Standards and Accreditation
(Reviewed May 2019)
Goals and Mission
AAPE will develop, establish, and promote educational standards for psychoanalytic education. AAPE will facilitate national accreditation through the Accreditation Council for Psychoanalytic Education (ACPEinc). AAPE will begin with the existing standards in use by the American Psychoanalytic Association as of January 2017.
AAPE has a Memorandum of Understanding with ACPEinc to collaborate on accreditation procedures. AAPE and ACPEinc will conduct periodic joint site visits of member institutes and programs. The purpose of the joint site visit is to ensure that the educational goals specific to AAPE are being followed during the process of accreditation by ACPEinc.
AAPE will assist training programs to prepare for national accreditation site visits with self-study reports and peer-to-peer consultation based on long experience with resolving issues related to maintaining high standards in psychoanalytic education.
The AAPE Model
AAPE standards for the education and training of psychoanalysts follow the requirements of the tripartite Eitingon model. AAPE standards meet or exceed the requirements of the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA). Trainees in psychoanalytic training are required to be in analysis with a training analyst at a minimum of four, preferably five, times a week frequency, for a period of their training which substantially overlaps course work and supervised cases. The training program requires completion of at least 450 hours of course work with a suitable curriculum, supervised clinical experience with three cases of more than one gender, and meeting graduation requirements that include a case presentation or a scholarly paper or both.
AAPE standards require the use of the Training and Supervising Analyst system. The analysis of candidates in training as well as clinical supervision of candidates may be conducted only by Training and Supervising analysts. Appointment as Training and Supervising analysts requires meeting clinical immersion criteria, an ethics attestation, state licensure, certification in psychoanalysis, and assessment of clinical skills by means of a detailed review of clinical work.
AAPE STANDARDS FOR EDUCATION and TRAINING IN PSYCHOANALYSIS
Table of Contents
I. Definition and Goals of Psychoanalytic Education
II. Responsibility for Psychoanalytic Education and Clinical Training
III. Selection for Psychoanalytic Education and Clinical Training
IV. Components of Psychoanalytic Education and Clinical Training
V. Assessment of the Adequacy of the Candidate’s Education
VI. Completion of Psychoanalytic Education and Readiness for Graduation
VII. Selection and Development of Institute Faculty
VIII. Selection and Development of Training and Supervising Analysts
IX. Education in Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
I. Definition and Goals of Psychoanalytic Education:
Psychoanalysis is a set of theories of structure, function and development of mental life, psychopathology, and treatment. The application of these theories forms the basis of both a specialized form of individual psychotherapeutic treatment, psychoanalysis, and the principles of the psychodynamic psychotherapies.
The current Educational Standards apply to psychoanalytic education and training (adult, combined adult and child/adolescent, and child focused training) in member-institutes of the American Association for Psychoanalytic Education. Throughout these Educational Standards, the term “institutes” refers to the psychoanalytic education and training component of psychoanalytic institutes, centers, and programs. These Standards do not refer to other education or training components of psychoanalytic institutes, such as psychotherapy training.
Psychoanalytic education and training provides knowledge and critical understanding of theoretical and clinical psychoanalysis, and proficiency in the practice of clinical psychoanalysis. Completion of education and training, and graduation from a member institute are based upon the acquisition of sufficient knowledge and skill to conduct psychoanalytic treatment independently and competently.
The American Association for Psychoanalytic Education (AAPE) recognizes two applications of the tripartite Eitingon model of psychoanalytic training. They are sufficiently similar in goals and approach to the training process, and are sufficiently coherent, evolved, and integrated. The AAPE Board of Directors deems as acceptable both models for member institutes: The Primary Model, which has two pathways to TA/SA appointment, (1) the Traditional Pathway and (2) the Developmental Pathway; (see Section VIII. “Selection and Development of Training and Supervising Analysts, below), and the “William Alanson White Institute (WAWI) model.” Member institutes may organize their training programs around either of these two models, providing that the “model” is adopted in its entirety; Member institutes cannot pick and choose from among features of each model. Reference herein to the “WAWI training model” shall mean and incorporate the approach to policy and procedures in congruence with these Educational Standards. [The Bulletin of the William Alanson White Institute, published periodically by the White Institute and available on the Institute’s website <www.wawhite.org>, includes the detailed procedures employed by the William Alanson White Institute that are essential to implementing the WAWI training model].
AAPE requires that the “tripartite model” of psychoanalytic education be implemented in each of the two training models. The three required components of the tripartite model of psychoanalytic education and training include:
The American Association for Psychoanalytic Education requires a Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst system in member institutes. The appointment process, modifications and waivers, are described in Section VIII, below.
II. Responsibility for Psychoanalytic Education and Clinical Training
Psychoanalytic education and clinical training is a shared responsibility of AAPE and its member Institutes. Establishing and promoting standards for psychoanalytic education and clinical training is a responsibility of the Board of Directors of the American Association for Psychoanalytic Education.
Member Institutes are responsible for ensuring that the training analysis, didactic curriculum, and supervision of psychoanalytic work of all candidates are consistent with these standards.
Member institutes will participate in periodic site visits for the purpose of approval and accreditation. These site visits are designed to review the institute’s educational and training programs and to assess the institute’s compliance with the AAPE standards. When institutes are not in full compliance with standards, AAPE consults with the institute to assist in strengthening its programs to return to full compliance. If these collaborative efforts fail to result in full compliance with these standards, suspension of membership from AAPE may be considered based on policies and procedures adopted by the AAPE Board of Directors.
III. Selection of Candidates for Psychoanalytic Education and Training
It is the policy of American Association for Psychoanalytic Education that an applicant for candidacy is never excluded on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, or physical disability. Selection is based on an applicant’s eligibility, suitability, and readiness. All applicants for clinical training must (i) have a license recognized by the jurisdiction of their institute that permits the clinical practice of psychoanalysis; or (ii) be in training in a jurisdiction in which the clinical practice of psychoanalysis is exempt from or not regulated by licensure; or (iii) with respect to institutes that are authorized by their jurisdictions to offer training leading to the licensure of graduates in the clinical practice of psychoanalysis, be eligible within that jurisdiction to provide clinical services as part of their institute training.
A. Eligibility
Applicants who hold the following degrees and post-graduate clinical training are eligible for training:
1. Doctors of Medicine or of Osteopathic Medicine who have graduated from an accredited medical school or osteopathic school; and have completed or are near completion of a psychiatry residency program.
2. Mental health professionals who have completed a doctoral level degree from an accredited mental health program and a minimum of 3000 hours or two years full time mental health clinical experience post-graduation, including in-patient and/or emergency care experience.
3. Mental health professionals who have graduated from an accredited masters program which is generally recognized as the highest clinical degree in the field (currently a masters degree in social work, psychiatric nursing, or marriage and family counseling), and have completed at least two additional post- masters degree years of didactic and clinical training including 3000 hours of clinical immersion, 60 post-masters hours of psychodynamic psychotherapy supervision and 60 post-masters hours of psychodynamically oriented coursework and clinical seminars, or a two year organized post-masters psychodynamic psychotherapy program including supervised clinical experience. They must be licensed in the jurisdiction in which they practice, or practice in a jurisdiction in which their practices are exempt from or not regulated by licensure.
4. In the “William Alanson White Institute model," mental health professionals who have a doctoral level degree as defined in (III. A. 2) or a masters level degree as defined in (III A. 3) above but have not yet accrued postgraduate clinical experience as defined in (III. A. 2 or III. A. 3), provided such trainees are eligible to obtain a “limited permit” from the NYS Education Department and are documented to have achieved postgraduate experience as defined in (III. A. 2. or III A. 3) by the end of their psychoanalytic training.
5. Other persons who qualify under applicable law for admission to a member institute that is authorized within its jurisdiction to offer a training program leading to licensure in psychoanalysis. (In New York State, such programs are formally designated as “Licensure Qualifying Programs” under the regulatory oversight of the State Education Department).
B. Suitability
Applicants must demonstrate a level of maturity, as well as the personal, professional, and ethical integrity necessary for full psychoanalytic training.
C. Readiness
1. Eligible applicants must fulfill the prerequisite didactic education and clinical experience specified in A, above, prior to matriculation.
2. The applicant should be able to demonstrate some knowledge of psychoanalysis as well as the ability to meet the demands inherent in psychoanalytic training.
3. Personal and professional readiness for matriculation is determined through the application process using interviews and a review of clinical material provided. Individuals accepted for analytic training but evaluated as not fully prepared for matriculation (i.e. starting seminars) should participate in didactic and supervised clinical activity commensurate with their skill and educational level in preparation for matriculation.
D. Modifications of Eligibility Standards
The American Association for Psychoanalytic Education will consider requests from participating psychoanalytic institutes choosing to accept candidates who do not fall within the Eligibility criteria outlined above.
The American Association for Psychoanalytic Education has developed procedures and criteria for the modification of the usual eligibility standards for psychoanalytic training for Institutes wishing to accept candidates who do not fully meet the above eligibility criteria:
IV. Components of Psychoanalytic Education and Clinical Training
Psychoanalytic education and training has three essential and required components:
1. The Non-reporting Training Analysis:
A non-reporting training analysis: In the AAPE model, the training analysis should be conducted with the analysand on the couch at a frequency of five, with a minimum of four, sessions per week, on separate days, in person. In the “WAWI model,” the training analysis may be conducted on the couch or face-to-face, at a frequency of at least three weekly sessions. In the AAPE model, it is expected that the candidate’s training analysis begins prior to matriculation, and should continue through a substantial portion of the candidate’s supervised clinical psychoanalytic work. In the “WAWI model” the candidate’s training analysis may begin no later than October of the first academic year of training, and should continue at a minimum of three sessions weekly for at least 300 hours. The WAWI Training Committee may recommend additional training analysis depending on the candidate’s progress toward graduation.
AAPE recognizes that the AAPE training model may permit occasional modifications of the frame, including changes in frequency and the use of the couch. A portion of a training analysis conducted in part via the telephone or other electronic means or a condensed personal analysis (a personal analysis with more than one session per day on a regular basis) requires a waiver. Waiver requests are evaluated by the Committee on Adult Training or Committee on Child/Adolescent Training and their recommendations presented to the AAPE Board for approval. A waiver is also required if the candidate’s analysis will be conducted by an analyst who is not a Training Analyst. (See VIII, C). The “WAWI model” provides that waiver requests are under the purview of the Institute’s Training Committee, and permits the Institute’s Training Committee, after due consideration, to grant waivers of the approved Training Analyst requirement.
A non-reporting analysis is defined as completely confidential, without any participation of the candidate’s analyst in progression decisions. The decision to participate together in a class that is part of the didactic curriculum by a candidate and their training analyst should be determined at the Institute level and ultimately should be based on respect for the wishes of the analysand and analyst.
2. Psychoanalytic Curriculum
An integrated curriculum of psychoanalytic study must provide a comprehensive understanding of the fundamentals of and interrelationship between psychoanalytic theory and clinical practice. It should teach critical thinking about the historical and conceptual structure and developments of psychoanalytic theory and practice.
The candidate’s tripartite training experience should involve substantial overlap of course work, training analysis, and supervised clinical work. Simultaneous immersion in these three aspects of training enables the candidate to understand the empirical basis of theoretical formulations and their revisions, to develop insight and self-reflective skills crucial in the treatment of patients and conceptualization of case material. When a candidate’s participation in seminars occurs during a period of less than optimal clinical immersion, a program of post-seminar study may be required to provide candidates maximal opportunities for such integration.
The didactic curriculum consists of a scheduled series of seminars distributed over a period of a minimum of four years or a minimum of 450 hours. Although the titles and timing of seminars vary among Institutes the curriculum should be organized to include the following subject matter:
1. Psychoanalytic Treatment Situation and Technique
The study of psychoanalysis as a treatment process includes diagnosis, indications for and appropriateness of psychoanalysis, the establishment of the psychoanalytic situation, and the theoretical and technical issues relevant to the development and unfolding of the psychoanalytic process. Subsequent readings and clinical case seminars include the technical considerations presenting in the beginning, middle, and ending phases of the analytic process, and may include the conceptual and technical aspects of combined psychoanalytic and psychopharmacological treatments, and other appropriate, adjunctive therapeutic modalities (e.g. couples, child, or family therapies). Technique seminars should explore the applications of theory to clinical process.
2. Psychoanalytic Theory
The basic concepts of psychoanalysis and the major models of the mind are studied from a historical and critical perspective. This includes the critical exploration of the basic writings of Freud and subsequent major psychoanalytic theorists.
3. Psychopathology
A psychoanalyst must develop a dynamic understanding of a broad range of psychopathology. Seminars on psychopathology typically consider historical and contemporary psychoanalytic theories of the neuroses, character disorders, borderline and narcissistic disorders, affective disorders, psychosomatic disorders, and the psychoses. Clinical examples should illustrate the multiplicity of dynamic, structural, genetic, and developmental factors leading to the formation of the presenting clinical picture.
4. Development
Understanding the ways in which psychic functions and structures originate, evolve, and progress throughout the life cycle is essential to a psychoanalytic understanding of the human mind, and essential to an understanding of the psychoanalytic clinical situation. The curriculum should include study of psychoanalytic theories of psychological development beginning with the parents' experience of the pregnancy and extending through adulthood. Where possible, it is recommended that Institutes integrate clinical and didactic experience of child/adolescent analytic training with adult analytic training.
5. Continuous Case Seminars and Clinical Conferences
Case seminars and other types of clinical conferences are intended to offer opportunities for learning about the deepening of the analytic process and the phases of treatment. They should also offer exposure to a range of differing clinical methods and approaches in special situations.
6. Research Courses
Courses should be designed to cover basic knowledge and developments in empirical research studies of psychoanalytic theory and practice, research studies of psychoanalytic education, and interdisciplinary or applied psychoanalytic studies and methods.
7. Interdisciplinary and Allied Fields of Knowledge
The curriculum should include courses such as cognitive neuroscience, gender and sexuality, combined treatment methods, the writing of case reports and other psychoanalytic work and the ethics of psychoanalytic practice. Electives offer opportunities for candidates to develop and deepen individual interests.
3. Supervision of Adult Psychoanalysis
The supervision of analytic cases should teach the relationships between theory, clinical process, self-awareness, and technique, thereby providing the knowledge and skill to conduct effective psychoanalytic treatment. The AAPE model requires three supervised psychoanalytic treatments during training. Supervised psychoanalytic treatments should be conducted with the analysand on the couch at a frequency of at least four, preferably five, sessions per week on separate days. The “WAWI model” requires at least four cases, seen at a frequency of minimally three sessions weekly (either on the couch or face-to-face) with at least three different supervising analysts, for a total of 200 hours of supervision. AAPE recognizes that modifications of the analytic frame, including the frequency of sessions, the use of the couch, and the need for condensed and distance analysis may be clinically indicated for periods of time, and may differ according to the institute’s training model (see above).
In the AAPE model the supervision of clinical work should occur weekly with a supervising analyst to review and discuss the case the candidate is learning to analyze. Candidates should have a separate supervisor for each case and should meet weekly with each one. As the supervised psychoanalytic treatment progresses, and as the candidate progresses in the educational program, the supervisor and candidate may change the frequency of supervision. In the “WAWI model,” supervision of each case is required to be weekly until graduation and requires that candidates work with at least one supervising analyst of an opposite gender. In neither model should the candidate’s training analyst serve as one of the candidate’s supervisors.
Candidates should be encouraged to begin a first case by the middle of their first year of training upon evaluation of the candidate's readiness to begin supervised psychoanalytic work by the Progression Committee in the AAPE model, or the Training Committee in the WAWI model, or its functional equivalent. Once a first case is established, capable candidates should be encouraged to pursue additional cases early in their training.
In the AAPE model, candidates are required to have at least three adult non-psychotic cases, including patients of different genders; in the “WAWI model,” the decision to conduct psychoanalytic treatment with psychotic states is regarded as a learning experience, jointly discussed and decided between candidate and supervising analyst. In both models, the supervision of cases should occur over a length of time that allows the candidate to develop sufficient knowledge and skill to conduct psychoanalysis independently and competently. Demonstration of this competency is a component of graduation.
Institutes following the AAPE model may allow a candidate to substitute one child or adolescent psychoanalytic case supervised by a Child Supervising Analyst for one of the required adult supervised cases, provided that the candidate also has supervised psychoanalytic treatment experience with cases of different genders. If the candidate is not already trained as a child mental health clinician it is expected that the supervision of this case would continue through termination even if termination occurs beyond graduation. Institutes should be clear with candidates who are not trained as child or adolescent mental health clinicians but who choose to conduct a supervised treatment of a child or adolescent analysis as a part of their training, that they should continue in supervision through the termination phase of this treatment. The “WAWI model” does not provide for child (pre-adolescent) psychoanalytic cases to substitute for the training requirement of four separate adult or adolescent cases.
Ongoing assessment and feedback is a crucial dimension of the candidate’s supervision. Each supervisor is expected to periodically assess the progress of the candidate’s ability to conduct psychoanalytic treatment through written reports or evaluations, which should be communicated to both the candidate and the Progression Committee, the Training Committee, or its functional equivalent.
