Board of Directors News

I think all of us should be more than proud about the vigor, the invetiveness, and the real world accomplishments that have been wrought by the leadership of our Division. While I doubt that our membership has any real sense of our history or of what we have accomplished - and this disconnect is a serious problem - those of us who have been on this Board over the years of our existence have managed to do the following (and the list is not exhaustive):

• With others, we managed to create the special assessment, CAPP and the Practice Directorate.
• We founded the Joint Commission on Professional Education in Psychology, brought together a large number of constituent groups, and issued a report and put together an implementation plan that changed APA accreditation policies and brought the perspectives of practicing psychologists into the formation of accreditation policy and into the actual accreditation decisions of CoA.
• We sponsored the legislation that produced the APA public education campaign.
• We organized the Council to defeat the creation of a Division of Managed Care, and we went on to create an Interdivisional Task Force on Managed Care and Health Care Reform. The latter has been instrumental in forwarding initiatives to CAPP that have resulted in a stronger APA investment in legislative and legal attempts to reign in the most egregious excesses of managed care and continues to call upon APA to take a more active role in the design of a better health system for the nation. The Task Force has also mounted a large number of presentations at the annual meeting on such topics as unionization for psychologists, building managed care free practices, and how to organize for effective protests.
• We have started our own public information campaign with Kelly Cunningham and are achieving good success in placing PSAs and in getting colleagues interviews with the media.
• We have developed a wonderful array of niche marketing tools - brochures and the Pick 42 guides - to aid our colleagues to make useful practice adaptations given the current conditions of the market. Again, though, the challenge of getting member attention to what we are doing is a daunting one.
• We are presently engaged in a complex debate about the APA Code of Ethics and will, I believe, in the end prove to be a bridging force that develops a code sensitive to the ideals and aspirations of the profession, responsive to public need, and yet written so as not to put the lives of practicing psychologists in greater harm’s way from plaintiffs’ attornies or zealous and non-educated psychology board investigators.
• We are just getting ready to try to resolve yet another emerging dilemma: the growing proliferation of Divisions and APA Boards and Committees who want to develop "guidelines" for training in a variety of contents, for practice in a variety of contexts, and for addressing the needs of certain "special" populations. The promulgation of such guidelines often pits the interests of some psychologists against others and always raise malpractice risks. We raised a ruckus four years ago about Divison 12’s commitment to "empirically validated treatments," but now we are confronting guidelines for practice in geropsychology, in consulting psychology, in humanistic psychology, and in working with diverse ethnic groups.

Robert Resnick

My comment has to do with perception: members of Council look at 42 Council reps and comments with a jaundiced eye and ear. This includes younger practitioners.

Perhaps mentoring younger members of 42 to bring them in to the governance, ie, "targeted" council reps or board member at large slates.

Related, our governance is an "old" governance and I wonder how much the "rank and file" believe they have no say in what goes on. Some issues are more personal than divisional is what I have heard from members. Of course, the counter is they don't really know whats going on or know that these are good for them. If it is the former, then we as a division must do more. And if it is the latter we need to do more.

Karen Zager

Some brief thoughts:

First on the history/purpose: very simply put, we formed and continue to exist to serve the sole purpose of forwarding the independent practitioner's agenda - educating, promoting, protecting private practice. More recently, marketing practice has been a focus that was not originally highlighted since there wasn't an obvious need earlier on when practice was booming. We don't have to be politically correct in balancing the other forces of public interest, science and education as do other divisions and APA as a whole- we can be more 'pure' in our focus. I think we've learned that our membership is more varied than our governance - in work settings, awareness of the issues, types of practice, etc. and that, so far, no matter how we've tried to reach the members, we've often failed (unfortunately). We've certainly become more sophisticated in our projects and products, and our marketing. But by and large the membership is still unaware of exactly what we do, or what value we provide. I wonder if most members continue paying their dues for a sense of belonging and identity, rather than for any specific work product that they value. Most important to me is that we find a way of making ourselves SPECIAL to the members, so that they know why they continue their membership, what we do, and why it's worthwhile.

