Since 2001 a number of institutes, societies, and foundations have merged to form “centers.” The center organizational model includes psychoanalytic training, community-based programs, and fundraising plans. APsaA's Committee on Societies and Centers (CoSc), chaired by Richard Lightbody, conducted in-depth research on centers across the country, which resulted in the TAP article, “Societies and Centers: Current Trends in Governance Change,” (40/3). It gave readers an historical view from the decision-making process of switching to the center model to identifying common and differing features of the newly formed centers. As of 2007, there are 11 local groups out of 53 that call themselves centers and/or function as centers.
In a two-part series, we will take a close look at two centers with distinct structures: the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis, recently established in July 2007, and the Cleveland Psychoanalytic Center, established in 2002. These two centers are functioning as nonprofit organizations that have combined their tradition of providing psychoanalytic training with programs that benefit the mental health community and the general public along with raising revenue. This first article focuses on the San Francisco Center.
Since the 1940s the San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institute and Society had existed separately. In 1961 the two organizations were incorporated as a single unit, which resulted in the development of more internal and external programs, a resource library, research sponsorship as well as an increase in membership. In 1991 the San Francisco Foundation for Psychoanalysis was founded to support the institute and society by raising funds, holding organizational assets and engaging in community outreach activities. For over 60 years the San Francisco Institute and Society had been offering psychoanalytic training and community programs. In 2004, its board of trustees desired to better position the organization for the future, “to be more environmentally fit,” said William Glover, president of the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis. The group began an arduous strategic planning process with the assistance of a local consultant.
During this process concerns were addressed about long-term financial viability, organizational effectiveness, membership morale, the need to develop a financing plan for a new building, the desire to build philanthropic support, and the changing environment for psychoanalysis and its practitioners. The strategic planning process enabled the group to look at its strengths and weaknesses and opportunities and obstacles through member surveys, structured interviews, and focus groups. The group realized that its previous mission, “being dedicated to training psychoanalysts and serving the needs of its members,” no longer supported the broader direction in which it wanted to move.
The membership, with an 80 percent approval vote, decided to move forward with the recommendations of the strategic plan to unify both entities (the institute and society and the foundation) and achieve five strategic goals. The group created new bylaws, reorganized the management structure, and categorized programs and services into four divisions: membership services, psychoanalytic training, community education and services, and research. Throughout the transition, issues surfaced that were addressed and resolved, and in July 2007 the plan was finalized and the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis was formed.
The structure of this newly formed center consists of a board of trustees, president, and a management team that includes the executive director, the four divisions, and faculty/membership. The board of trustees includes community and analyst members, with the majority being community members. The board's Nominating Committee has a majority of analyst members. Glover, the center's president, believes that community board members will be instrumental in building external relationships and generating revenue through fundraising activities.
With the center model in place, Glover said that the workload is still being shaped and is evolving due to the new structure. He believes the new organizational model provides cleaner lines of accountability, and he looks forward to more community involvement and financial support. To date, the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis has more than 160 practicing analysts, more than 45 candidates, and over 300 members. It is “dedicated to advancing the vitality and enduring value of psychoanalysis in northern California.”
In the next TAP, we will continue this series with a description of the steps that the Cleveland group took to form a center in 2002, and follow their progress and challenges over the last five years.
We are pleased to continue in the spirit of FORWARD! by providing information to raise awareness, educate, and offer suggestions for institutes, societies, foundations, and individuals. We would like to hear from potential contributors. Please e-mail your suggestions and/or articles for future columns to us at and .
Editor's note: For several years APsaA has published FORWARD!, a newsletter about disseminating psychoanalytic ideas in the community. This new column is designed to bring this information directly to TAP readers and to carry on the work of its predecessor.
Dionne Hogans, B.B.A., is the administrator at the Wisconsin Psychoanalytic Institute, Society and Foundation.
Elizabeth Manne, B.A., is the executive director at the Baltimore Washington Center for Psychoanalysis. Both are members of the Association of Administrators, an auxiliary of APsaA.