4. Psychotherapy Supervision (“WAWI Model” only)
In the “William Alanson White Institute” model, candidates are required to work in the Institute’s Psychotherapy Service, providing 80 hours of clinical service (either two patients seen on a once-weekly basis or one person seen on a twice-weekly basis), under the supervision of an Institute-appointed Supervisor of Psychotherapy. Psychotherapy supervision (one hour weekly) is provided to the candidate at no fee. This graduation requirement is monitored by the Institute’s Training Committee.
V. Assessment of Adequacy of the Candidate’s Education in Adult, Child and Adolescent Psychoanalytic Training
1. Assessment of Candidate Progress
A candidate’s progression towards graduation is determined by a thorough assessment of the candidate’s evolving competency in understanding and conducting psychoanalysis. Direct feedback to the candidate about their progression based on assessments by instructors and supervisors is an essential component of the educational process.
All Institutes of the Association are responsible for the periodic formal evaluation of a given candidate's progress by their Progression Committee, Training Committee, or its functional equivalent. This should include the candidate's performance in didactic seminars and clinical work, and an assessment of the degree to which clinical work is progressing in concert with their overall educational progression. Assessment of progress should begin at the first opportunity upon admission and continue until graduation.
Assessment Methodology:Optimal training outcome requires both facilitating and assessing steps in progression. Institutes may choose one of two pathways for facilitating and assessing the progression of candidates: The traditional pathway and the developmental pathway, although there is much overlap between the two. Candidate evaluations should include written assessments communicated to the candidate, the candidate’s supervisors, and the Progression Committee, Training Committee, or its functional equivalent. The Progression Committee, Training Committee, or its functional equivalent approves all requests to begin supervised cases, as well as requests for graduation. Minutes should be kept of all such committee meetings.
The components of candidate evaluation should include:
a) Instructor assessments of the candidate’s mastery of the course material, class participation and ability to work effectively with classmates, critical thinking, and competence in presenting clinical material. Faculty evaluations of the candidate’s performance in seminars should, at a minimum, occur at the end of each seminar.
b) Written supervisory reports assessing the candidate’s progress in conducting clinical work should occur at a minimum on a yearly basis. The content of these reports should be communicated to the candidate.
c) All Institutes are encouraged to use academic colloquia to assess competency and progression. Developmental Pathway Institutes are required to conduct two colloquia; one during the third year or prior to beginning a third case and a second pre-graduation colloquia. Colloquia should consist of two elements: Submission of case write-ups and a formal meeting or series of meetings with several faculty preceptors to discuss the candidate’s clinical work and mastery of psychoanalytic theory and technique. The preceptors recommend to the Progression Committee or its functional equivalent any remedial educational measures that should be undertaken.
d) The “WAWI model” requires that the candidate make at least one case presentation to the Institute community prior to graduation, providing one additional source of information to the Training Committee about readiness to engage in independent psychoanalytic practice as an Institute graduate. The Board of Directors of AAPE and its committees gather information to develop and evaluate guidelines for best practices for progression, including colloquia. It serves as a consultative resource to institutes developing and using progression measurement tools.
VI. Completion of Psychoanalytic Education and Readiness for Graduation
An AAPE member-institute will graduate a candidate when, in its opinion, the candidate has satisfactorily completed all educational requirements of that Institute. Such requirements shall fully adhere to the Standards for Education and Training in Psychoanalysis of the American Association for Psychoanalytic Education. Graduation shall be construed as an indication that the Institute has adequately and carefully evaluated the candidate and considers the candidate competent to conduct psychoanalytic treatment independently. A written statement confirming completion of training shall be furnished to the candidate. The national office of AAPE shall also be notified in writing of a candidate’s graduation.
1. Graduation Criteria
Graduation is predicated on the candidate’s demonstration of an adequate command of clinical and theoretical psychoanalytic knowledge and the capacity to conduct competent and independent psychoanalytic work. Three adult cases (four in the “WAWI model”) including cases of different genders are required to demonstrate the candidate’s competency to conduct an analysis in the opening, middle, and if possible, termination phase. Candidates who are in combined adult/child psychoanalytic training are required to have only two adult cases of different genders in addition to their child and adolescent cases.
Each institute should ensure that a suitable methodology is used to assess candidate readiness for graduation. Assessment for graduation should include a review of reports by instructors and supervisors, review of case write-ups, meetings between the candidate and faculty preceptors to discuss the candidate’s ability to conduct competent and independent psychoanalytic work. A colloquium model in which candidates present their clinical work may also be used in assessing readiness for graduation.
The “White Institute model” requires at least one clinical case presentation to the Institute community prior to graduation. This presentation provides relevant information to the Training Committee about the candidate’s readiness to be graduated and to engage in independent clinical psychoanalytic practice.
AAPE and its committees will, over time, gather information, evaluate and develop guidelines and best practices for graduation colloquia or their equivalent, and serve as a consultative resource for institutes developing and using graduation colloquia or their equivalent.
2. Institute Self-Assessment and Evaluation
The Progression Committee, Training Committee, or its functional equivalent, should periodically conduct a comprehensive critical review of the evaluation methods and standards used to determine completion of training and competence for graduation.
VII. Selection and Development of Faculty
1. Faculty Appointment
The Institute must establish clear policies and procedures for faculty appointment. These should include published eligibility criteria, assessment of suitability, and clear and transparent procedures for the process of appointment. A faculty committee can serve this function. Graduates who are appointed to the Institute faculty can participate in all components of the Institute structure. This includes teaching, research, scholarship, advising and mentoring, committee service, administration, representation of the institute in organizations, and educational outreach.
2. Faculty Development
Institutes should have policies and procedures designed to encourage and develop individual talents of faculty members, especially recently appointed faculty. This may be a system of mentoring, study groups, or post-graduate seminars. Faculty should be encouraged to deepen their own individual interests, which may result in publications or development of courses in a chosen area.
3. Termination of Faculty Appointment
Institutes must have clear and transparent policies and procedures for the removal of any individual from faculty appointment. This requires ongoing assessment of competence in the performance of the duties of faculty in the following areas: Ethical conduct, personal conduct, clinical competence, and cognitive functioning.
VIII. Selection and Development of Training and Supervising Analysts
Member institutes of the American Association for Psychoanalytic Education (AAPE) have a Training and Supervising Analyst system to develop and appoint graduate analysts from their institutes who conduct the analyses and supervision of candidates. Prospective Training and Supervising Analysts are graduate analysts of good ethical standing; have been certified by either APsaA’s Board on Professional Standards prior to December 31, 2015, or by he American Board of Psychoanalysis; have extensive clinical experience; demonstrate a commitment to psychoanalytic education; and agree to extensive peer review of their clinical and supervisory experience.
The William Alanson White Institute utilizes a functionally equivalent system for the consideration of appointment or promotion of SA’s and TA’s, based on an evaluation of the presentation of clinical material to a committee of TA’s elected by members of the Institute’s graduate Society. In the “WAWI training model,” the appointment as a William Alanson White Institute Supervising Analyst or a Training Analyst constitutes a form of certification acceptable to AAPE for a period of ten years from the date of WAWI’s approval by the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA).
Supervising and Training Analysts from the time of APsaA approval of the White Institute, and those appointed during the ten years following such approval will be “grandparented” by AAPE, continuing to function in role, with all the rights and privileges of those members of AAPE member-institutes who have been or are “traditionally” certified by APsaA before December 31, 2015, or by the certification examination administered by the American Board of Psychoanalysis after December 31, 2015. WAWI’s graduates will continue to seek appointments and promotions through application to its Appointments and Promotions Committee, regarded as integral to the White Institute’s training model.
Training Analysts have responsibility for the personal, non-reporting analyses of candidates. Supervising Analysts have responsibility for the supervision of candidates’ psychoanalytic training cases. In addition, both Training and Supervising Analysts participate in the educational programs of the institute. The criteria for appointment as a Training Analyst and/or Supervising Analyst are outlined below.
I. Appointment of Training and Supervising Analyst, and Supervising Analyst
Institutes can apply for an individual to be appointed as a Training Analyst only (TA), a Supervising Analyst only (SA), or a Training and Supervising Analyst (TSA), provided that the criteria for appointment for both designations have been met. The “White Institute model” requires at least two years in role as an SA before being eligible to apply for TA appointment.
Institutes are expected to have established committees that are responsible for the development, evaluation and approval of Training and Supervising Analysts.
Institutes are encouraged to contact the Chair of AAPE’s Training and Supervising Analyst Development and Appointment Committee (TSAC) if they have any questions about the application process or any other items in this document. Sometimes it is useful to discuss the qualifying criteria as they apply to a given situation even before the application process is begun.
All Training Analysts and/or Supervising Analysts must meet the following criteria:
5a. AAPE Model: The analyst has shown evidence of clinical immersion, conducting a minimum of four analytic treatments of adults at a frequency of at least four times a week over the five-year period prior to application, with a minimum of two cases per year during that period. The total number of patient analytic hours since graduation needs to total 3000 hours.
All control cases continued post-graduation, whether supervised or not, will count towards immersion, but two adult cases need to have started independently after graduation and continued for at least three years.
Graduates of Child and Adolescent Psychoanalytic training programs can have one child or adolescent case that continued post graduation from the Adult program credited toward the 3000 hours of immersion.
Treatments are expected to be conducted in person and, for adult patients, on the couch except under circumstances where modifications are needed at the discretion of the analyst-patient pair.
Under special circumstances and based on the needs of the institute and the qualifications of the applicant, standard immersion requirements may be waived. Institutes can contact the Chair of AAPE’s Training and Supervising Analyst Development and Appointment Committee (TSAC) to inquire about such a request.
5b. William Alanson White Institute Model: SA and TA applicants must present clinical work to a subcommittee of three Appointments & Promotion Committee members, demonstrating abilities to work psychoanalytically, with an awareness of, appreciation for, and skill in working with transference, resistance, and countertransference. Applicants may submit such written materials as they deem relevant to their application and meet with a subcommittee of the Appointments and Promotions Committee. Eligibility for SA application is a minimum of five years post-graduation, and at least two years in role as an SA is required to establish eligibility to be considered for TA application. Eligibility for TA application requires seven years post-graduation. Appointment requires the recommendation of the full Appointments & Promotions Committee.
For a period of ten years from affiliation of White Institute as an “member institute,” WAWI’s present TA’s and SA’s are grand-parented in role by AAPE. During this period, WAWI’s graduates will continue to seek appointment and promotion through application to the White Institute’s Appointments and Promotions Committee, and these subsequently appointed, WAWI-certified SA’s and TA’s will continue to function in role, and their certification will be accepted as meeting AAPE certification requirements.
6. AAPE Model: The analyst is certified in adult psychoanalysis by the American Psychoanalytic Association’s (APsaA) Board on Professional Standards prior to December 31, 2015, or the American Board of Psychoanalysis.
7. The analyst has had experience supervising psychodynamic psychotherapy as part of a training program, clinic, hospital, privately, or other.
8. Institutes can add criteria that address their own requirements.
II. Training Analyst Appointment
A. The AAPE Pathway
AAPE recognizes, as delineated in our standards, that the position of Training and Supervising Analyst involves a high degree of clinical skill in handling the sensitive situation of psychoanalysis within an educational institution, and that these skills are generally not innate nor do they just suddenly appear, but rather are best achieved through a gradual process of study, experience and development, whether formally through an analytic program, or individually by the applicant.
While setting forth the basic standards for the appointment of Training and Supervising Analyst by all AAPE member Institutes, AAPE’s Board of Directors recognizes there may have evolved among the various Institutes a diversity of approaches to the process by which these standards are achieved by the TSA applicants and ultimately evaluated. Some approaches may favor a developmental model, beginning in the early years after graduation, whereby applicants participate in post graduate clinical study groups. Others may include mentoring or other forms of collegial guidance and oversight. Still others may prefer the traditional direct model of application and evaluation. With all approaches for Training and/or Supervising Analyst, a thorough review of the applicant’s clinical work is necessary at some point in the institute’s procedures.
We value the originality of the AAPE institutes who may wish to be flexible in devising their own training analyst programs, within the basic standards. As an aide to these projects, we offer examples of both developmental and direct models which are already in practice and are currently under review and study by their institutes as well as by AAPE.
*The Traditional Direct Model and two examples of a Developmental Model (A and B), along with an Appeals Model, are appended.For Supervising Analyst only, please see the next section (III.) Neither Developmental Model A or B provide for Supervising Analyst only. Institutes that wish to have a Developmental model for Supervising Analyst only should consult with the TSAC.
III. Supervising Analyst Appointment Procedure
In addition to the criteria listed above in Section I.A., appointment as a Supervising Analyst only, or as Training and Supervising Analyst requires that:
a.The assessment of the analyst includes an evaluation of the analyst’s clinical immersion and pedagogic competence in the conduct of supervision.
b. The institute has determined the applicant’s suitability by the institute’s relevant committee. This committee will have assessed the analyst’s pedagogical knowledge and skills relevant to supervision, including the ability to clearly and effectively conceptualize and articulate theory and technique, and establish and maintain an appropriate supervisory relationship.
c.It is recommended that the evaluation of the prospective Supervising Analyst only also include a detailed review of the applicant’s clinical work.
d.The institute’s procedures for the review procedures in b. and c. must have been approved by the Board of Directors of AAPE.
e. All Supervising Analysts are expected to participate in Institute and faculty activities, including the education of candidates.
IV. Application to AAPE
A. When all criteria have been met, the Institute can apply to AAPE’s TSAC or, in the case of child supervisor appointments, AAPE’s Committee on Child and Adolescent Training for review of the application.
B. Following successful review by the above committees and AAPE’s Board of Directors, AAPE will authorize the Training and/or Supervising Analyst appointment.
V. Institute Waiver of the Requirement of an Analysis with a Training Analyst
Institutes are not required to adopt this policy.
A.Institutes may request a waiver of the requirement for a training analysis should they have an applicant or prospective applicant for admission who is already engaged in an ongoing analysis, preferably for at least one year, with an analyst who is not a training analyst, and the institute believes the waiver is in the best interest of the candidate’s analysis.
B.To be eligible for consideration of this waiver the analyst must meet the following criteria:
1.The analyst must be in good ethical standing.
2.The analyst must be a member in good standing or a graduate of the institute applying for the waiver or a member of an AAPE member institute. If neither of these, the analyst must demonstrate that his or her psychoanalytic training is substantially equivalent to that of AAPE’s training standards.
3.The analyst must be five years post-graduation.
4.The analyst must meet the following clinical immersion requirements:
a.Experience post graduation with at least 4 non-psychotic patients in analysis conducted at a minimum frequency of 4 times per week. This may include control cases continuing post graduation, but at least two new cases need to have been started after graduation.
b.The total number of analytic hours conducted by the analyst since graduation needs to be a minimum of 1800 hours of 4-5x/week cases.
5. Certification by the American Psychoanalytic Association’s board on Professional Standards prior to December 31, 2105 or the American Board of Psychoanalysis is recommended but not required.
C.The institute must have an explicit procedure for determining the suitability of the analyst for performing this function. The procedure needs to respect the boundaries and integrity of the candidate’s analysis. And, without breaching the confidentiality of the analysand, the application for a waiver should include an explanation of how it was determined and concluded that the waiver is in the best interest of the candidate’s analysis.
D.Institutes should avoid requesting multiple waivers for the same analyst.
E.The institute’s procedure needs to be submitted to AAPE’s Training and Supervising Analyst Development and Appointment Committee (TSAC) and Board of Directors for approval prior to any applications for waiver. Institutes should feel free to consult with AAPE’s TSAC for guidance or advice when considering a waiver situation.
F. The TSAC, at its discretion, will allow flexibility in its evaluation of these requirements if so recommended by AAPE’s Board of Directors.
G. Waivers are granted on a case-by-case basis with the understanding that the waiver does not constitute a Training Analyst appointment. All waiver requests are reviewed to ensure that policies and procedures of the standards were followed during the waiver evaluation process. These waivers are granted upon the approval of the AAPE’s Board of Directors.
VI. Geographic Rule Training and Supervising Analyst Appointments
1.AAPE member institutes who apply for Geographic Rule status for a Training and/or Supervising analyst who is a member of another AAPE member institute need to gain approval from AAPE’s TSAC and Board of Directors.
2.Training and Supervising analysts from non-member AAPE institutes who apply for Geographic Rule status need to meet the institute’s requirements for Training and Supervising Analyst and be approved by that institute and AAPE’s TSAC and Board of Directors.
3.Approval of a Geographic Rule Training analysis is given on a case by case basis. Geographic Supervising Analysts can be appointed for ongoing supervisor status at the discretion of the institute.
VII. Standards for Continued Competence of Training and Supervising Analysts.
Every appointment of a Training Analyst and a Supervising Analyst is contingent upon the individual’s continued demonstration of ethical, professional, clinical and cognitive competence. Each Institute must have policies and procedures to evaluate such competence, and committees and subcommittees to perform this evaluative function. This requirement includes:
1. A clear and transparent procedure for TA/SA appointment and reappointment
2. A clear and transparent procedure for revoking TA/SA appointment
3. An Analyst Assistance Committee which has clear and transparent Procedures for evaluating competence and personal conduct
4. An Ethics Committee which has clear and transparent policies to process and evaluate ethics inquiries and complaints
5. A clear and transparent appeals process available to TAs/SAs who do not agree with the conclusions of any one of these committees.
