I just commented on the Occupy group. Here is that response:
A few comments here: Dr. Paszkiewicz, I believe, unfortunately is not painting the full picture of the CAPIC system. CAPIC's system has multiple problems. First and primarily, it, like APPIC, is a membership designation, not an accreditation status. This distinction is important. Most CAPIC sites are not APA-accredited. Conversely, most APPIC sites are APA accredited and APPIC views membership in its association as a step toward APA accreditation, and actively helps member sites obtain APA accreditation. The APA is the only accreditation body in psychology in the U.S. Essentially all health professions—from massage to medicine—require completion of accredited programs to obtain licensure. Except for psychology. Indeed, the APA is moving toward such a requirement for psychology with the Model Licensing Act (Clay, 2010) to keep psychologists in place in integrated care settings, where completion of accredited training is a minimum bar. Unless CAPIC intends to alter its mission to actively help sites move toward APA accreditation, graduates from CAPIC internships will be hindered in terms of hireability and mobility of their degrees, come implementation of the Model Licensing Act.
CAPIC also has a number of other problems. Most CAPIC internships are unpaid. In contrast, reasonable pay is a requirement of APPIC membership and APA accreditation (APPIC, 2011; Committee on Accreditation, 2009). The simultaneous advocacy by Dr. Paszkiewicz of CAPIC as a potential boon to nontraditional students, in conjunction with this fact, is difficult to reconcile. Although my critics may point out that CAPIC spots, though unpaid, fill a need, it is not difficult to argue the converse—that it is exploitative to take in interns and not pay them, because sites knows the interns require the internship to finish their degrees and the interns will probably silence their nagging doubts rather than complain about the lack of pay or engage in advocacy for making CAPIC sites require salary, and because there are dozens of unmatched applicants who would gladly take that intern's position out of desperation to complete their degrees.
Clay, R. A. (2010). APA updates its model licensure act. Monitor on Psychology, 41, 5. Online at
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/licensure.aspx
APPIC. (2011). APPIC membership criteria: Doctoral psychology internship programs. Online at
http://www.appic.org/AboutAPPIC/JoiningAPPIC/Members/InternshipMembershipCriteria.aspx
Committee on Accreditation (2009). Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology. Online at
http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/policies/guiding-principles.pdf
Also, Ms. Wilson raised the important point about "finger-pointing." "It doesn't help anyone to start pointing fingers at specific types of training models or certain types of schools," she said. The origin of this concern, which is frequently mentioned, perplexes me. My earlier work indicated that there are clearly areas of localized strain in the internship imbalance. As mentioned before, the entire primary purpose of my paper with Williamson was to move past the training model difference analyses and identify specific problem schools. The fact that most of these programs grant PsyDs is simply that data speaking for themselves. To ignore these realities for fear that it could be perceived as "finger-pointing," (a vague phrase; as I understand it, this essentially means someone's feelings could be hurt) is irrational, and holds us back from engaging in important discussions about what the data really say. Personally, I am also confused about resistance to the accurate reporting of data.
Dr. Grus mentions that the CCTC is "pressuring graduate programs with low match rates to either ratchet down the number of students they accept or work to expand the number of internship positions." The CCTC has made major steps toward resolving the imbalance, and I would call the CCTC members in general far-and-away the leaders within APA in terms of real action on the topic. But, the CCTC is not an accrediting body. It is a membership body. Indeed, "pressure" is all it can apply to this wound in psychology, not stitching (or a transplant). It is not able to enforce with any teeth any policies it might want to implement. This problem needs to be solved with attention from all aspects of APA.
The current system allows access to licensure through the front door, back door, barn door, second floor, etc. There needs to be 1 door again.
