For too long psychology has been under the dark cloud cast by managed care and all of its ill effects on the profession and the science of psychology. Discouragement and depression have been rampant among our colleagues. It was therefore with a sense of relief that I began to notice a perceptible change in spirit at several recent psychology meetings. Of course a few good meetings do not necessarily indicate a sea change but I do wonder if we are not in the beginning stages of a renaissance in psychology. In this column I will discuss some of my impressions from these recent meetings.

     In late January, over 800 psychologists attended the second National Multicultural Conference and Summit (NMCS 2) in Santa Barbara, California, sponsored by APA divisions 17, 35, 44 and 45, and supported by many others. There were both plenary sessions and a series of small groups conducting “difficult dialogues” on topics such as race/ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. The plenary papers were excellent, the group discussions were intense, sometimes “in-your-face”, but enlightening, and overall the participants expressed a very high level of enthusiasm and engagement. Such a magnificent event does not happen without countless hours of behind the scenes toil and for that much gratitude is due to the organizers of the conference: Dr’s. Derald Wing Sue, Lisa Porche-Burke, Steven James, Melba Vasquez, and Rosie Phillips Bingham. This conference is nicely reported in the April issue of the Monitor, so readers wishing more information are referred to that source. The bottom line is that I think we will soon be seeing a revitalization of the multicultural agenda and the public interest side of APA.

     In February, the APA Council of Representatives met. This meeting was one of the best in recent memory, a fact that was attested to by many participants. For several years Council members have been grappling with the feeling that, due to success of the Consolidated Board and Committee meetings in resolving issues in new legislation, there was very little for Council to do. In fact some asserted that Council had become a “rubber stamp”. In response, a new caucus of Council was formed under the leadership of Tom DeMaio and others, the Committee for the Optimal Utilization of New Talent, or COUNT, and new initiatives were undertaken by the Board of Directors (most recently Presidents Pat DeLeon and Norine Johnson) and the Committee on Structure and Function of Council. These efforts have begun to have an impact. In February, Council – despite its size – was in fact able to meaningfully engage in deliberative policy-making for the association on such matters as ethics, licensure issues, end of life decisions, and the long-range priorities for the association. I expect this trend to continue and for Council to develop new mechanisms to enable an even greater role in policy-making.

     In March, the 18th annual APA State Leadership Conference was held, the first since the formation of the companion C6 organization, the American Psychological Association Practice Organization, and the largest too date, with over 500 in attendance. Here too there was a new sense of vitality, partly occasioned by the fact that with our new C6 we have so many more potential arrows in our quiver for advancing the professional interests of the Association. On this note it was a pleasure to see Dr. Steve Pfeiffer, Executive Director of AAP/PLAN (psychology’s political action committee), able to be so visible, and also to see that a discussion of the importance of political giving was actually on the agenda. Another source of sense of vitality was, of course, the startling success of the New Mexico Psychological Association in very nearly getting a prescriptive authority bill passed. The events in New Mexico were being followed at the meeting the way one follows a close world series game: Passage through two committees in the House….First-time-ever support from a state chapter of NAMI dramatically withdrawn due to pressure from national headquarters (whom we must assume was under pressure from organized psychiatry)…Two of the leaders of the state chapter of NAMI testify in support of the bill anyway… The bill is PASSED on the floor of the House 37-21. The bill is passed through a Senate Committee twice….The bill is scheduled to be heard on the floor of the Senate where New Mexico’s leaders knew they had the votes… Psychiatry somehow gets its way and the bill is never called, dying in the last moments of this session, but promising to be back even stronger next time.

     Speaking of organized psychiatry, the proposed HCFA regulation that would provide GME funding for psychology internship training programs was put out for comment. Forty two comments were received, forty one of which were very positive The one negative comment came from — guess who— aPa Medical Director Steven Mirin. It is hard to imagine a less credible or more self-serving statement. To quote from Dr. Mirin’s 3/6/02 letter: “We also take issue with HCFA’s stance that supporting hospital based psychology clinical training programs will assist patients in nursing homes suffering from depression. There is no evidence for his. Rather HCFA should be providing additional support for subspecialty training in geriatric psychiatry…”

     As always, I welcome your thoughts on this column. You can most easily contact me via email: (new address): levant@uakron.edu

Biographical Sketch

     Ronald F. Levant, Ed.D., A.B.P.P., is serving his second term as Recording Secretary of the American Psychological Association. He was the Chair of the APA Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice (CAPP) from 1993-95, a member of the Board of Directors of Division 42 (1991-94), a member of the APA Board of Directors (1995-97), and APA Recording Secretary (1998-2000). He is Dean, Center for Psychological Studies, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Back to articles and columns listing