*****
Appendices
Appendix I: Traditional Direct Model
Appendix II: Developmental Model A
Appendix II: Developmental Model B
Appendix III: Appeals Procedure Model
B. The William Alanson White Institute Pathway
Appointment to the roles of SA and TA is under the purview of the Institute’s Appointments and Promotions Committee, members of which are all elected TA’s. The Committee annually invites eligible graduates to apply for consideration, including with the application clinical material that reflects directly on their abilities to conduct psychoanalytic supervision and/or treatment. A subcommittee meets with each applicant to review in detail the applicant’s clinical and/or supervisory work, and to present recommendations for discussion to the nine-member Committee, which recommends appointment on the basis of a majority vote. Non-appointed applicants are provided with feedback about their application and are free to reapply, without prejudice, at any time.
Supervising Analyst Appointment (“WAWI model”)
Eligibility for appointment as an SA is a minimum of five years post- graduation. Appointment to the role of SA is under the purview of the Institute’s Appointments and Promotions Committee, members of which are all TA’s. Applicants are free to submit all materials they consider relevant to appointment as an SA. A subcommittee meets with each applicant and presents recommendations for discussion to the full Committee, which decides whether to recommend appointment to the Institute’s Council of Fellows. Non-appointed applicants are provided with feedback about their application and are free to reapply, without prejudice, at any time. In the “WAWI model,” present SA’s and TA’s are “grandparented” by AAPE so they can continue to function in role in WAWI’s psychoanalytic training program. WAWI’s graduates will continue to be eligible for evaluation through the existing “Appointments & Promotions Committee” process, and if recommended for appointment by WAWI’s process, will be recognized as TA’s and SA’s by AAPE, and may function as WAWI-certified SA’s and TA’s.
APPENDICES
Appendix I:Traditional Direct Model
1. The analyst applying for appointment for Training Analyst, Supervising Analyst, and Training and Supervising Analyst by means of the Traditional Direct Model has satisfied the following criteria in addition to those listed in items 1 through 8 in the above section I.A.; and for Supervising Analyst alone, those criteria listed in section I.A and III.
a. The analyst has successfully completed a vetting process which must include the review of presentations of detailed past and current clinical and supervisory workto a Training Analyst Selection Committee or its equivalent at the institute seeking the appointment. At the discretion of the institute, the analysts chosen to review the applicant’s work can be from inside or external to the institute, or both. The institute’s procedures for this vetting process must have been approved by the Board of Directors of AAPE.
b. Once these criteria have been met, the institute sends its written application to the Training and Supervising Development and Appointment Committee (TSAC) of AAPE for review.
c. With successful review by the TSAC, the application is brought to AAPE’s Board of Directors for formal approval of the appointment.
d. The institute will be informed about the approval or non-approval of the application and provided with feedback in the latter case. At its discretion, the institute is free to reapply for the applicant, without prejudice.
e. Institutes should have a clearly written, transparent appeals process for training and supervising analyst appointment.
*****
*Appendix II. Developmental Model A
The analyst applying for appointment by means of Developmental Model A has satisfied the following criteria in addition to those listed in items 1 through 8 in section I.A. above.
What follows is written in the style of the Institute that uses this model.
Any applicant who is close to but does not fully meet immersion requirements is encouraged to consider beginning the Training and Supervising Analyst (TSA) application process. Either the applicant or the institute’s TSA Appointment committee chair may contact the Chairperson of AAPE’s Training and Supervising Application and Development Committee (TSAC) to discuss individual cases.
THE FOUR STAGES OF TSA DEVELOPMENT AND APPOINTMENT
Within the framework of AAPE standards, the process takes place in four stages.
The institute’s TSA Committee Chair or his or her designee oversees the application process from beginning to end: He or she oversees the training groups, reviews the preliminary application as well as available data on the applicant’s academic performance as a candidate and functioning as a faculty member and general member of our community.
I. TA/SA DEVELOPMENT TRAINING GROUPS (TG), (One or two years required):
The applicant will participate for (one or two) years in the Training and Supervising Analyst Development Training Groups (TG’s).
These training groups are non-reporting, led by two experienced TA/SA’s, with no more than six participants. Training groups are open to all faculty members who are three years post-graduation, but with particular interest in exploring potential development toward becoming a training and supervising analyst. Participants are expected to have completed or expect to complete Certification and to complete Immersion Requirements for TSA appointment.
Within each training group, presenters may rotate, but each TSA applicant is encouraged to present for at least three of the meetings. Supervisory cases will also be encouraged for presentation. A portion of each training group may also involve discussion of relevant readings on the training analysis literature and supervision literature that are determined by the Training Group leaders.
Attendance can begin to accrue toward the one or two-year TG requirement well before a TSA application is made. For TSA application, the full (one or two) years of attendance in the training group will need to be completed before consideration for appointment.
II. PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
Applicants having completed Certification, and meeting Immersion Requirements or are expected to complete Immersion Requirements at or beyond five years post-graduation may submit a preliminary application to the institute’s TSA Committee Chair.
An applicant may submit the preliminary application as early as four years post-graduation, in order to begin the next phase of the development process to potentially qualify for TSA appointment after five years required experience of post-graduate psychoanalytic practice.
The applicant submits AAPE’s Training Analyst Application Formto the TSA Chair, and a letter of intent to the TSA Chair expressing interest in beginning the Individual Development Committee (IDC) phase of the TSA Developmental Process.
The Chair or his or her designee verifies the applicant’s statement that he or she is a member in good standing with regard to the ethical and financial standards of the institute and those of the AAPE. The Chair or his or her designee may summarize the data collected for purposes of aiding the development of the applicant, and will use this summary to help the Chair of the Individual Developmental Subcommittee (IDC) to locate potential areas for growth in the TSA Development Experience (see below).
The TSA Chair or his or her designee may move to reject the application at this juncture on the grounds of ineligibility based on eligibility criteria, lack of requisite experience, or ethical breaches in the conduct of clinical work that would adversely affect the conduct of an analysis or supervision. Barring this occurrence, the applicant will automatically begin a period of at least one additional year of a TSA developmental process.
The TSA Chair or his or her designee will appoint an Individual Development Committee (IDC) consisting of three TA/SA’s for the individual applicant’s next phase of the process
If the applicant would like an advisor, Training and Supervising Analysts who are not directly involved in the applicant’s appointment process would also be made available.
III. INDIVIDUAL TA/SA DEVELOPMENTAL EXPERIENCE
Each Applicant continuing to this phase will be assigned an Individual Development Committee (IDC). The IDC is comprised of 3 Training and Supervising Analysts, (a chair and two others) appointed by the TSA Chair or his or her designee. The IDC is charged with the task of establishing a Training and Supervising Analyst Developmental Experience for a particular applicant.
During the second academic-year of the development period, each applicant attends meetings every four months for at least one year (at least three meetings) with the Training and Supervising Analyst Development Subcommittee (IDC) to discuss progression. All applicants will join an IDC either concurrently with their participation in the TG experience or after their one or two year participation in a TG.
Attendance and participation in IDC meetings are part of the institute’s required criteria for TSA Appointment. For each meeting, the applicant is required to compose a brief note (one to two pages) summarizing the kinds of clinical problems and issues that the applicant is working on in analytic work and supervision.
The IDC’s responsibility will be to help the applicant’s development in his or her development towards Training and Supervising Analyst appointment.The IDC will take up clinical material from the applicant’s analyses and supervisions (and share their own clinical experiences to the extent that they are able). The purpose of the IDC is to discuss and evaluate the applicant’s clinical work. It is essential that the subcommittee work with the applicant to identify areas of relative strength and weakness in the applicant’s work. Over the course of this year, our hope is that the applicant in concert with his or her committee will develop an ongoing conversation about some of the most challenging parts of analytic work for the applicant.
A crucial component of the IDC’s contribution to the applicant’s development will rely on the applicant’s continuing writing about his own strengths and weaknesses in relation to his or her work as an analyst. We encourage applicants to think about particular kinds of problems in clinical work such as avoidance of conflict or affects; under what circumstances is the analyst's mind more free to think or more constrained; issues that are more likely to be enacted than others; particular kinds of transference attributions that pose conflict for the analyst; particularly thorny countertransference issues with which the analyst struggles, and the like. The IDC will not only work to help the analyst to work with these kinds of conflicts and interferences in clinical work but, equally important, will work to help the analyst to reflect on these matters as an ongoing part of analytic work. Toward this end, a brief one or two page summary before each meeting with the DS will be required.
It is important that in preparation for each meeting the applicant will also provide in writing his or her sense of the feedback that has been provided in the previous IDC meeting. This is required so that the IDC members can assess the progress of discussions within those meetings including the degree to which feedback is being received and digested.
The applicant will need to send this along to the IDC members at least two weeks in advance of the each of the three [or more] meetings during this process, to give the IDC members time to give feedback before the meeting if what is submitted needs work, development, or could be clearer.
The members of this subcommittee will try to provide direct and constructive observations including concerns or criticisms of the applicant’s work.
It is an important part of the process that prior to meeting with the applicant, that the Subcommittee take the time between each meeting to discuss the applicant’s development, and to formulate goals for the next meeting to insure the applicant’s analytic growth over the span of their meetings. The Subcommittee takes on the responsibility of helping the applicant to develop their abilities to conduct training analyses and supervise candidates on their analytic cases. It is also possible for this committee to suggest to applicants areas of further development that would be useful.
The IDC will not generate a written report to the TAC about the applicant’s development process, but will be asked to document times and dates of meetings as part of the Final Appointment Procedure. The applicants, themselves, are to submit a written description of their TG and IDC experience to the TSA Chair at the completion of the IDC experience, so that a detailed letter might be written to AAPE on their behalf in the final stages of TSA appointment. We expect that in the letter, the applicant will be able to articulate aspects of his/her learning and development during the appointment process (see note below). To this end, the IDC and/or Subcommittee Chair would be available to review and discuss the process. The applicant is expected to review the letter with his or her subcommittee before submission to the TSA Chair.
IV. FINAL APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE
At the conclusion of the Training and Supervision Analyst Development Experience, when the applicant and TSA Committee agree the process has been fulfilled, the applicant will gather the following materials to submit to the TSA Chair:
For applicants whom the IDC suggests further development, the applicant may pursue further involvement in development groups, pursue individual supervision or resumed analysis, or halt or postpone the appointment process.
The integrity of the TSA Developmental process depends on the applicant’s collaboration and willingness to communicate honestly in a report to the TSA Chair about the recommendations of the IDC and TG experiences. When the applicant summarizes his or her work, we ask that the applicant include the content of the IDC recommendations for future growth and development. When in particular circumstances suggestions are made for applicants to continue the developmental process, it is incumbent upon the applicant to make this clear in his or her report to the TSA Chair. The expectation is that the applicant will review and discuss the description with his or her IDC before submitting the final application to the TSA Chair.
The TSA Chair (or his or her designee) will review the applicant’s materials and provide a letter to the Chair of AAPE’s TSAC based on the above information, explicating the applicant’s process, qualifications, and our recommendations.
All recommendations of the TSA Committee to AAPE (based on the recommendations of the IDC) will be announced at a TSA Committee meeting.
Once the recommendation has been made, the institute sends its written application to the Training and Supervising Development and Appointment Committee (TSAC) of AAPE for review.
With successful review by the TSAC, the application is brought to AAPE’s Board of Directors for formal approval of the appointment.
The institute will be informed about the approval or non approval of the application and provided with feedback in the latter case. At its discretion, the institute is free to reapply for the applicant, without prejudice.
Institutes should have a clearly written, transparent appeals process for training and supervising analyst appointment.
*****
*Appendix III. Developmental Model B
The analyst applying for appointment by means of Developmental Model B has satisfied the following criteria in addition to those listed in items 1 through 8 in section I.A. above.
What follows is written in the style of the Institute that uses this model.
***
We are pleased that you have decided to apply to become a Training and Supervising Analyst and welcome you to a process that we hope will help you develop into the role.
This process is designed to further develop your skills and your analytic identity. The procedure is collegial and collaborative with mutual feedback along the way between you and those working with you. It provides an opportunity for you to learn about your clinical strengths as well as areas that need further work.
Becoming a TA and SA can be a remarkable step in the development of an analytic clinician and can ultimately afford one the privilege, opportunity and responsibility of working intimately with future analytic colleagues in the course of their analytic development.
I. [The institute] has a policy of self-nomination. Qualified faculty members who are interested in applying are encouraged to contact the Chair of the Training Analyst Appointment Committee (TAAC).
The application and procedure are for combined TA and SA. Situations in which one wants to apply for SA only will be considered on an individual basis.
Those Training and Supervising analysts who belong to AAPE member institutes and apply to [the Institute] for Geographic Rule status need to be approved by [the Institute] and AAPE. Training and Supervising analysts from non-member AAPE institutes who apply for Geographic Rule status need to meet [the Institute’s] requirements for Training and Supervising Analyst and be approved by [the Institute] and AAPE.
Those analysts who have been approved as Training and/or Supervising Analysts from their home institutes and who then join [the Institute’s] faculty will be vetted on an individual basis.
In all cases specified in the preceding two paragraphs, applicants may be asked to participate in a review of their clinical work.
II. [Institute’s] Additional Requirements and Procedure for TA/SA.
Requirements:The American Association for Psychoanalytic Education (AAPE) requires that we have our own appointment process, that our requirements for appointment meet the minimum standards of AAPE, and that we submit the results of our process to AAPE for its review and approval.
[What follows are examples of what might be included by an individual institute in addition to the universal requirements specified in Section I.A.above.]
Applicants must also
Procedure:
1. Applicants for Training and Supervising Analyst (TA/SA) request an application [AAPE’s application form] from the Institute’s central office and submit the completed application to the Chair of the TAAC, who is available for advice in filling out the application and for guidance throughout the process.
Included with the application are summary reports on all cases listed on the application. (Summaries of cases that the applicant feels would support his or her application but were treated prior to the time frame specified in the application can also be included, but are not required.) Two of these reports should be ten pages and the rest up to five pages, but no less than three. All reports need to be double spaced and single sided. The reports should emphasize the work and process of the analysis and include examples of the analyst’s interventions and the patient’s responses, as well the analyst’s understanding of the material within sessions and overall.
The purpose of the reports is to give the TAAC a sense of how the analyst works and how she or he understands the patients and the respective analytic processes, so that the next phase of the application can move forward in a way that assists the applicant’s development toward becoming a TA/SA.
2. The TAAC will convene and make a preliminary assessment of the application. At this stage the committee tries to assess character, ethical conduct, clinical aptitude and teaching ability. To assist the TAAC in this evaluation, members of the committee may contact other faculty members at the Institute who are familiar with the applicant’s work in teaching and administration. Moreover, if the applicant is coming to us from another Institute, the committee may contact any faculty member at that Institute who it feels may provide it with information that will help with its initial assessment.
The preliminary assessment will also involve a review by the TAAC of the applicant’s clinical immersion and written case summaries.
3. If after the TAAC’s preliminary assessment there are no factors that suggest that the application should be denied or deferred, the applicant will enter the next phase of the application: The Chair of the TAAC will form a Training Analyst Development Subcommittee (TADS).
4. The TADS will consist of two members of the TAAC. In some instances, a Training Analyst member of [the Institute’s] faculty who is not on the TAAC or a Training Analyst from another institute may be substituted. If the applicant objects to one or both of the assigned TADS members, he or she should feel free to confer with the Chair of the TAAC.
The applicant and/or the members of the TADS can consult with the Chair of the TAAC if they feel they are encountering problems with the process of the TADS. The TADS will otherwise not be communicating with the TAAC until it feels its task has been completed, at which point the applicant is free to respond to the communication made by the TADS to the TAAC
The TADS members will meet with the applicant in a collegial atmosphere to take up material from the the applicant’s analyses and supervision and to share their own clinical experience to the extent they are able. It is expected that the applicant will discuss more than one case with the TADS members. The purpose of these meetings is to identify for the applicant areas that need work in order to further help develop his or her abilities to conduct the analyses and supervision of candidates. The role of a TA/SA and its complexities and challenges may also be discussed when relevant.
These meetings will be as frequent as is mutually agreed upon but not less than six to eight meetings and for not less than six months.
During this time, the applicant will prepare brief self-assessment notes (one to three pages) to present to the TADS a week or two prior to each meeting. These notes are for the purpose of enhancing the applicant’s understanding of what he or she is learning and can convey, for example, the applicant’s areas of strength and weakness in working analytically or in supervising, the kind of problems she or he is having with a particular case or type of case, or the experience of the TADS process as it pertains to the applicant’s development.
The notes also assist the TADS in understanding the progress of the applicant and his or her readiness for appointment as TA/SA. The TADS members will review these notes from the applicant between meetings in order to formulate goals for the next meeting.
5. After working together for a sufficient period of time, but no less than six months, the TADS and the applicant can come to an agreement that they are ready to continue the process by engaging with the TAAC. The TADS will meet with the TAAC to convey its understanding of the applicant’s development and the applicant is welcome to convey his or her own understanding either verbally or in writing to the Chair of the TAAC.
If, after the discussion between the TADS and the TAAC, the latter votes for appointment to TA/SA, the procedure in #7 and #8 (below) will be followed. The spirit of the discussion of the TAAC will be to reach a consensus, but a majority vote of the committee will be necessary to approve the appointment.
If, after the discussion between the TADS and the TAAC, a recommendation for appointment to TA/SA cannot be made, the following options are possible.
