must evolve a way to reach out to their professors. While we should introduce undergraduates to psychoanalytic ideas, we don't think that support should be based on dues income alone. To develop the program, we have applied for and received a Developing Psychoanalytic Practice and Training (DPPT) grant from IPA.
On the other side of psychoanalytic education, a major continuing education effort is the Scientific Program. It is not generally known, but is a sad fact, that the program is chronically underfunded and unable to keep up with the times. In thinking strategically, it seemed clear that a modern, first-class program required fundraising. With Glen Gabbard, chair of the Program Committee, and Stanley Coen, chair of the Program Committee's University Forum, I asked the Executive Council for authorization to explore pharmaceutical and other corporate funding. Now that Council has given approval on a conditional basis, we will explore the possibilities for “no strings attached” funding. Meanwhile, there will be an off-site University Forum fundraiser—a benefit concert—during the 2006 New York meetings.
Discussions with the Ticho Foundation, established in memory of our deceased friends, Ernst and Gertrude Ticho, have resulted in what I hope will be the first of many Gertrude and Ernst Ticho Lectureships. This first lectureship, fittingly scheduled next June for Washington, D.C., where the Tichos lived, worked, and taught, will recognize and reward an early- to mid-career analyst. To my knowledge, this lectureship is the first named and sponsored lectureship in the Association's history.
Jon Meyer, M.D., is president of the American Psychoanalytic Association.
As fundraising necessities and innovative approaches have been talked about, some other potential sources of support have developed. In that light, I have asked Glen Gabbard to work out a budget for an optimal modern program (e.g., allowing for PowerPoint presentations and adequate support for major speakers). The optimal program budget is an important strategic step because it defines fundraising targets to discuss with potential donors.
While the Oxford negotiations, the Task Force on Undergraduate Education, and the Scientific Program are just examples of elements from our strategic plan, I think they are good ones. The essence of the strategic planning process is that, since we cannot do everything, effectiveness requires focus and principled approaches. Our priorities give us our focus. Within priorities, we must look not only at direct implementation of the priority (e.g., training in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy), but also at the underpinnings of the priority (e.g., introduction to psychoanalytic ideas in college) and at programs that logically extend the benefits of the priority (e.g., the Scientific Program). While dues support may provide a hard money basis for crucial programs, as it does for the Scientific Program, in many instances to expand our reach and be innovative and effective, we must fundraise.
There is a lot to digest, but I hope you think about the examples and processes. As always, a central part of strategic planning is dialogue and I look forward to talking with you again in New York. In the meanwhile, I will appreciate all your comments, thoughts, and critiques.