Second, on council: we do one thing very well: we communicate among ourselves and our Div 42 Board, so we are well aware of the issues, the possible strategies, and we generally present a strong, united front. What we don't do so well, as some of the current debates highlight, is to reach beyond the Division to form strong coalitions that can bolster our efforts. I think we are becoming more alienated from other divisions rather than more united, and I fear that will be our downfall.

Alan Entin

Perspective on the Activities of the Division's Council Representatives

Our strengths lie in the sheer number of our representatives and our vast range of APA governance experiences. This means we can caucus on virtually any topic and there is usually someone around with an institutional memory on the topic, especially Arthur, who has written much of the legislation and has an initmate knowledge at his fingertips about the issues. Also, we can easily form alliances and coalitions because our issues are the issues of the majority of C/R members issues. This means that we have spearheaded and championed practice issues -- hopefully not too far ahead of the curve that we are cut off from the membership, but on the advanced bellweather storm alert, identifying issues before they hit a crisis and when we can still have maximum input into the issue.

Issues that will be faced in the future are the decreasing membership and the need for increasing practitioner membership in the Association and Division, increasing opportunities for Fellowship of praactitioners in APA, identifying new and emerging fields of education and practice (I thought the current Monitor had an excellent article on the new career paths of many younger colleagues), on ways to further practice and training opportunities for those in practice in newly emerging areas (rather than merely leaving the field), new education and training modules, new specialties and proficiencies, developing new niche markets, further public education and marketing for all psychologists are some of the issues that Council will have to face in the future.

Strategies for increasing effectiveness in advocating/deliberating and communicating with members and governance: Since these are typically the most experienced members of the Division, typically past presidents, they could be "Mentors" or liaisons with the Board to discuss C/R meetings and convey to them their concerns. We could have an 800 number for members to call and talk with C/R members and get their questions answered. We could write short columns addressing diffferent issues of the meeting, with one person still writing an overview.

History: Who are We, What have we Done, What have we Learned

Advocacy, a guild organization advocating for the practice of psychology, both within APA and for the public interest, has been the guiding mission of Div 42 since its inception in 1982. Our interests and concerns have become the concerns of APA and many of our Committees and Task Forces have become Task Forces and Divisions of APA. As initially conceptualized, we were going to be the organization within APA that advocated on behalf of all psychologists who were licensed, whether clinical or applied or industrial, although we quickly became the home for practitioners.

It was our Division that saw a need for an office in APA that would be concerned with professional practice and so created the office that evolved to become the Practice Directorate. A highlight of an early MWC was the consensus from all 3 divisions that inclusion in Medicare was a top priority for practitioners, and that issue became a mandate for the PD. The practitioner driven model of the earlier days appears to have shifted to a staff driven model. I do not think we have been as effective in working with the PD since, although we have certainly worked with them, and CAPP, on issues such as opposing managed care and pursuing prescription privileges.

Collaboration with colleagues, as epitomized by the Midwinter Convention, was one of our greatest achievements. While the MWC had the promise of becoming a truly "practitioners' convention," with many other divisions wanted to participate, the lack of leadership of the committee, conflicting practitioner - research - academic interests, perhaps sibling rivalries or other transference issues, got played out on this field. After an almost two decade partnership among the 3 major and complementary divisions, this led to a severe fissure, and altered our relationship with the other divisions and with other collaborative projects, such as the brochure project. However, there is power in the collaborative process.

We have taught practitioners the "nuts and bolts" of independent practice and how to survive in a managed care free practice. In the beginning, practical, practice-building convention programs and continuing education workshops were presented at almost every meeting, with offerings available to practitioners with different developmental needs. Currently, the focus has shifted to "niche market" programs and product development. I think there are gaps to fill in the education of practitioners on how to start and maintain a practice. There is no other, or better, place to learn these skills than from among the most highly successful practitioners in APA.

As formulated in our 1994 history by Evelyn Hill, the 6 areas where we Have made a "phenomenal impact on the practice of psychology" have been in hospital practice, expanded psychological practice (including prescription privileges), education and training for practice, social issues, substance abuse and rural psychology.