A. After consultation between the Chair of the TAAC, the TADS and the applicant, work with the existing TADS could continue or a new TADS could be formed and the process of development of the applicant continued for at least another six months.
B. The applicant will be asked to defer the process for a significant period of time to be determined on an individual basis, in order to work independently on areas that need improvement as determined by the TAAC in consultation with the TADS.Recommendations might be made for more education, personal clinical supervision, experience as a supervisor, clinical psychoanalytic case work, and/or personal psychoanalytic treatment. The reasons for these recommendations will be explicitly conveyed to the applicant.
C. The applicant will have the option of, or the TAAC could recommend having two other consulting TAs involved in the process.
a. The TAAC will select two senior training analysts, usually, but not invariably from outside [the Institute], who will independently discuss the applicant’s clinical work with the applicant for a series of meetings over a reasonable period of time. The choice of consultants will be mutually agreed upon by the TAAC and the applicant.
b. The Chair of the TAAC will convey to the two consulting TAs specific questions regarding the applicant’s work that have come to light during the process. The applicant will be privy to these questions and may be asked to collaborate in formulating them.
c. After these consultations are complete, the consultants will submit written reports and be asked to attend a meeting of the TAAC where their understanding of the applicant’s work will be discussed. The TAAC will then vote on the appointment.
1. If the TAAC believes additional information is needed, the applicant may be asked to present to a third consultant.
2. If the TAAC believes, after the process involving the two (or three) outside analysts is complete, it cannot support a recommendation for TA/SA and further development is necessary, options A. or B. (above) may be recommended to the applicant.
3. If, after the process involving the two (or three) outside analysts, the TAAC votes to recommend appointment to TA/SA, steps #7 and #8 (below) will be followed. The spirit of the discussion of the TAAC will be to reach a consensus, but a majority vote of the committee will be necessary to approve the appointment.
4. If after all the steps above, i.e., reconvening or forming a new TADS, taking a hiatus from the process, or seeing outside consultants, the application is unsuccessful and an appointment for TA/SA is denied, the applicant can reapply one additional time after two to three years from the conclusion of the procedure. If the second application is not successful, the applicant cannot reapply before an additional three to five years have passed from the conclusion of the second procedure.
5. When the application is approved by the TAAC, the Education Committee of the institute or equivalent body will be asked to approve the appointment by majority vote.
6. If the Education Committee or equivalent body approves the appointment for TA/SA, the Chair of the EC or Director of the Institute will then submit the application, including a summary of the TA/SA process prepared by the Chair of the TAAC regarding the particular applicant, to AAPE’s TSAC for review.
7. With successful review by AAPE’s TSAC, the application is brought to AAPE’s Board of Directors for formal approval of the appointment.
8. The institute will be informed about the approval or non approval of the application and provided with feedback in the latter case. At its discretion, the institute is free to reapply for the applicant, without prejudice.
9. Institutes should have a clearly written, transparent appeals process for training and supervising analyst appointment.
10. All newly appointed TA/SAs are expected to consult with a senior TA/SA when they they begin their first training case and whenever they feel it is needed. The consultations should occur at least four to six times over a period of 12 to 18 months. Analytic supervisory work can also be discussed whenever the analyst or supervisor feel it will be helpful. The Chair of the TAAC will be available to help in finding a suitable senior TA/SA consultant from inside and outside [the Institute].
11. Being appointed TA/SA brings with it a career-long commitment to learning and development. The TA/SA has a responsibility to remain active and participatory in the profession and in his or her own developmental learning. Periodic consultation with a colleague is considered to be particularly important in this regard. Additional activities may include peer supervisory groups, writing, and presentations.
12. The TA/SA also has a responsibility to participate in the life of the Institute, especially analyzing, teaching and supervising candidates at [the Institute].
13. In applying for TA/SA, you are agreeing that you will try to work out affordable fees for the candidates you see in analysis or supervision
14. At the end of the procedures, including appeals procedures, all records will be retained at [the Institute’s] offices for a period of six years.
III. By signing this document, I agree to abide by the application procedure as well as the expectations regarding the role and responsibilities of the Training and Supervising analyst at [the Institute].
Signature: ____________________
Date: ____________________
*****
Appendix IV. Appeal Procedure Model
The Appeal model that follows was devised by the institute using Developmental Model B and was designed to be used in conjunction with it, but it is offered here as an example of an appeals procedure and can be modified by any institute to suit its own procedures and needs.
[The Institute’s] TA/SA application procedures have been carefully developed to emphasize fairness and collaboration throughout the process. Nonetheless, there may be instances in which an applicant may wish to appeal. An appeal may be requested by an applicant under the following circumstances:
A. If the application for TA/SA is denied or deferred at the outset. An explanation of the reason will be provided in a meeting with and in writing by the Chair of the Training Analyst Appointment Committee (TAAC), the Chair having consulted with the TAAC.
B. If at any time during the procedure the TAAC feels there is a problem that leads it to believe the procedure should be discontinued or deferred and 5 A, B and C [in Developmental Model B] are not offered to the applicant. An explanation will be given to the applicant in person and in writing by the Chair of the TAAC.
C. If the applicant has gone through option 5A and 5C twice without a two year break as specified in 5B above [in Developmental Model B], and the TAAC believes the process of development is not progressing and it advises the applicant to discontinue the process. An explanation of the reason will be given to the applicant in writing by the Chair of the TAAC.
An appeal must be filed within six months after any of the above circumstances.
If an appeal is requested by the applicant, the Director of [the Institute], in consultation with the Chair of the EC, shall appoint a three-member Appeal Committee consisting of two TAs and one non-TA, at least one of whom is from [the Institute]. One of these analysts shall be appointed Chair of the Appeal Committee by the Director of the Institute in consultation with the Chair of the EC. These analysts shall not have been involved in the original procedure, nor be members of the current TAAC.
The Appeal Committee shall be provided with the application as well as a complete record of the TA/SA review of the applicant by the TADS [see Developmental Model B] and TAAC, including any reports from the outside consultants and any notes of the applicant during the TADS or at other points during the procedure. The Appeal Committee shall have the option of interviewing anyone involved in the TA/SA proceedings, including the applicant. The purpose of the review will be to determine if the process was fair and consistent in following [the Institute’s] TA/SA procedures.
At the conclusion of the appeal review, the Appeal Committee shall submit its decision in writing to the Director of [the Institute]. The Appeal Committee’s decision can be to either agree with the decision of the TAAC or to advise that the applicant reenter the procedure with suggestions from the Appeal Committee to the TAAC for how the latter should proceed.
The applicant and the TAAC will be given notice by the Director of the Institute of the Appeal Committee’s decision, which shall be binding.
By participating in the review, the applicant and the TAAC indicate agreement to abide by the decision of the Appeal Committee.
IX. Education in Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
Two pathways for child analytic training are offered: Combined Adult, Child and Adolescent Training, and Child Focused Training
1. Combined Education in Adult, Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
A. Selection for Education and Clinical Training in Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
B. Components of Education and Clinical Training in Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis:
Education and clinical training in child and adolescent analysis, consistent with the tripartite model, includes an analysis with a training analyst, a didactic curriculum, and supervised clinical work. Institutes have flexibility in the construction of their educational program within the following core requirements:
1. Non-reporting Training Analysis: If child training begins subsequent to the termination of the candidate’s training analysis it is strongly recommended that the candidate resume a non-reporting training analysis during their supervised clinical work with children.
2. Curriculum for Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis Institutes are encouraged to integrate the child, adolescent and adult psychoanalytic curricula to the fullest extent possible. The curriculum should include the following subject matters:
a) Treatment Situation and Technique
These seminars should include the study of the various phases of the child analytic process, including the diagnostic issues related to case selection and the theoretical and technical issues to be considered upon beginning psychoanalysis with a child or adolescent. Topics that are specific to child and adolescent treatment such as theory and technique related to working with parents are also essential for study.
b) Psychoanalytic Theory
These seminars should include the study of basic psychoanalytic theories relevant to child development including current developmental theories and research.
c) Psychopathology
These seminars should include study of psychoanalytic perspectives on the manifestations of psychopathology in children and adolescents.
d) Development
These seminars should include the study of child and adolescent development in greater depth than usually offered in seminars in development in the adult psychoanalytic curriculum. Direct observation of infants, children, and adolescents is an important enrichment of the study of development.
e) Research
These seminars should include basic knowledge and current research in infant and child development and the treatment of children and adolescents.
f) Continuous Case Seminars and Clinical Conferences
Candidates should attend continuous case seminars in child and adolescent analysis for the duration of clinical training in child and adolescent psychoanalysis.
C. Supervised Clinical Experience
a) Child and adolescent patients in supervised psychoanalysis should be seen at a recommended frequency of at least four times per week on separate days through termination barring exceptional circumstances necessitating temporary alteration of this frame.
b) All standards for supervised casework for adult psychoanalytic training apply to adult cases of candidates in combined adult, child and adolescent training with the exception of the reduced required minimum number of adult cases from three to two of different genders. Candidates in combined adult, child and adolescent programs are required to analyze at least three child and adolescent patients, including different genders and preferably a pre-school child in addition to a latency child and an adolescent. However, an acceptable alternative is that the three cases include at least one child in latency and one adolescent. Each of the three required cases should demonstrate a period of significant analytic work and process beyond the opening phase. At least one of the three cases should be analyzed through termination if possible.
c) The three cases of candidates in child and adolescent psychoanalytic training should be
d) The candidate should have a minimum of 50 hours of supervision for each case. Supervision should occur on a weekly basis until the supervisor determines that the candidate can work more autonomously with supervision at less frequent intervals. However, those candidates who are not child and adolescent mental health clinicians should continue in regular supervision through termination, even if beyond graduation, for each case involving a developmental stage not previously supervised.
D. Graduation in Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
The Child and Adolescent Committee of an Institute in collaboration with its Education Committee or its functional equivalent must participate in the evaluation of the candidate’s progression and readiness for graduation. Graduation from a combined program of child, adolescent and adult psychoanalysis requires completion of all educational requirements for graduation in adult psychoanalysis, and all educational requirements for graduation in child and adolescent analysis. At the discretion of the institute, a candidate in a combined program may graduate in either Adult Psychoanalysis or Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis prior to the completion of the requirements of the other component.
2. Education in Child and Adolescent Analysis – Child Focused Training
1) Introduction: Child focused training can be developed by Institutes that already offer combined adult, child and adolescent analytic training. The requirements for training these candidates must meet the minimum standards of AAPE for child and adolescent training in regards to candidate suitability, admissions, case requirements, supervision, didactic work and a training analysis. To offer this option, the Institute must present their plan to train Child and Adolescent Analysts who are not concurrently or previously trained in adult psychoanalysis to the Committee on Child and Adolescent Training. Guidelines for submission of a proposal for a child-focused program may be obtained from the AAPE Committee on Child and Adolescent Training.
2) Selection for training in Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis: Applicants for child-focused psychoanalytic training must first meet the criteria for admission to the Institute. Eligibility should be based in part on prior experience with children, adolescents, and families. The applicant must have experience with normal children and adolescents and with the diagnosis and treatment of pathological conditions in this population. Institutes can assist applicants with less optimal backgrounds to gain these experiences. Interviews conducted by child and adolescent faculty determine general suitability for work with children.
3) Components of Education and Clinical Training in Child Focused Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
1. Non-reporting Training Analysis
The Candidate must have a non-reporting training analysis. This analysis should continue during the candidate’s supervised work with children.
2. Curriculum for Child Focused Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
Candidates in child-focused programs are expected to obtain adequate exposure to general psychoanalytic theory and technique. Whenever possible, institutes are encouraged to integrate the child and adolescent and the adult curricula to the fullest extent possible. The curriculum should include the following child and adolescent focused courses:
1) Treatment Situation and Technique
2) Psychoanalytic Theory
3) Psychopathology
4) Development
5) Research
6) Clinical Case Seminars and Clinical Conferences
3. Supervised Clinical Experience
The standards for supervision are the same standards as those described in the child and adolescent component of the combined program. A minimum of 200 hours of supervision is required.
4. Graduation in Child and Adolescent Analysis
Once it is determined that a candidate in child and adolescent psychoanalytic training qualifies for graduation, the Child and Adolescent Committee of the Institute should recommend to its Progression Committee or its functional equivalent that the candidate is ready for graduation from the child and adolescent psychoanalytic program.
Graduation requires completion of all the educational requirements for child and adolescent psychoanalytic training. Ultimately, the decision to graduate a candidate resides with the Progression Committee or its functional equivalent. Most important is the candidate’s demonstrated capacity to conduct the psychoanalysis of children and adolescents competently and independently.
3. Child and Adolescent Supervising Analyst
Child and Adolescent Supervising Analysts are the supervisors for the child and adolescent cases of candidates in Child and Adolescent Analysis. Certified Child Analysts with a demonstrated commitment to education, extensive clinical experience and skill, who are in good ethical standing, and whose work has been subjected to extensive peer review, may be appointed as a Child Supervising Analyst.
2. Appointment of Child and Adolescent Supervising Analysts
The appointment of Child and Adolescent Supervisors follows the same procedure as that of Adult Supervising Analysts. (See VIII. 4.)
The Board of Directors of AAPE is responsible for establishing and maintaining the standards for appointment of a Child Supervising Analyst. Institutes are responsible for establishing and carrying out procedures for a thorough peer review of the applicant and for making recommendation for appointment to the AAPE Committee on Child and Adolescent Training. The Committee on Child and Adolescent Training in collaboration with the AAPE Board of Directors is responsible for reviewing the procedures and findings of the member Institute and for recommending appointment of a Child Supervisory Analyst to the AAPE Board.
4. Associate Child Supervising Analyst
The process for appointment as a Child Supervising Analyst may begin with an initial appointment as an Associate Supervising Child Analyst by the applicant’s Institute. An Associate Child Supervising Analyst must be certified by the American Board of Psychoanalysis in child and adolescent analysis and should demonstrate evidence that they will fulfill the requirements for appointment as child supervising analyst outlined below. Appointment as an Associate Child Supervising Analyst is a five-year appointment during which the Associate Child Supervisor may supervise child analytic cases that are not a candidate’s first child case. This supervisory process must be supervised by a Supervising Child Analyst at a minimum frequency of once per month.
Appointment as an Associate Supervising Child Analyst should be viewed as a step toward preparing a child analyst for potential appointment as a Child Supervising Analyst. As part of this appointment process the Institute is expected to have evaluated the individual’s ethical standards and teaching and supervision experience. There is no requirement for immersion for appointment as an Associate Supervising Child Analyst. Appointment as an Associate Child Supervising Analyst can occur any time after graduation from a child and adolescent psychoanalytic program once certification in child and adolescent psychoanalysis is achieved. The appointment does not require review by AAPE Board of Directors, but the appointment of an Associate Child Supervising Analyst by an Institute must be communicated to the Committee on Child and Adolescent Training at the time of the appointment. The five-year period for appointment is designed to enable the Associate Supervisor to work toward full supervisory status and to develop or maintain immersion in child and adult analytic work. Additional time for appointment as Associate Child Supervising Analyst beyond five years may be considered based on circumstances.
(Reviewed May 2019)
Goals and Mission
AAPE will develop, establish, and promote educational standards for psychoanalytic education. AAPE will facilitate national accreditation through the Accreditation Council for Psychoanalytic Education (ACPEinc). AAPE will begin with the existing standards in use by the American Psychoanalytic Association as of January 2017.
AAPE has a Memorandum of Understanding with ACPEinc to collaborate on accreditation procedures. AAPE and ACPEinc will conduct periodic joint site visits of member institutes and programs. The purpose of the joint site visit is to ensure that the educational goals specific to AAPE are being followed during the process of accreditation by ACPEinc.
AAPE will assist training programs to prepare for national accreditation site visits with self-study reports and peer-to-peer consultation based on long experience with resolving issues related to maintaining high standards in psychoanalytic education.
The AAPE Model
AAPE standards for the education and training of psychoanalysts follow the requirements of the tripartite Eitingon model. AAPE standards meet or exceed the requirements of the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA). Trainees in psychoanalytic training are required to be in analysis with a training analyst at a minimum of four, preferably five, times a week frequency, for a period of their training which substantially overlaps course work and supervised cases. The training program requires completion of at least 450 hours of course work with a suitable curriculum, supervised clinical experience with three cases of more than one gender, and meeting graduation requirements that include a case presentation or a scholarly paper or both.
AAPE standards require the use of the Training and Supervising Analyst system. The analysis of candidates in training as well as clinical supervision of candidates may be conducted only by Training and Supervising analysts. Appointment as Training and Supervising analysts requires meeting clinical immersion criteria, an ethics attestation, state licensure, certification in psychoanalysis, and assessment of clinical skills by means of a detailed review of clinical work.
AAPE STANDARDS FOR EDUCATION and TRAINING IN PSYCHOANALYSIS
Table of Contents
I. Definition and Goals of Psychoanalytic Education
II. Responsibility for Psychoanalytic Education and Clinical Training
III. Selection for Psychoanalytic Education and Clinical Training
IV. Components of Psychoanalytic Education and Clinical Training
V. Assessment of the Adequacy of the Candidate’s Education
VI. Completion of Psychoanalytic Education and Readiness for Graduation
VII. Selection and Development of Institute Faculty
VIII. Selection and Development of Training and Supervising Analysts
IX. Education in Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
I. Definition and Goals of Psychoanalytic Education:
Psychoanalysis is a set of theories of structure, function and development of mental life, psychopathology, and treatment. The application of these theories forms the basis of both a specialized form of individual psychotherapeutic treatment, psychoanalysis, and the principles of the psychodynamic psychotherapies.
