Building state alliances

By Raymond D. Fowler, PhD
APA Chief Executive Officer

Have you ever wondered why there is so little communication between the academic programs that train psychologists and the state associations that represent many of them after they graduate? There are so many things each could learn from the other, and so many issues that need to be addressed jointly. I?ve been concerned about this lack of interaction between state associations and academic departments of psychology for years. I believe a stronger partnership between psychology?s academic and clinical arms is vital for the quality of our training programs, and even more so for our influence over public policy?policy that governs our ability to practice, research, teach and strive to better the human condition.

The need for state outreach

More and more, the federal government is leaving it up to the states to set public policy. While the state associations are well prepared to deal with legislation at the state level, academic psychology has been largely absent in these efforts. In APA?s first half century, members were primarily academics who formed regional and state associations so they could meet more easily. After World War II, more psychologists entered the health-care field, and state governments increasingly assumed regulatory control over psychology. As a result, the state increasingly focused on advocating for practitioner concerns.

The faculty in psychology departments migrated away from state associations, leaving it up to their university representatives to advocate for their interests, which tended to be national in scope. They began focusing on federal advocacy work during the early years of the Reagan presidency, when cuts in federal funding became a real threat.

Federal advocacy is still important, but the federal government is shifting funding to the states and giving them power over a variety of issues affecting academicians. Academicians must have a strong presence at the state level to protect funding streams for research and education. Fortunately, the state associations have contacts and expertise that can be helpful in securing those funds.

Practitioners would also benefit from closer relationships between psychology departments and the state associations. In the past, practitioners and scientists have not always worked cooperatively on controversial legislative issues including licensure requirements. Practitioners and academics have a better chance of winning legislative battles when they work as a team. They won?t always agree on all issues, but when they do it just makes sense to combine forces.

An example in California

Psychologists in California have taken major steps towards forming an alliance that will allow them to speak with greater unity. Last November, I attended a meeting in Los Angeles between the leaders of the California Psychological Association (CPA) and the chairs of many of California?s graduate psychology departments and schools of psychology. After considerable discussion, the participants overwhelmingly agreed to pursue a partnership, and appointed a steering committee to prepare a detailed plan for such a pact.

The steering committee has been reviewing and discussing this plan over the summer. During this year?s APA convention, leaders of CPA and the state?s academic departments will meet again and move even closer towards forming an alliance. The academic departments in California plan to form an association, the Council of California Departments of Psychology (CCALDOP). Leaders of the proposed new group will review, discuss and vote on a set of bylaws for CCALDOP.

When CCALDOP is founded, that group and CPA will review and vote on proposed articles of federation developed by the steering committee. The formation of a federation would be the embodiment of an alliance between the academic programs and CPA, culminating months of hard work and planning by both groups.

Because California is so large?one third of all psychology doctorates are granted there?its academic/state association alliance will be unique, and the partnerships that develop in each state will, no doubt, differ according to local needs and preferences. One model that has worked well elsewhere is an alliance that the Illinois Psychological Association (IPA) formed last year with the state?s academic departments. IPA created a University Section, which includes primarily the officers in departments of psychology or behavioral or cognitive science. IPA and the academic departments now conduct joint projects such as monitoring legislation and hosting seminars before state legislatures on psychological research.