August 2008

Moving Forward with the Transition to a Commission

In an effort to provide updates to the various communities of interest involved in the accreditation of programs in professional psychology, the Commission would like to take this opportunity to provide you with the changes made to date in becoming a Commission and to update you on future plans.

History of the Commission

In 2006, the APA Council of Representatives voted to change the Accreditation Governance documents to move from a 21-person Committee on Accreditation to a 32-person Commission on Accreditation following the recommendations of the 2005 Snowbird Summit. In the fall of 2006, the Committee on Accreditation formed a Transition to Commission subcommittee. That subcommittee worked with all of the groups listed in the revised Accreditation Governance document making initial nominations to the Commission in crafting nomination criteria and procedures for submitting slates to the Board of Educational Affairs. In making the transition to the Commission, members of the CoA continue to express the need to ensure a thoughtful process for the continuation of the program review functions while enhancing the time for the Commission to engage in policy initiatives. This echoes the sentiments of the Snowbird participants in making their recommendations regarding program review panels:

“The proposed CoA will be charged with developing detailed policies regarding the size and composition of panels guided by two principles: (1) substantial minority representation of peers from similar programs, and (2) balance of perspectives of peers from various types and levels of training programs and settings. An initial plan for organizing comprehensive review panels is described below (see page 6 of the Snowbird report) with the caveats that (1) a comprehensive analysis will be required initially to confirm that adequate financial and logistical support is in place; (2) a phase-in period of some duration likely will be required; and (3) the CoA will of necessity need to be accorded some discretion in adjusting the plan based on the comprehensive analysis and any related but unanticipated conditions”. [italics added]

Thus, as part of the transition, the Commission held an initial meeting in February 2008 to engage in education and training of all Commission members. This training included the 13 continuing Commission members and the 19 newly appointed members on the 2008 Commission on Accreditation. The initial meeting provided education and training to all members regarding the program review process, the Snowbird Summit and the resultant recommendations, and issues in higher education that impact the Commission as an accrediting body.

As a result of the initial meeting, the Commission has a strong and continuing commitment to a process of self-evaluation of the conduct of program review. During its July 2008 meeting, the Commission discussed at length potential next steps in implementing other aspects of the Snowbird Summit. Most of that discussion concerned the implementation of changes to the program review panel structure. In discussing options, the Commission carefully weighed a number of factors, including the integrity and reliability of the process as well as financial and logistical viability. Given the concerns about a potential negative impact on the reliability of the review process that could result from the addition of a significant number of ad hoc reviewers so soon after training 19 new members, and the need to engage in further review of financial and logistical issues, the members of Commission chose not to add any additional reviewers at this time.

Next Steps

Commission members then discussed a number of alternatives that would capture the “spirit” of Snowbird and allow for more program peers on review panels by using the current members on the Commission rather than training and adding ad hoc reviewers. For the next several meetings, the Commission will be piloting, as appropriate, different review panel organizations. For example, the panel structure proposed at Snowbird called for more model-specific panels such that three members from a specific doctoral training model or level of training would be paired with four reviewers from other levels of training or types of programs in making reviews. In moving forward with the spirit of this recommendation, the Commission will be attempting to follow that panel structure using existing Commission members. For example, the Commission now has three members from school psychology programs. Following the guidelines of the Snowbird Summit, it could create a panel to review school psychology programs that would include those three Commissioners as well as four other Commission members from other levels and areas of training. The same could be done in composing an internship review panel. In so doing, the Commission would evaluate these shifts.

The Commission is also committed to the creation of a plan that actualizes the ideas represented by the Snowbird Summit while honoring its historic commitment to the overall integrity of the review process. Finally, the Commission is concerned about the financial implications of making additional changes to its structure which may lead to additional fiscal burdens for the programs being reviewed.

The Commission will continue to review its progress in implementing the “spirit” of Snowbird. In so doing, the Commission wants to move the process in a deliberate and thoughtful manner to preserve the integrity of the process.

Office of Program Consultation and Accreditation
(202) 336-5979
apaaccred