The current Educational Standards apply to psychoanalytic education and training (adult, combined adult and child/adolescent, and child focused training) in member-institutes of the American Association for Psychoanalytic Education. Throughout these Educational Standards, the term “institutes” refers to the psychoanalytic education and training component of psychoanalytic institutes, centers, and programs. These Standards do not refer to other education or training components of psychoanalytic institutes, such as psychotherapy training.
Psychoanalytic education and training provides knowledge and critical understanding of theoretical and clinical psychoanalysis, and proficiency in the practice of clinical psychoanalysis. Completion of education and training, and graduation from a member institute are based upon the acquisition of sufficient knowledge and skill to conduct psychoanalytic treatment independently and competently.
The American Association for Psychoanalytic Education (AAPE) recognizes two applications of the tripartite Eitingon model of psychoanalytic training. They are sufficiently similar in goals and approach to the training process, and are sufficiently coherent, evolved, and integrated. The AAPE Board of Directors deems as acceptable both models for member institutes: The Primary Model, which has two pathways to TA/SA appointment, (1) the Traditional Pathway and (2) the Developmental Pathway; (see Section VIII. “Selection and Development of Training and Supervising Analysts, below), and the “William Alanson White Institute (WAWI) model.” Member institutes may organize their training programs around either of these two models, providing that the “model” is adopted in its entirety; Member institutes cannot pick and choose from among features of each model. Reference herein to the “WAWI training model” shall mean and incorporate the approach to policy and procedures in congruence with these Educational Standards. [The Bulletin of the William Alanson White Institute, published periodically by the White Institute and available on the Institute’s website <www.wawhite.org>, includes the detailed procedures employed by the William Alanson White Institute that are essential to implementing the WAWI training model].
AAPE requires that the “tripartite model” of psychoanalytic education be implemented in each of the two training models. The three required components of the tripartite model of psychoanalytic education and training include:
- A non-reporting analysis with a training analyst. In the Primary Model, this analysis should be conducted with the analysand on the couch at a frequency of five, with a minimum of four sessions, per week, on separate days in person. In the “William Alanson White Institute (WAWI) model” the analysis may be conducted either with the use of the couch or face-to-face at a frequency of at least three times per week.
- A didactic curriculum described in detail in Section IV, below.
- Supervised psychoanalytic treatment experience of sufficient duration and depth: In the AAPE Model, the supervision of at least three psychoanalytic cases, which should include different genders, each conducted at a frequency of five, with a minimum of four sessions, per week. In the “WAWI model”, the supervision of at least four psychoanalytic cases, which should include different genders, each seen for a minimum of three weekly sessions, with at least three different supervisors, for a total of at least 200 supervisory hours.
The American Association for Psychoanalytic Education requires a Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst system in member institutes. The appointment process, modifications and waivers, are described in Section VIII, below.
II. Responsibility for Psychoanalytic Education and Clinical Training
Psychoanalytic education and clinical training is a shared responsibility of AAPE and its member Institutes. Establishing and promoting standards for psychoanalytic education and clinical training is a responsibility of the Board of Directors of the American Association for Psychoanalytic Education.
Member Institutes are responsible for ensuring that the training analysis, didactic curriculum, and supervision of psychoanalytic work of all candidates are consistent with these standards.
Member institutes will participate in periodic site visits for the purpose of approval and accreditation. These site visits are designed to review the institute’s educational and training programs and to assess the institute’s compliance with the AAPE standards. When institutes are not in full compliance with standards, AAPE consults with the institute to assist in strengthening its programs to return to full compliance. If these collaborative efforts fail to result in full compliance with these standards, suspension of membership from AAPE may be considered based on policies and procedures adopted by the AAPE Board of Directors.
III. Selection of Candidates for Psychoanalytic Education and Training
It is the policy of American Association for Psychoanalytic Education that an applicant for candidacy is never excluded on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, or physical disability. Selection is based on an applicant’s eligibility, suitability, and readiness. All applicants for clinical training must (i) have a license recognized by the jurisdiction of their institute that permits the clinical practice of psychoanalysis; or (ii) be in training in a jurisdiction in which the clinical practice of psychoanalysis is exempt from or not regulated by licensure; or (iii) with respect to institutes that are authorized by their jurisdictions to offer training leading to the licensure of graduates in the clinical practice of psychoanalysis, be eligible within that jurisdiction to provide clinical services as part of their institute training.
A. Eligibility
Applicants who hold the following degrees and post-graduate clinical training are eligible for training:
1. Doctors of Medicine or of Osteopathic Medicine who have graduated from an accredited medical school or osteopathic school; and have completed or are near completion of a psychiatry residency program.
2. Mental health professionals who have completed a doctoral level degree from an accredited mental health program and a minimum of 3000 hours or two years full time mental health clinical experience post-graduation, including in-patient and/or emergency care experience.
3. Mental health professionals who have graduated from an accredited masters program which is generally recognized as the highest clinical degree in the field (currently a masters degree in social work, psychiatric nursing, or marriage and family counseling), and have completed at least two additional post- masters degree years of didactic and clinical training including 3000 hours of clinical immersion, 60 post-masters hours of psychodynamic psychotherapy supervision and 60 post-masters hours of psychodynamically oriented coursework and clinical seminars, or a two year organized post-masters psychodynamic psychotherapy program including supervised clinical experience. They must be licensed in the jurisdiction in which they practice, or practice in a jurisdiction in which their practices are exempt from or not regulated by licensure.
4. In the “William Alanson White Institute model," mental health professionals who have a doctoral level degree as defined in (III. A. 2) or a masters level degree as defined in (III A. 3) above but have not yet accrued postgraduate clinical experience as defined in (III. A. 2 or III. A. 3), provided such trainees are eligible to obtain a “limited permit” from the NYS Education Department and are documented to have achieved postgraduate experience as defined in (III. A. 2. or III A. 3) by the end of their psychoanalytic training.
5. Other persons who qualify under applicable law for admission to a member institute that is authorized within its jurisdiction to offer a training program leading to licensure in psychoanalysis. (In New York State, such programs are formally designated as “Licensure Qualifying Programs” under the regulatory oversight of the State Education Department).
B. Suitability
Applicants must demonstrate a level of maturity, as well as the personal, professional, and ethical integrity necessary for full psychoanalytic training.
C. Readiness
1. Eligible applicants must fulfill the prerequisite didactic education and clinical experience specified in A, above, prior to matriculation.
2. The applicant should be able to demonstrate some knowledge of psychoanalysis as well as the ability to meet the demands inherent in psychoanalytic training.
3. Personal and professional readiness for matriculation is determined through the application process using interviews and a review of clinical material provided. Individuals accepted for analytic training but evaluated as not fully prepared for matriculation (i.e. starting seminars) should participate in didactic and supervised clinical activity commensurate with their skill and educational level in preparation for matriculation.
D. Modifications of Eligibility Standards
The American Association for Psychoanalytic Education will consider requests from participating psychoanalytic institutes choosing to accept candidates who do not fall within the Eligibility criteria outlined above.
The American Association for Psychoanalytic Education has developed procedures and criteria for the modification of the usual eligibility standards for psychoanalytic training for Institutes wishing to accept candidates who do not fully meet the above eligibility criteria:
- Institutes should consult the AAPE Review Committee for Clinician Applicant Preparedness when consideration of other licensed professionals is being requested.
- Institutes should consult the AAPE Review Committee for Non-Clinical Candidates when consideration of scholars, researchers, and other professionals is being requested.
IV. Components of Psychoanalytic Education and Clinical Training
Psychoanalytic education and training has three essential and required components:
1. The Non-reporting Training Analysis:
A non-reporting training analysis: In the AAPE model, the training analysis should be conducted with the analysand on the couch at a frequency of five, with a minimum of four, sessions per week, on separate days, in person. In the “WAWI model,” the training analysis may be conducted on the couch or face-to-face, at a frequency of at least three weekly sessions. In the AAPE model, it is expected that the candidate’s training analysis begins prior to matriculation, and should continue through a substantial portion of the candidate’s supervised clinical psychoanalytic work. In the “WAWI model” the candidate’s training analysis may begin no later than October of the first academic year of training, and should continue at a minimum of three sessions weekly for at least 300 hours. The WAWI Training Committee may recommend additional training analysis depending on the candidate’s progress toward graduation.
AAPE recognizes that the AAPE training model may permit occasional modifications of the frame, including changes in frequency and the use of the couch. A portion of a training analysis conducted in part via the telephone or other electronic means or a condensed personal analysis (a personal analysis with more than one session per day on a regular basis) requires a waiver. Waiver requests are evaluated by the Committee on Adult Training or Committee on Child/Adolescent Training and their recommendations presented to the AAPE Board for approval. A waiver is also required if the candidate’s analysis will be conducted by an analyst who is not a Training Analyst. (See VIII, C). The “WAWI model” provides that waiver requests are under the purview of the Institute’s Training Committee, and permits the Institute’s Training Committee, after due consideration, to grant waivers of the approved Training Analyst requirement.
A non-reporting analysis is defined as completely confidential, without any participation of the candidate’s analyst in progression decisions. The decision to participate together in a class that is part of the didactic curriculum by a candidate and their training analyst should be determined at the Institute level and ultimately should be based on respect for the wishes of the analysand and analyst.
2. Psychoanalytic Curriculum
An integrated curriculum of psychoanalytic study must provide a comprehensive understanding of the fundamentals of and interrelationship between psychoanalytic theory and clinical practice. It should teach critical thinking about the historical and conceptual structure and developments of psychoanalytic theory and practice.
The candidate’s tripartite training experience should involve substantial overlap of course work, training analysis, and supervised clinical work. Simultaneous immersion in these three aspects of training enables the candidate to understand the empirical basis of theoretical formulations and their revisions, to develop insight and self-reflective skills crucial in the treatment of patients and conceptualization of case material. When a candidate’s participation in seminars occurs during a period of less than optimal clinical immersion, a program of post-seminar study may be required to provide candidates maximal opportunities for such integration.
The didactic curriculum consists of a scheduled series of seminars distributed over a period of a minimum of four years or a minimum of 450 hours. Although the titles and timing of seminars vary among Institutes the curriculum should be organized to include the following subject matter:
1. Psychoanalytic Treatment Situation and Technique
The study of psychoanalysis as a treatment process includes diagnosis, indications for and appropriateness of psychoanalysis, the establishment of the psychoanalytic situation, and the theoretical and technical issues relevant to the development and unfolding of the psychoanalytic process. Subsequent readings and clinical case seminars include the technical considerations presenting in the beginning, middle, and ending phases of the analytic process, and may include the conceptual and technical aspects of combined psychoanalytic and psychopharmacological treatments, and other appropriate, adjunctive therapeutic modalities (e.g. couples, child, or family therapies). Technique seminars should explore the applications of theory to clinical process.
2. Psychoanalytic Theory
The basic concepts of psychoanalysis and the major models of the mind are studied from a historical and critical perspective. This includes the critical exploration of the basic writings of Freud and subsequent major psychoanalytic theorists.
3. Psychopathology
A psychoanalyst must develop a dynamic understanding of a broad range of psychopathology. Seminars on psychopathology typically consider historical and contemporary psychoanalytic theories of the neuroses, character disorders, borderline and narcissistic disorders, affective disorders, psychosomatic disorders, and the psychoses. Clinical examples should illustrate the multiplicity of dynamic, structural, genetic, and developmental factors leading to the formation of the presenting clinical picture.
4. Development
Understanding the ways in which psychic functions and structures originate, evolve, and progress throughout the life cycle is essential to a psychoanalytic understanding of the human mind, and essential to an understanding of the psychoanalytic clinical situation. The curriculum should include study of psychoanalytic theories of psychological development beginning with the parents' experience of the pregnancy and extending through adulthood. Where possible, it is recommended that Institutes integrate clinical and didactic experience of child/adolescent analytic training with adult analytic training.
5. Continuous Case Seminars and Clinical Conferences
Case seminars and other types of clinical conferences are intended to offer opportunities for learning about the deepening of the analytic process and the phases of treatment. They should also offer exposure to a range of differing clinical methods and approaches in special situations.
6. Research Courses
Courses should be designed to cover basic knowledge and developments in empirical research studies of psychoanalytic theory and practice, research studies of psychoanalytic education, and interdisciplinary or applied psychoanalytic studies and methods.
7. Interdisciplinary and Allied Fields of Knowledge
The curriculum should include courses such as cognitive neuroscience, gender and sexuality, combined treatment methods, the writing of case reports and other psychoanalytic work and the ethics of psychoanalytic practice. Electives offer opportunities for candidates to develop and deepen individual interests.
3. Supervision of Adult Psychoanalysis
The supervision of analytic cases should teach the relationships between theory, clinical process, self-awareness, and technique, thereby providing the knowledge and skill to conduct effective psychoanalytic treatment. The AAPE model requires three supervised psychoanalytic treatments during training. Supervised psychoanalytic treatments should be conducted with the analysand on the couch at a frequency of at least four, preferably five, sessions per week on separate days. The “WAWI model” requires at least four cases, seen at a frequency of minimally three sessions weekly (either on the couch or face-to-face) with at least three different supervising analysts, for a total of 200 hours of supervision. AAPE recognizes that modifications of the analytic frame, including the frequency of sessions, the use of the couch, and the need for condensed and distance analysis may be clinically indicated for periods of time, and may differ according to the institute’s training model (see above).
In the AAPE model the supervision of clinical work should occur weekly with a supervising analyst to review and discuss the case the candidate is learning to analyze. Candidates should have a separate supervisor for each case and should meet weekly with each one. As the supervised psychoanalytic treatment progresses, and as the candidate progresses in the educational program, the supervisor and candidate may change the frequency of supervision. In the “WAWI model,” supervision of each case is required to be weekly until graduation and requires that candidates work with at least one supervising analyst of an opposite gender. In neither model should the candidate’s training analyst serve as one of the candidate’s supervisors.
Candidates should be encouraged to begin a first case by the middle of their first year of training upon evaluation of the candidate's readiness to begin supervised psychoanalytic work by the Progression Committee in the AAPE model, or the Training Committee in the WAWI model, or its functional equivalent. Once a first case is established, capable candidates should be encouraged to pursue additional cases early in their training.
In the AAPE model, candidates are required to have at least three adult non-psychotic cases, including patients of different genders; in the “WAWI model,” the decision to conduct psychoanalytic treatment with psychotic states is regarded as a learning experience, jointly discussed and decided between candidate and supervising analyst. In both models, the supervision of cases should occur over a length of time that allows the candidate to develop sufficient knowledge and skill to conduct psychoanalysis independently and competently. Demonstration of this competency is a component of graduation.
Institutes following the AAPE model may allow a candidate to substitute one child or adolescent psychoanalytic case supervised by a Child Supervising Analyst for one of the required adult supervised cases, provided that the candidate also has supervised psychoanalytic treatment experience with cases of different genders. If the candidate is not already trained as a child mental health clinician it is expected that the supervision of this case would continue through termination even if termination occurs beyond graduation. Institutes should be clear with candidates who are not trained as child or adolescent mental health clinicians but who choose to conduct a supervised treatment of a child or adolescent analysis as a part of their training, that they should continue in supervision through the termination phase of this treatment. The “WAWI model” does not provide for child (pre-adolescent) psychoanalytic cases to substitute for the training requirement of four separate adult or adolescent cases.
Ongoing assessment and feedback is a crucial dimension of the candidate’s supervision. Each supervisor is expected to periodically assess the progress of the candidate’s ability to conduct psychoanalytic treatment through written reports or evaluations, which should be communicated to both the candidate and the Progression Committee, the Training Committee, or its functional equivalent.
4. Psychotherapy Supervision (“WAWI Model” only)
In the “William Alanson White Institute” model, candidates are required to work in the Institute’s Psychotherapy Service, providing 80 hours of clinical service (either two patients seen on a once-weekly basis or one person seen on a twice-weekly basis), under the supervision of an Institute-appointed Supervisor of Psychotherapy. Psychotherapy supervision (one hour weekly) is provided to the candidate at no fee. This graduation requirement is monitored by the Institute’s Training Committee.
V. Assessment of Adequacy of the Candidate’s Education in Adult, Child and Adolescent Psychoanalytic Training
1. Assessment of Candidate Progress
A candidate’s progression towards graduation is determined by a thorough assessment of the candidate’s evolving competency in understanding and conducting psychoanalysis. Direct feedback to the candidate about their progression based on assessments by instructors and supervisors is an essential component of the educational process.
All Institutes of the Association are responsible for the periodic formal evaluation of a given candidate's progress by their Progression Committee, Training Committee, or its functional equivalent. This should include the candidate's performance in didactic seminars and clinical work, and an assessment of the degree to which clinical work is progressing in concert with their overall educational progression. Assessment of progress should begin at the first opportunity upon admission and continue until graduation.