We have grown into not only one of the largest APA divisions, but one of the most diverse, creative and energetic divisions in APA whose leadership is the leadership of APA. Three presidents have been presidents of APA, and members of this division are members of the APA Board of Directors and also represented on most APA Boards and Committees, and the governance of other APA divisions and state psychological associations. Twin recurrent themes are learning how to harness this power and energy to elect practitioners to governance in APA and membership growth and retention, including criteria for electing Initial Fellows into our division.

While we have learned how to be movers and shakers in APA, and to work cooperatively with other divisions and state associations, we must learn to translate our messages to our membership, effectively ommunicate with them, and help them build their practices. While we have again increased our C/R representation to 7, we must figure out ways to maintain that representation and to elect our leadership to the presidency of APA. Especially without a MWC where newer and younger members participated, we have to develop mechanisms to involve new blood into the governance of the division.

Clearly, the Division has had a significant impact on professional psychology and contributed to the changing landscape of both independent practice and the APA. Our destiny depends on being able to retain and recruit members and provide leadership and ideas to help all practitioners not only survive, but thrive, in the turbulent healthcare arena.

Dorothy Cantor

First, the history of the Division.

I was the first Membership Chair, after the C/R approved the formation of the Division. That’s how I came to be involved with the board, and to watch it deliberate. In our first official election as an APA division, Stanley Graham ran against Kenneth Helfant. Ken won by a handful of votes (maybe 8 or 10). Stanley was incensed! He claimed that Ken had sent out a letter, over the signatures of a number of people who had not seen the letter and approved of it. Stanley wanted us to call for another vote….for APA to run it for us…because of "election improprieties. I recall being one who spoke against that plan, because I felt that as a new Division, it would put us in a very bad light. The Board supported Stanley. A new election was held. Stanley won and Ken Helfant was never heard from again.

The growth of the division was rapid. People in private practice had obviously been looking for a home in APA. And the shadow of managed care was just beginning to be glimpsed. Thank goodness for the Division when managed care hit full force. Our members had a support system, a voice, etc.

The MidWinter conference was one of the most significant offerings of the division in the early days. Practitioners still had enough income to spend on these meetings. And although the sessions were not particularly well-attended, the meetings were. They served as a marvelous opportunity for new people to become involved in divisional activities, for social interaction, and for peer support. We know that attendance gradually petered out, and no matter what we offered in terms of the location of the meetings, or the inventiveness of the programs, the MidWinter became a drain on the divisions resources.

The Division has always been attuned to its membership, and has, from the beginning, offered useful publications. IP, under the editorship of Karen Zager and Sandy Haber, was always full of helpful articles, and increasingly, full of good ideas for practice management in the era of managed care. Recently, in response to the needs of the members, niche market guides, and then trade books have been published.

Division 42’s voice has always been present in the Council, and on CAPP. Several of the division’s leaders were among the first CAPP members (when it was the Interim Advisory Committee of the Practice Directorate.) I think that Arthur Kovacs and Stan Graham go back to those days, and we have had a continuous line there, up to and including Stan Moldawsky and Jean Carter, who are serving on CAPP now. It should be noted that our leaders have also served on other APA Boards and Committees, bringing our message to other corners of the association.

We have had several of our leaders go on to be president of APA, including Stan Graham,Jack Wiggins, Bob Resnick and Dorothy Cantor. And I would predict that there will be many more in the not to distant future.

Division 42 on Council

As one of the largest APA Divisions, we have had, for many years now, one of the largest delegations to the Council of Representatives. The Council Reps traditionally discuss the Council Agenda with the Div. Board prior to Council meetings, so that Divisional policy will be carried out.

One of our proudest moments was the defeat of a petition for a Division of Managed Care, which we believed would give the APA imprimatur to the whole managed care system.

We are ever alert to the impact of APA guidelines, social policy statements, etc., on the independent practice of psychology.

We are extremely supportive of the APA Public Education campaign, because we understand that the public needs to keep getting the message about what psychologists do. We are supportive of the efforts to get prescription privileges, because we see that as a healthy expansion of the scope of practice.

We often work in collaboration with the state associations, whose interests parallel ours. Our reps have chaired the Practice Caucus, and the Women’s Caucus. We are clearly perceived in the Council as important leaders of the practice community.