Assessment Methodology:Optimal training outcome requires both facilitating and assessing steps in progression. Institutes may choose one of two pathways for facilitating and assessing the progression of candidates: The traditional pathway and the developmental pathway, although there is much overlap between the two. Candidate evaluations should include written assessments communicated to the candidate, the candidate’s supervisors, and the Progression Committee, Training Committee, or its functional equivalent. The Progression Committee, Training Committee, or its functional equivalent approves all requests to begin supervised cases, as well as requests for graduation. Minutes should be kept of all such committee meetings.
The components of candidate evaluation should include:
a) Instructor assessments of the candidate’s mastery of the course material, class participation and ability to work effectively with classmates, critical thinking, and competence in presenting clinical material. Faculty evaluations of the candidate’s performance in seminars should, at a minimum, occur at the end of each seminar.
b) Written supervisory reports assessing the candidate’s progress in conducting clinical work should occur at a minimum on a yearly basis. The content of these reports should be communicated to the candidate.
c) All Institutes are encouraged to use academic colloquia to assess competency and progression. Developmental Pathway Institutes are required to conduct two colloquia; one during the third year or prior to beginning a third case and a second pre-graduation colloquia. Colloquia should consist of two elements: Submission of case write-ups and a formal meeting or series of meetings with several faculty preceptors to discuss the candidate’s clinical work and mastery of psychoanalytic theory and technique. The preceptors recommend to the Progression Committee or its functional equivalent any remedial educational measures that should be undertaken.
d) The “WAWI model” requires that the candidate make at least one case presentation to the Institute community prior to graduation, providing one additional source of information to the Training Committee about readiness to engage in independent psychoanalytic practice as an Institute graduate. The Board of Directors of AAPE and its committees gather information to develop and evaluate guidelines for best practices for progression, including colloquia. It serves as a consultative resource to institutes developing and using progression measurement tools.
VI. Completion of Psychoanalytic Education and Readiness for Graduation
An AAPE member-institute will graduate a candidate when, in its opinion, the candidate has satisfactorily completed all educational requirements of that Institute. Such requirements shall fully adhere to the Standards for Education and Training in Psychoanalysis of the American Association for Psychoanalytic Education. Graduation shall be construed as an indication that the Institute has adequately and carefully evaluated the candidate and considers the candidate competent to conduct psychoanalytic treatment independently. A written statement confirming completion of training shall be furnished to the candidate. The national office of AAPE shall also be notified in writing of a candidate’s graduation.
1. Graduation Criteria
Graduation is predicated on the candidate’s demonstration of an adequate command of clinical and theoretical psychoanalytic knowledge and the capacity to conduct competent and independent psychoanalytic work. Three adult cases (four in the “WAWI model”) including cases of different genders are required to demonstrate the candidate’s competency to conduct an analysis in the opening, middle, and if possible, termination phase. Candidates who are in combined adult/child psychoanalytic training are required to have only two adult cases of different genders in addition to their child and adolescent cases.
Each institute should ensure that a suitable methodology is used to assess candidate readiness for graduation. Assessment for graduation should include a review of reports by instructors and supervisors, review of case write-ups, meetings between the candidate and faculty preceptors to discuss the candidate’s ability to conduct competent and independent psychoanalytic work. A colloquium model in which candidates present their clinical work may also be used in assessing readiness for graduation.
The “White Institute model” requires at least one clinical case presentation to the Institute community prior to graduation. This presentation provides relevant information to the Training Committee about the candidate’s readiness to be graduated and to engage in independent clinical psychoanalytic practice.
AAPE and its committees will, over time, gather information, evaluate and develop guidelines and best practices for graduation colloquia or their equivalent, and serve as a consultative resource for institutes developing and using graduation colloquia or their equivalent.
2. Institute Self-Assessment and Evaluation
The Progression Committee, Training Committee, or its functional equivalent, should periodically conduct a comprehensive critical review of the evaluation methods and standards used to determine completion of training and competence for graduation.
VII. Selection and Development of Faculty
1. Faculty Appointment
The Institute must establish clear policies and procedures for faculty appointment. These should include published eligibility criteria, assessment of suitability, and clear and transparent procedures for the process of appointment. A faculty committee can serve this function. Graduates who are appointed to the Institute faculty can participate in all components of the Institute structure. This includes teaching, research, scholarship, advising and mentoring, committee service, administration, representation of the institute in organizations, and educational outreach.
2. Faculty Development
Institutes should have policies and procedures designed to encourage and develop individual talents of faculty members, especially recently appointed faculty. This may be a system of mentoring, study groups, or post-graduate seminars. Faculty should be encouraged to deepen their own individual interests, which may result in publications or development of courses in a chosen area.
3. Termination of Faculty Appointment
Institutes must have clear and transparent policies and procedures for the removal of any individual from faculty appointment. This requires ongoing assessment of competence in the performance of the duties of faculty in the following areas: Ethical conduct, personal conduct, clinical competence, and cognitive functioning.
VIII. Selection and Development of Training and Supervising Analysts
Member institutes of the American Association for Psychoanalytic Education (AAPE) have a Training and Supervising Analyst system to develop and appoint graduate analysts from their institutes who conduct the analyses and supervision of candidates. Prospective Training and Supervising Analysts are graduate analysts of good ethical standing; have been certified by either APsaA’s Board on Professional Standards prior to December 31, 2015, or by he American Board of Psychoanalysis; have extensive clinical experience; demonstrate a commitment to psychoanalytic education; and agree to extensive peer review of their clinical and supervisory experience.
The William Alanson White Institute utilizes a functionally equivalent system for the consideration of appointment or promotion of SA’s and TA’s, based on an evaluation of the presentation of clinical material to a committee of TA’s elected by members of the Institute’s graduate Society. In the “WAWI training model,” the appointment as a William Alanson White Institute Supervising Analyst or a Training Analyst constitutes a form of certification acceptable to AAPE for a period of ten years from the date of WAWI’s approval by the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA).
Supervising and Training Analysts from the time of APsaA approval of the White Institute, and those appointed during the ten years following such approval will be “grandparented” by AAPE, continuing to function in role, with all the rights and privileges of those members of AAPE member-institutes who have been or are “traditionally” certified by APsaA before December 31, 2015, or by the certification examination administered by the American Board of Psychoanalysis after December 31, 2015. WAWI’s graduates will continue to seek appointments and promotions through application to its Appointments and Promotions Committee, regarded as integral to the White Institute’s training model.
Training Analysts have responsibility for the personal, non-reporting analyses of candidates. Supervising Analysts have responsibility for the supervision of candidates’ psychoanalytic training cases. In addition, both Training and Supervising Analysts participate in the educational programs of the institute. The criteria for appointment as a Training Analyst and/or Supervising Analyst are outlined below.
I. Appointment of Training and Supervising Analyst, and Supervising Analyst
Institutes can apply for an individual to be appointed as a Training Analyst only (TA), a Supervising Analyst only (SA), or a Training and Supervising Analyst (TSA), provided that the criteria for appointment for both designations have been met. The “White Institute model” requires at least two years in role as an SA before being eligible to apply for TA appointment.
Institutes are expected to have established committees that are responsible for the development, evaluation and approval of Training and Supervising Analysts.
Institutes are encouraged to contact the Chair of AAPE’s Training and Supervising Analyst Development and Appointment Committee (TSAC) if they have any questions about the application process or any other items in this document. Sometimes it is useful to discuss the qualifying criteria as they apply to a given situation even before the application process is begun.
All Training Analysts and/or Supervising Analysts must meet the following criteria:
- The analyst is in good ethical standing.
- The analyst has had five years of post-graduate clinical experience prior to the appointment (in the AAPE model); five years for SA appointment, seven years for TA appointment (in the “WAWI model”).
- The analyst has conducted analyses of different genders.
- The analyst has had experience with the termination of psychoanalytic treatment. This experience may include the handling analytically of an interruption or a premature ending of the analysis on the part of the patient based on circumstances largely not within the patient’s control or preference. In any case, it is expected that the analysis progressed to a late phase, preferably the termination phase.
5a. AAPE Model: The analyst has shown evidence of clinical immersion, conducting a minimum of four analytic treatments of adults at a frequency of at least four times a week over the five-year period prior to application, with a minimum of two cases per year during that period. The total number of patient analytic hours since graduation needs to total 3000 hours.
All control cases continued post-graduation, whether supervised or not, will count towards immersion, but two adult cases need to have started independently after graduation and continued for at least three years.
Graduates of Child and Adolescent Psychoanalytic training programs can have one child or adolescent case that continued post graduation from the Adult program credited toward the 3000 hours of immersion.
Treatments are expected to be conducted in person and, for adult patients, on the couch except under circumstances where modifications are needed at the discretion of the analyst-patient pair.
Under special circumstances and based on the needs of the institute and the qualifications of the applicant, standard immersion requirements may be waived. Institutes can contact the Chair of AAPE’s Training and Supervising Analyst Development and Appointment Committee (TSAC) to inquire about such a request.
5b. William Alanson White Institute Model: SA and TA applicants must present clinical work to a subcommittee of three Appointments & Promotion Committee members, demonstrating abilities to work psychoanalytically, with an awareness of, appreciation for, and skill in working with transference, resistance, and countertransference. Applicants may submit such written materials as they deem relevant to their application and meet with a subcommittee of the Appointments and Promotions Committee. Eligibility for SA application is a minimum of five years post-graduation, and at least two years in role as an SA is required to establish eligibility to be considered for TA application. Eligibility for TA application requires seven years post-graduation. Appointment requires the recommendation of the full Appointments & Promotions Committee.
For a period of ten years from affiliation of White Institute as an “member institute,” WAWI’s present TA’s and SA’s are grand-parented in role by AAPE. During this period, WAWI’s graduates will continue to seek appointment and promotion through application to the White Institute’s Appointments and Promotions Committee, and these subsequently appointed, WAWI-certified SA’s and TA’s will continue to function in role, and their certification will be accepted as meeting AAPE certification requirements.
6. AAPE Model: The analyst is certified in adult psychoanalysis by the American Psychoanalytic Association’s (APsaA) Board on Professional Standards prior to December 31, 2015, or the American Board of Psychoanalysis.
7. The analyst has had experience supervising psychodynamic psychotherapy as part of a training program, clinic, hospital, privately, or other.
8. Institutes can add criteria that address their own requirements.
II. Training Analyst Appointment
A. The AAPE Pathway
AAPE recognizes, as delineated in our standards, that the position of Training and Supervising Analyst involves a high degree of clinical skill in handling the sensitive situation of psychoanalysis within an educational institution, and that these skills are generally not innate nor do they just suddenly appear, but rather are best achieved through a gradual process of study, experience and development, whether formally through an analytic program, or individually by the applicant.
While setting forth the basic standards for the appointment of Training and Supervising Analyst by all AAPE member Institutes, AAPE’s Board of Directors recognizes there may have evolved among the various Institutes a diversity of approaches to the process by which these standards are achieved by the TSA applicants and ultimately evaluated. Some approaches may favor a developmental model, beginning in the early years after graduation, whereby applicants participate in post graduate clinical study groups. Others may include mentoring or other forms of collegial guidance and oversight. Still others may prefer the traditional direct model of application and evaluation. With all approaches for Training and/or Supervising Analyst, a thorough review of the applicant’s clinical work is necessary at some point in the institute’s procedures.
We value the originality of the AAPE institutes who may wish to be flexible in devising their own training analyst programs, within the basic standards. As an aide to these projects, we offer examples of both developmental and direct models which are already in practice and are currently under review and study by their institutes as well as by AAPE.
*The Traditional Direct Model and two examples of a Developmental Model (A and B), along with an Appeals Model, are appended.For Supervising Analyst only, please see the next section (III.) Neither Developmental Model A or B provide for Supervising Analyst only. Institutes that wish to have a Developmental model for Supervising Analyst only should consult with the TSAC.
III. Supervising Analyst Appointment Procedure
In addition to the criteria listed above in Section I.A., appointment as a Supervising Analyst only, or as Training and Supervising Analyst requires that:
a.The assessment of the analyst includes an evaluation of the analyst’s clinical immersion and pedagogic competence in the conduct of supervision.
b. The institute has determined the applicant’s suitability by the institute’s relevant committee. This committee will have assessed the analyst’s pedagogical knowledge and skills relevant to supervision, including the ability to clearly and effectively conceptualize and articulate theory and technique, and establish and maintain an appropriate supervisory relationship.
c.It is recommended that the evaluation of the prospective Supervising Analyst only also include a detailed review of the applicant’s clinical work.
d.The institute’s procedures for the review procedures in b. and c. must have been approved by the Board of Directors of AAPE.
e. All Supervising Analysts are expected to participate in Institute and faculty activities, including the education of candidates.
IV. Application to AAPE
A. When all criteria have been met, the Institute can apply to AAPE’s TSAC or, in the case of child supervisor appointments, AAPE’s Committee on Child and Adolescent Training for review of the application.
B. Following successful review by the above committees and AAPE’s Board of Directors, AAPE will authorize the Training and/or Supervising Analyst appointment.
V. Institute Waiver of the Requirement of an Analysis with a Training Analyst
Institutes are not required to adopt this policy.
A.Institutes may request a waiver of the requirement for a training analysis should they have an applicant or prospective applicant for admission who is already engaged in an ongoing analysis, preferably for at least one year, with an analyst who is not a training analyst, and the institute believes the waiver is in the best interest of the candidate’s analysis.
B.To be eligible for consideration of this waiver the analyst must meet the following criteria:
1.The analyst must be in good ethical standing.
2.The analyst must be a member in good standing or a graduate of the institute applying for the waiver or a member of an AAPE member institute. If neither of these, the analyst must demonstrate that his or her psychoanalytic training is substantially equivalent to that of AAPE’s training standards.
3.The analyst must be five years post-graduation.
4.The analyst must meet the following clinical immersion requirements:
a.Experience post graduation with at least 4 non-psychotic patients in analysis conducted at a minimum frequency of 4 times per week. This may include control cases continuing post graduation, but at least two new cases need to have been started after graduation.
b.The total number of analytic hours conducted by the analyst since graduation needs to be a minimum of 1800 hours of 4-5x/week cases.
5. Certification by the American Psychoanalytic Association’s board on Professional Standards prior to December 31, 2105 or the American Board of Psychoanalysis is recommended but not required.
C.The institute must have an explicit procedure for determining the suitability of the analyst for performing this function. The procedure needs to respect the boundaries and integrity of the candidate’s analysis. And, without breaching the confidentiality of the analysand, the application for a waiver should include an explanation of how it was determined and concluded that the waiver is in the best interest of the candidate’s analysis.
D.Institutes should avoid requesting multiple waivers for the same analyst.
E.The institute’s procedure needs to be submitted to AAPE’s Training and Supervising Analyst Development and Appointment Committee (TSAC) and Board of Directors for approval prior to any applications for waiver. Institutes should feel free to consult with AAPE’s TSAC for guidance or advice when considering a waiver situation.
F. The TSAC, at its discretion, will allow flexibility in its evaluation of these requirements if so recommended by AAPE’s Board of Directors.
G. Waivers are granted on a case-by-case basis with the understanding that the waiver does not constitute a Training Analyst appointment. All waiver requests are reviewed to ensure that policies and procedures of the standards were followed during the waiver evaluation process. These waivers are granted upon the approval of the AAPE’s Board of Directors.
VI. Geographic Rule Training and Supervising Analyst Appointments
1.AAPE member institutes who apply for Geographic Rule status for a Training and/or Supervising analyst who is a member of another AAPE member institute need to gain approval from AAPE’s TSAC and Board of Directors.
2.Training and Supervising analysts from non-member AAPE institutes who apply for Geographic Rule status need to meet the institute’s requirements for Training and Supervising Analyst and be approved by that institute and AAPE’s TSAC and Board of Directors.
3.Approval of a Geographic Rule Training analysis is given on a case by case basis. Geographic Supervising Analysts can be appointed for ongoing supervisor status at the discretion of the institute.
VII. Standards for Continued Competence of Training and Supervising Analysts.
Every appointment of a Training Analyst and a Supervising Analyst is contingent upon the individual’s continued demonstration of ethical, professional, clinical and cognitive competence. Each Institute must have policies and procedures to evaluate such competence, and committees and subcommittees to perform this evaluative function. This requirement includes:
1. A clear and transparent procedure for TA/SA appointment and reappointment
2. A clear and transparent procedure for revoking TA/SA appointment
3. An Analyst Assistance Committee which has clear and transparent Procedures for evaluating competence and personal conduct
4. An Ethics Committee which has clear and transparent policies to process and evaluate ethics inquiries and complaints
5. A clear and transparent appeals process available to TAs/SAs who do not agree with the conclusions of any one of these committees.
*****
Appendices
Appendix I: Traditional Direct Model
Appendix II: Developmental Model A
Appendix II: Developmental Model B
Appendix III: Appeals Procedure Model
B. The William Alanson White Institute Pathway
Appointment to the roles of SA and TA is under the purview of the Institute’s Appointments and Promotions Committee, members of which are all elected TA’s. The Committee annually invites eligible graduates to apply for consideration, including with the application clinical material that reflects directly on their abilities to conduct psychoanalytic supervision and/or treatment. A subcommittee meets with each applicant to review in detail the applicant’s clinical and/or supervisory work, and to present recommendations for discussion to the nine-member Committee, which recommends appointment on the basis of a majority vote. Non-appointed applicants are provided with feedback about their application and are free to reapply, without prejudice, at any time.
Supervising Analyst Appointment (“WAWI model”)
Eligibility for appointment as an SA is a minimum of five years post- graduation. Appointment to the role of SA is under the purview of the Institute’s Appointments and Promotions Committee, members of which are all TA’s. Applicants are free to submit all materials they consider relevant to appointment as an SA. A subcommittee meets with each applicant and presents recommendations for discussion to the full Committee, which decides whether to recommend appointment to the Institute’s Council of Fellows. Non-appointed applicants are provided with feedback about their application and are free to reapply, without prejudice, at any time. In the “WAWI model,” present SA’s and TA’s are “grandparented” by AAPE so they can continue to function in role in WAWI’s psychoanalytic training program. WAWI’s graduates will continue to be eligible for evaluation through the existing “Appointments & Promotions Committee” process, and if recommended for appointment by WAWI’s process, will be recognized as TA’s and SA’s by AAPE, and may function as WAWI-certified SA’s and TA’s.
APPENDICES
Appendix I:Traditional Direct Model
1. The analyst applying for appointment for Training Analyst, Supervising Analyst, and Training and Supervising Analyst by means of the Traditional Direct Model has satisfied the following criteria in addition to those listed in items 1 through 8 in the above section I.A.; and for Supervising Analyst alone, those criteria listed in section I.A and III.
a. The analyst has successfully completed a vetting process which must include the review of presentations of detailed past and current clinical and supervisory workto a Training Analyst Selection Committee or its equivalent at the institute seeking the appointment. At the discretion of the institute, the analysts chosen to review the applicant’s work can be from inside or external to the institute, or both. The institute’s procedures for this vetting process must have been approved by the Board of Directors of AAPE.
b. Once these criteria have been met, the institute sends its written application to the Training and Supervising Development and Appointment Committee (TSAC) of AAPE for review.
c. With successful review by the TSAC, the application is brought to AAPE’s Board of Directors for formal approval of the appointment.
d. The institute will be informed about the approval or non-approval of the application and provided with feedback in the latter case. At its discretion, the institute is free to reapply for the applicant, without prejudice.
e. Institutes should have a clearly written, transparent appeals process for training and supervising analyst appointment.
*****
*Appendix II. Developmental Model A
The analyst applying for appointment by means of Developmental Model A has satisfied the following criteria in addition to those listed in items 1 through 8 in section I.A. above.
What follows is written in the style of the Institute that uses this model.
Any applicant who is close to but does not fully meet immersion requirements is encouraged to consider beginning the Training and Supervising Analyst (TSA) application process. Either the applicant or the institute’s TSA Appointment committee chair may contact the Chairperson of AAPE’s Training and Supervising Application and Development Committee (TSAC) to discuss individual cases.
THE FOUR STAGES OF TSA DEVELOPMENT AND APPOINTMENT
Within the framework of AAPE standards, the process takes place in four stages.
The institute’s TSA Committee Chair or his or her designee oversees the application process from beginning to end: He or she oversees the training groups, reviews the preliminary application as well as available data on the applicant’s academic performance as a candidate and functioning as a faculty member and general member of our community.
I. TA/SA DEVELOPMENT TRAINING GROUPS (TG), (One or two years required):
The applicant will participate for (one or two) years in the Training and Supervising Analyst Development Training Groups (TG’s).
These training groups are non-reporting, led by two experienced TA/SA’s, with no more than six participants. Training groups are open to all faculty members who are three years post-graduation, but with particular interest in exploring potential development toward becoming a training and supervising analyst. Participants are expected to have completed or expect to complete Certification and to complete Immersion Requirements for TSA appointment.
Within each training group, presenters may rotate, but each TSA applicant is encouraged to present for at least three of the meetings. Supervisory cases will also be encouraged for presentation. A portion of each training group may also involve discussion of relevant readings on the training analysis literature and supervision literature that are determined by the Training Group leaders.
Attendance can begin to accrue toward the one or two-year TG requirement well before a TSA application is made. For TSA application, the full (one or two) years of attendance in the training group will need to be completed before consideration for appointment.
II. PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
Applicants having completed Certification, and meeting Immersion Requirements or are expected to complete Immersion Requirements at or beyond five years post-graduation may submit a preliminary application to the institute’s TSA Committee Chair.
An applicant may submit the preliminary application as early as four years post-graduation, in order to begin the next phase of the development process to potentially qualify for TSA appointment after five years required experience of post-graduate psychoanalytic practice.
The applicant submits AAPE’s Training Analyst Application Formto the TSA Chair, and a letter of intent to the TSA Chair expressing interest in beginning the Individual Development Committee (IDC) phase of the TSA Developmental Process.
The Chair or his or her designee verifies the applicant’s statement that he or she is a member in good standing with regard to the ethical and financial standards of the institute and those of the AAPE. The Chair or his or her designee may summarize the data collected for purposes of aiding the development of the applicant, and will use this summary to help the Chair of the Individual Developmental Subcommittee (IDC) to locate potential areas for growth in the TSA Development Experience (see below).
The TSA Chair or his or her designee may move to reject the application at this juncture on the grounds of ineligibility based on eligibility criteria, lack of requisite experience, or ethical breaches in the conduct of clinical work that would adversely affect the conduct of an analysis or supervision. Barring this occurrence, the applicant will automatically begin a period of at least one additional year of a TSA developmental process.
The TSA Chair or his or her designee will appoint an Individual Development Committee (IDC) consisting of three TA/SA’s for the individual applicant’s next phase of the process
If the applicant would like an advisor, Training and Supervising Analysts who are not directly involved in the applicant’s appointment process would also be made available.
III. INDIVIDUAL TA/SA DEVELOPMENTAL EXPERIENCE
Each Applicant continuing to this phase will be assigned an Individual Development Committee (IDC). The IDC is comprised of 3 Training and Supervising Analysts, (a chair and two others) appointed by the TSA Chair or his or her designee. The IDC is charged with the task of establishing a Training and Supervising Analyst Developmental Experience for a particular applicant.
During the second academic-year of the development period, each applicant attends meetings every four months for at least one year (at least three meetings) with the Training and Supervising Analyst Development Subcommittee (IDC) to discuss progression. All applicants will join an IDC either concurrently with their participation in the TG experience or after their one or two year participation in a TG.
Attendance and participation in IDC meetings are part of the institute’s required criteria for TSA Appointment. For each meeting, the applicant is required to compose a brief note (one to two pages) summarizing the kinds of clinical problems and issues that the applicant is working on in analytic work and supervision.
The IDC’s responsibility will be to help the applicant’s development in his or her development towards Training and Supervising Analyst appointment.The IDC will take up clinical material from the applicant’s analyses and supervisions (and share their own clinical experiences to the extent that they are able). The purpose of the IDC is to discuss and evaluate the applicant’s clinical work. It is essential that the subcommittee work with the applicant to identify areas of relative strength and weakness in the applicant’s work. Over the course of this year, our hope is that the applicant in concert with his or her committee will develop an ongoing conversation about some of the most challenging parts of analytic work for the applicant.
A crucial component of the IDC’s contribution to the applicant’s development will rely on the applicant’s continuing writing about his own strengths and weaknesses in relation to his or her work as an analyst. We encourage applicants to think about particular kinds of problems in clinical work such as avoidance of conflict or affects; under what circumstances is the analyst's mind more free to think or more constrained; issues that are more likely to be enacted than others; particular kinds of transference attributions that pose conflict for the analyst; particularly thorny countertransference issues with which the analyst struggles, and the like. The IDC will not only work to help the analyst to work with these kinds of conflicts and interferences in clinical work but, equally important, will work to help the analyst to reflect on these matters as an ongoing part of analytic work. Toward this end, a brief one or two page summary before each meeting with the DS will be required.
It is important that in preparation for each meeting the applicant will also provide in writing his or her sense of the feedback that has been provided in the previous IDC meeting. This is required so that the IDC members can assess the progress of discussions within those meetings including the degree to which feedback is being received and digested.
The applicant will need to send this along to the IDC members at least two weeks in advance of the each of the three [or more] meetings during this process, to give the IDC members time to give feedback before the meeting if what is submitted needs work, development, or could be clearer.
The members of this subcommittee will try to provide direct and constructive observations including concerns or criticisms of the applicant’s work.
It is an important part of the process that prior to meeting with the applicant, that the Subcommittee take the time between each meeting to discuss the applicant’s development, and to formulate goals for the next meeting to insure the applicant’s analytic growth over the span of their meetings. The Subcommittee takes on the responsibility of helping the applicant to develop their abilities to conduct training analyses and supervise candidates on their analytic cases. It is also possible for this committee to suggest to applicants areas of further development that would be useful.
The IDC will not generate a written report to the TAC about the applicant’s development process, but will be asked to document times and dates of meetings as part of the Final Appointment Procedure. The applicants, themselves, are to submit a written description of their TG and IDC experience to the TSA Chair at the completion of the IDC experience, so that a detailed letter might be written to AAPE on their behalf in the final stages of TSA appointment. We expect that in the letter, the applicant will be able to articulate aspects of his/her learning and development during the appointment process (see note below). To this end, the IDC and/or Subcommittee Chair would be available to review and discuss the process. The applicant is expected to review the letter with his or her subcommittee before submission to the TSA Chair.
IV. FINAL APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE
At the conclusion of the Training and Supervision Analyst Development Experience, when the applicant and TSA Committee agree the process has been fulfilled, the applicant will gather the following materials to submit to the TSA Chair:
- The AAPE Training and Supervising Analyst Application, updated to reflect the applicant’s most recent clinical immersion.
- A statement written by the applicant which lists dates and times of all meetings attended as part of his or her appointment process (i.e. meetings of their TG and IDC).
- The IDC’ Chair’s statement (as written to the chair of the TSA Committee) that the Subcommittee has completed its task of helping to develop the applicant in the developmental process towards becoming a Training and Supervising Analyst.
- The applicant’s written description (three to ten pages) of the applicant’s assessment of his or her analytic work and readiness to become a Training and Supervising Analyst. The applicant is encouraged to try to assemble the work of the TG experience and the IDC experience. The expectation is that the applicant will review and discuss the description with his or her IDC before submitting the final application to the TSA Committee.
For applicants whom the IDC suggests further development, the applicant may pursue further involvement in development groups, pursue individual supervision or resumed analysis, or halt or postpone the appointment process.
The integrity of the TSA Developmental process depends on the applicant’s collaboration and willingness to communicate honestly in a report to the TSA Chair about the recommendations of the IDC and TG experiences. When the applicant summarizes his or her work, we ask that the applicant include the content of the IDC recommendations for future growth and development. When in particular circumstances suggestions are made for applicants to continue the developmental process, it is incumbent upon the applicant to make this clear in his or her report to the TSA Chair. The expectation is that the applicant will review and discuss the description with his or her IDC before submitting the final application to the TSA Chair.
The TSA Chair (or his or her designee) will review the applicant’s materials and provide a letter to the Chair of AAPE’s TSAC based on the above information, explicating the applicant’s process, qualifications, and our recommendations.
All recommendations of the TSA Committee to AAPE (based on the recommendations of the IDC) will be announced at a TSA Committee meeting.
Once the recommendation has been made, the institute sends its written application to the Training and Supervising Development and Appointment Committee (TSAC) of AAPE for review.
With successful review by the TSAC, the application is brought to AAPE’s Board of Directors for formal approval of the appointment.
The institute will be informed about the approval or non approval of the application and provided with feedback in the latter case. At its discretion, the institute is free to reapply for the applicant, without prejudice.
Institutes should have a clearly written, transparent appeals process for training and supervising analyst appointment.
*****
*Appendix III. Developmental Model B
The analyst applying for appointment by means of Developmental Model B has satisfied the following criteria in addition to those listed in items 1 through 8 in section I.A. above.
What follows is written in the style of the Institute that uses this model.
***
We are pleased that you have decided to apply to become a Training and Supervising Analyst and welcome you to a process that we hope will help you develop into the role.
This process is designed to further develop your skills and your analytic identity. The procedure is collegial and collaborative with mutual feedback along the way between you and those working with you. It provides an opportunity for you to learn about your clinical strengths as well as areas that need further work.
Becoming a TA and SA can be a remarkable step in the development of an analytic clinician and can ultimately afford one the privilege, opportunity and responsibility of working intimately with future analytic colleagues in the course of their analytic development.
I. [The institute] has a policy of self-nomination. Qualified faculty members who are interested in applying are encouraged to contact the Chair of the Training Analyst Appointment Committee (TAAC).
The application and procedure are for combined TA and SA. Situations in which one wants to apply for SA only will be considered on an individual basis.
Those Training and Supervising analysts who belong to AAPE member institutes and apply to [the Institute] for Geographic Rule status need to be approved by [the Institute] and AAPE. Training and Supervising analysts from non-member AAPE institutes who apply for Geographic Rule status need to meet [the Institute’s] requirements for Training and Supervising Analyst and be approved by [the Institute] and AAPE.
Those analysts who have been approved as Training and/or Supervising Analysts from their home institutes and who then join [the Institute’s] faculty will be vetted on an individual basis.
In all cases specified in the preceding two paragraphs, applicants may be asked to participate in a review of their clinical work.
II. [Institute’s] Additional Requirements and Procedure for TA/SA.
Requirements:The American Association for Psychoanalytic Education (AAPE) requires that we have our own appointment process, that our requirements for appointment meet the minimum standards of AAPE, and that we submit the results of our process to AAPE for its review and approval.
[What follows are examples of what might be included by an individual institute in addition to the universal requirements specified in Section I.A.above.]
Applicants must also
- Be in good financial standing at [the Institute] with all fees paid up to date
- Have no current investigations of ethical or licensure violations in progress, and must submit a reporting of any past or current ethical or licensure violations or investigations
- Have no condition, medical or otherwise, that could seriously compromise the applicant’s function as a Training and Supervising Analyst.
- Include with the application, or as part of the applicant’s CV, a list of Institute and Society activities, both teaching and administrative.
- Submit a letter of consent allowing the TAAC to contact others in connection with the application, should the TAAC feel this is necessary.
Procedure:
1. Applicants for Training and Supervising Analyst (TA/SA) request an application [AAPE’s application form] from the Institute’s central office and submit the completed application to the Chair of the TAAC, who is available for advice in filling out the application and for guidance throughout the process.
Included with the application are summary reports on all cases listed on the application. (Summaries of cases that the applicant feels would support his or her application but were treated prior to the time frame specified in the application can also be included, but are not required.) Two of these reports should be ten pages and the rest up to five pages, but no less than three. All reports need to be double spaced and single sided. The reports should emphasize the work and process of the analysis and include examples of the analyst’s interventions and the patient’s responses, as well the analyst’s understanding of the material within sessions and overall.
The purpose of the reports is to give the TAAC a sense of how the analyst works and how she or he understands the patients and the respective analytic processes, so that the next phase of the application can move forward in a way that assists the applicant’s development toward becoming a TA/SA.
2. The TAAC will convene and make a preliminary assessment of the application. At this stage the committee tries to assess character, ethical conduct, clinical aptitude and teaching ability. To assist the TAAC in this evaluation, members of the committee may contact other faculty members at the Institute who are familiar with the applicant’s work in teaching and administration. Moreover, if the applicant is coming to us from another Institute, the committee may contact any faculty member at that Institute who it feels may provide it with information that will help with its initial assessment.
The preliminary assessment will also involve a review by the TAAC of the applicant’s clinical immersion and written case summaries.
3. If after the TAAC’s preliminary assessment there are no factors that suggest that the application should be denied or deferred, the applicant will enter the next phase of the application: The Chair of the TAAC will form a Training Analyst Development Subcommittee (TADS).
4. The TADS will consist of two members of the TAAC. In some instances, a Training Analyst member of [the Institute’s] faculty who is not on the TAAC or a Training Analyst from another institute may be substituted. If the applicant objects to one or both of the assigned TADS members, he or she should feel free to confer with the Chair of the TAAC.
The applicant and/or the members of the TADS can consult with the Chair of the TAAC if they feel they are encountering problems with the process of the TADS. The TADS will otherwise not be communicating with the TAAC until it feels its task has been completed, at which point the applicant is free to respond to the communication made by the TADS to the TAAC
The TADS members will meet with the applicant in a collegial atmosphere to take up material from the the applicant’s analyses and supervision and to share their own clinical experience to the extent they are able. It is expected that the applicant will discuss more than one case with the TADS members. The purpose of these meetings is to identify for the applicant areas that need work in order to further help develop his or her abilities to conduct the analyses and supervision of candidates. The role of a TA/SA and its complexities and challenges may also be discussed when relevant.
These meetings will be as frequent as is mutually agreed upon but not less than six to eight meetings and for not less than six months.
During this time, the applicant will prepare brief self-assessment notes (one to three pages) to present to the TADS a week or two prior to each meeting. These notes are for the purpose of enhancing the applicant’s understanding of what he or she is learning and can convey, for example, the applicant’s areas of strength and weakness in working analytically or in supervising, the kind of problems she or he is having with a particular case or type of case, or the experience of the TADS process as it pertains to the applicant’s development.
The notes also assist the TADS in understanding the progress of the applicant and his or her readiness for appointment as TA/SA. The TADS members will review these notes from the applicant between meetings in order to formulate goals for the next meeting.
5. After working together for a sufficient period of time, but no less than six months, the TADS and the applicant can come to an agreement that they are ready to continue the process by engaging with the TAAC. The TADS will meet with the TAAC to convey its understanding of the applicant’s development and the applicant is welcome to convey his or her own understanding either verbally or in writing to the Chair of the TAAC.
If, after the discussion between the TADS and the TAAC, the latter votes for appointment to TA/SA, the procedure in #7 and #8 (below) will be followed. The spirit of the discussion of the TAAC will be to reach a consensus, but a majority vote of the committee will be necessary to approve the appointment.
If, after the discussion between the TADS and the TAAC, a recommendation for appointment to TA/SA cannot be made, the following options are possible.
A. After consultation between the Chair of the TAAC, the TADS and the applicant, work with the existing TADS could continue or a new TADS could be formed and the process of development of the applicant continued for at least another six months.
B. The applicant will be asked to defer the process for a significant period of time to be determined on an individual basis, in order to work independently on areas that need improvement as determined by the TAAC in consultation with the TADS.Recommendations might be made for more education, personal clinical supervision, experience as a supervisor, clinical psychoanalytic case work, and/or personal psychoanalytic treatment. The reasons for these recommendations will be explicitly conveyed to the applicant.
C. The applicant will have the option of, or the TAAC could recommend having two other consulting TAs involved in the process.
a. The TAAC will select two senior training analysts, usually, but not invariably from outside [the Institute], who will independently discuss the applicant’s clinical work with the applicant for a series of meetings over a reasonable period of time. The choice of consultants will be mutually agreed upon by the TAAC and the applicant.
b. The Chair of the TAAC will convey to the two consulting TAs specific questions regarding the applicant’s work that have come to light during the process. The applicant will be privy to these questions and may be asked to collaborate in formulating them.
c. After these consultations are complete, the consultants will submit written reports and be asked to attend a meeting of the TAAC where their understanding of the applicant’s work will be discussed. The TAAC will then vote on the appointment.
1. If the TAAC believes additional information is needed, the applicant may be asked to present to a third consultant.
2. If the TAAC believes, after the process involving the two (or three) outside analysts is complete, it cannot support a recommendation for TA/SA and further development is necessary, options A. or B. (above) may be recommended to the applicant.
3. If, after the process involving the two (or three) outside analysts, the TAAC votes to recommend appointment to TA/SA, steps #7 and #8 (below) will be followed. The spirit of the discussion of the TAAC will be to reach a consensus, but a majority vote of the committee will be necessary to approve the appointment.
4. If after all the steps above, i.e., reconvening or forming a new TADS, taking a hiatus from the process, or seeing outside consultants, the application is unsuccessful and an appointment for TA/SA is denied, the applicant can reapply one additional time after two to three years from the conclusion of the procedure. If the second application is not successful, the applicant cannot reapply before an additional three to five years have passed from the conclusion of the second procedure.
5. When the application is approved by the TAAC, the Education Committee of the institute or equivalent body will be asked to approve the appointment by majority vote.
6. If the Education Committee or equivalent body approves the appointment for TA/SA, the Chair of the EC or Director of the Institute will then submit the application, including a summary of the TA/SA process prepared by the Chair of the TAAC regarding the particular applicant, to AAPE’s TSAC for review.
7. With successful review by AAPE’s TSAC, the application is brought to AAPE’s Board of Directors for formal approval of the appointment.
8. The institute will be informed about the approval or non approval of the application and provided with feedback in the latter case. At its discretion, the institute is free to reapply for the applicant, without prejudice.
9. Institutes should have a clearly written, transparent appeals process for training and supervising analyst appointment.
10. All newly appointed TA/SAs are expected to consult with a senior TA/SA when they they begin their first training case and whenever they feel it is needed. The consultations should occur at least four to six times over a period of 12 to 18 months. Analytic supervisory work can also be discussed whenever the analyst or supervisor feel it will be helpful. The Chair of the TAAC will be available to help in finding a suitable senior TA/SA consultant from inside and outside [the Institute].
11. Being appointed TA/SA brings with it a career-long commitment to learning and development. The TA/SA has a responsibility to remain active and participatory in the profession and in his or her own developmental learning. Periodic consultation with a colleague is considered to be particularly important in this regard. Additional activities may include peer supervisory groups, writing, and presentations.
12. The TA/SA also has a responsibility to participate in the life of the Institute, especially analyzing, teaching and supervising candidates at [the Institute].
13. In applying for TA/SA, you are agreeing that you will try to work out affordable fees for the candidates you see in analysis or supervision
14. At the end of the procedures, including appeals procedures, all records will be retained at [the Institute’s] offices for a period of six years.
III. By signing this document, I agree to abide by the application procedure as well as the expectations regarding the role and responsibilities of the Training and Supervising analyst at [the Institute].
Signature: ____________________
Date: ____________________
*****
Appendix IV. Appeal Procedure Model
The Appeal model that follows was devised by the institute using Developmental Model B and was designed to be used in conjunction with it, but it is offered here as an example of an appeals procedure and can be modified by any institute to suit its own procedures and needs.
[The Institute’s] TA/SA application procedures have been carefully developed to emphasize fairness and collaboration throughout the process. Nonetheless, there may be instances in which an applicant may wish to appeal. An appeal may be requested by an applicant under the following circumstances:
A. If the application for TA/SA is denied or deferred at the outset. An explanation of the reason will be provided in a meeting with and in writing by the Chair of the Training Analyst Appointment Committee (TAAC), the Chair having consulted with the TAAC.
B. If at any time during the procedure the TAAC feels there is a problem that leads it to believe the procedure should be discontinued or deferred and 5 A, B and C [in Developmental Model B] are not offered to the applicant. An explanation will be given to the applicant in person and in writing by the Chair of the TAAC.
C. If the applicant has gone through option 5A and 5C twice without a two year break as specified in 5B above [in Developmental Model B], and the TAAC believes the process of development is not progressing and it advises the applicant to discontinue the process. An explanation of the reason will be given to the applicant in writing by the Chair of the TAAC.
An appeal must be filed within six months after any of the above circumstances.
If an appeal is requested by the applicant, the Director of [the Institute], in consultation with the Chair of the EC, shall appoint a three-member Appeal Committee consisting of two TAs and one non-TA, at least one of whom is from [the Institute]. One of these analysts shall be appointed Chair of the Appeal Committee by the Director of the Institute in consultation with the Chair of the EC. These analysts shall not have been involved in the original procedure, nor be members of the current TAAC.
The Appeal Committee shall be provided with the application as well as a complete record of the TA/SA review of the applicant by the TADS [see Developmental Model B] and TAAC, including any reports from the outside consultants and any notes of the applicant during the TADS or at other points during the procedure. The Appeal Committee shall have the option of interviewing anyone involved in the TA/SA proceedings, including the applicant. The purpose of the review will be to determine if the process was fair and consistent in following [the Institute’s] TA/SA procedures.
At the conclusion of the appeal review, the Appeal Committee shall submit its decision in writing to the Director of [the Institute]. The Appeal Committee’s decision can be to either agree with the decision of the TAAC or to advise that the applicant reenter the procedure with suggestions from the Appeal Committee to the TAAC for how the latter should proceed.
The applicant and the TAAC will be given notice by the Director of the Institute of the Appeal Committee’s decision, which shall be binding.
By participating in the review, the applicant and the TAAC indicate agreement to abide by the decision of the Appeal Committee.
IX. Education in Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
Two pathways for child analytic training are offered: Combined Adult, Child and Adolescent Training, and Child Focused Training
1. Combined Education in Adult, Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
A. Selection for Education and Clinical Training in Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
- An applicant is eligible for admission concurrent to or following acceptance as an active candidate at an accredited Institute of the American Psychoanalytic Association.
- Eligibility for education and clinical training in child and adolescent psychoanalysis is based in part on prior clinical mental health experience with children and adolescents. The candidate should have experience with normal children and adolescents, pathological conditions in children and adolescents, diagnosis and the treatment of children and adolescents with psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy. Institutes may need to assist their applicants in gaining these experiences which, in appropriate situations, may be attained during candidacy in child analysis and before graduation.
- To assess suitability and eligibility for training in child and adolescent psychoanalysis, interviews conducted by child and adolescent faculty are required.
B. Components of Education and Clinical Training in Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis:
Education and clinical training in child and adolescent analysis, consistent with the tripartite model, includes an analysis with a training analyst, a didactic curriculum, and supervised clinical work. Institutes have flexibility in the construction of their educational program within the following core requirements:
1. Non-reporting Training Analysis: If child training begins subsequent to the termination of the candidate’s training analysis it is strongly recommended that the candidate resume a non-reporting training analysis during their supervised clinical work with children.
2. Curriculum for Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis Institutes are encouraged to integrate the child, adolescent and adult psychoanalytic curricula to the fullest extent possible. The curriculum should include the following subject matters:
a) Treatment Situation and Technique
These seminars should include the study of the various phases of the child analytic process, including the diagnostic issues related to case selection and the theoretical and technical issues to be considered upon beginning psychoanalysis with a child or adolescent. Topics that are specific to child and adolescent treatment such as theory and technique related to working with parents are also essential for study.
b) Psychoanalytic Theory
These seminars should include the study of basic psychoanalytic theories relevant to child development including current developmental theories and research.
c) Psychopathology
These seminars should include study of psychoanalytic perspectives on the manifestations of psychopathology in children and adolescents.
d) Development
These seminars should include the study of child and adolescent development in greater depth than usually offered in seminars in development in the adult psychoanalytic curriculum. Direct observation of infants, children, and adolescents is an important enrichment of the study of development.
e) Research
These seminars should include basic knowledge and current research in infant and child development and the treatment of children and adolescents.
f) Continuous Case Seminars and Clinical Conferences
Candidates should attend continuous case seminars in child and adolescent analysis for the duration of clinical training in child and adolescent psychoanalysis.
C. Supervised Clinical Experience
a) Child and adolescent patients in supervised psychoanalysis should be seen at a recommended frequency of at least four times per week on separate days through termination barring exceptional circumstances necessitating temporary alteration of this frame.
b) All standards for supervised casework for adult psychoanalytic training apply to adult cases of candidates in combined adult, child and adolescent training with the exception of the reduced required minimum number of adult cases from three to two of different genders. Candidates in combined adult, child and adolescent programs are required to analyze at least three child and adolescent patients, including different genders and preferably a pre-school child in addition to a latency child and an adolescent. However, an acceptable alternative is that the three cases include at least one child in latency and one adolescent. Each of the three required cases should demonstrate a period of significant analytic work and process beyond the opening phase. At least one of the three cases should be analyzed through termination if possible.
c) The three cases of candidates in child and adolescent psychoanalytic training should be
d) The candidate should have a minimum of 50 hours of supervision for each case. Supervision should occur on a weekly basis until the supervisor determines that the candidate can work more autonomously with supervision at less frequent intervals. However, those candidates who are not child and adolescent mental health clinicians should continue in regular supervision through termination, even if beyond graduation, for each case involving a developmental stage not previously supervised.
D. Graduation in Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
The Child and Adolescent Committee of an Institute in collaboration with its Education Committee or its functional equivalent must participate in the evaluation of the candidate’s progression and readiness for graduation. Graduation from a combined program of child, adolescent and adult psychoanalysis requires completion of all educational requirements for graduation in adult psychoanalysis, and all educational requirements for graduation in child and adolescent analysis. At the discretion of the institute, a candidate in a combined program may graduate in either Adult Psychoanalysis or Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis prior to the completion of the requirements of the other component.
2. Education in Child and Adolescent Analysis – Child Focused Training
1) Introduction: Child focused training can be developed by Institutes that already offer combined adult, child and adolescent analytic training. The requirements for training these candidates must meet the minimum standards of AAPE for child and adolescent training in regards to candidate suitability, admissions, case requirements, supervision, didactic work and a training analysis. To offer this option, the Institute must present their plan to train Child and Adolescent Analysts who are not concurrently or previously trained in adult psychoanalysis to the Committee on Child and Adolescent Training. Guidelines for submission of a proposal for a child-focused program may be obtained from the AAPE Committee on Child and Adolescent Training.
2) Selection for training in Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis: Applicants for child-focused psychoanalytic training must first meet the criteria for admission to the Institute. Eligibility should be based in part on prior experience with children, adolescents, and families. The applicant must have experience with normal children and adolescents and with the diagnosis and treatment of pathological conditions in this population. Institutes can assist applicants with less optimal backgrounds to gain these experiences. Interviews conducted by child and adolescent faculty determine general suitability for work with children.
3) Components of Education and Clinical Training in Child Focused Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
1. Non-reporting Training Analysis
The Candidate must have a non-reporting training analysis. This analysis should continue during the candidate’s supervised work with children.
2. Curriculum for Child Focused Child and Adolescent Psychoanalysis
Candidates in child-focused programs are expected to obtain adequate exposure to general psychoanalytic theory and technique. Whenever possible, institutes are encouraged to integrate the child and adolescent and the adult curricula to the fullest extent possible. The curriculum should include the following child and adolescent focused courses:
1) Treatment Situation and Technique
2) Psychoanalytic Theory
3) Psychopathology
4) Development
5) Research
6) Clinical Case Seminars and Clinical Conferences
3. Supervised Clinical Experience
The standards for supervision are the same standards as those described in the child and adolescent component of the combined program. A minimum of 200 hours of supervision is required.
4. Graduation in Child and Adolescent Analysis
Once it is determined that a candidate in child and adolescent psychoanalytic training qualifies for graduation, the Child and Adolescent Committee of the Institute should recommend to its Progression Committee or its functional equivalent that the candidate is ready for graduation from the child and adolescent psychoanalytic program.
Graduation requires completion of all the educational requirements for child and adolescent psychoanalytic training. Ultimately, the decision to graduate a candidate resides with the Progression Committee or its functional equivalent. Most important is the candidate’s demonstrated capacity to conduct the psychoanalysis of children and adolescents competently and independently.
3. Child and Adolescent Supervising Analyst
Child and Adolescent Supervising Analysts are the supervisors for the child and adolescent cases of candidates in Child and Adolescent Analysis. Certified Child Analysts with a demonstrated commitment to education, extensive clinical experience and skill, who are in good ethical standing, and whose work has been subjected to extensive peer review, may be appointed as a Child Supervising Analyst.
- Requirements for Appointment to Child/Adolescent Supervising Analyst.
- The applicant must be five years post-graduation in child/adolescent psychoanalysis.
- The applicant must be certified in child and adolescent psychoanalysis by the Board on Professional Standards (prior to December 2015) or by the American Board of Psychoanalysis after December 2015.
- The applicant must have experience with the analysis of children and adolescents of different genders.
- The applicant must have had experience with the termination of child and adolescent psychoanalytic cases.
- The applicant must show evidence of clinical immersion in the practice of child psychoanalysis carried out at a minimum frequency of four times a week on separate days, during the five years preceding appointment as Associate Child Supervising Analyst. Consideration is made of the applicant’s total immersion in adult, child and adolescent cases during the 5 year period.
- The applicant must have had both teaching and administrative experience as a member of the Institute’s faculty, preferably in the child curriculum.
- The applicant must be an Active Member in good standing of the American Psychoanalytic Association.
2. Appointment of Child and Adolescent Supervising Analysts
The appointment of Child and Adolescent Supervisors follows the same procedure as that of Adult Supervising Analysts. (See VIII. 4.)
The Board of Directors of AAPE is responsible for establishing and maintaining the standards for appointment of a Child Supervising Analyst. Institutes are responsible for establishing and carrying out procedures for a thorough peer review of the applicant and for making recommendation for appointment to the AAPE Committee on Child and Adolescent Training. The Committee on Child and Adolescent Training in collaboration with the AAPE Board of Directors is responsible for reviewing the procedures and findings of the member Institute and for recommending appointment of a Child Supervisory Analyst to the AAPE Board.
4. Associate Child Supervising Analyst
The process for appointment as a Child Supervising Analyst may begin with an initial appointment as an Associate Supervising Child Analyst by the applicant’s Institute. An Associate Child Supervising Analyst must be certified by the American Board of Psychoanalysis in child and adolescent analysis and should demonstrate evidence that they will fulfill the requirements for appointment as child supervising analyst outlined below. Appointment as an Associate Child Supervising Analyst is a five-year appointment during which the Associate Child Supervisor may supervise child analytic cases that are not a candidate’s first child case. This supervisory process must be supervised by a Supervising Child Analyst at a minimum frequency of once per month.
Appointment as an Associate Supervising Child Analyst should be viewed as a step toward preparing a child analyst for potential appointment as a Child Supervising Analyst. As part of this appointment process the Institute is expected to have evaluated the individual’s ethical standards and teaching and supervision experience. There is no requirement for immersion for appointment as an Associate Supervising Child Analyst. Appointment as an Associate Child Supervising Analyst can occur any time after graduation from a child and adolescent psychoanalytic program once certification in child and adolescent psychoanalysis is achieved. The appointment does not require review by AAPE Board of Directors, but the appointment of an Associate Child Supervising Analyst by an Institute must be communicated to the Committee on Child and Adolescent Training at the time of the appointment. The five-year period for appointment is designed to enable the Associate Supervisor to work toward full supervisory status and to develop or maintain immersion in child and adult analytic work. Additional time for appointment as Associate Child Supervising Analyst beyond five years may be considered based on circumstances.
Proudly powered by Weebly