NACIQI recommends suspending APA accreditation
Started by leylablue
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Was just reading about it Accreditation Panel Recommends Suspending APA, Punts on ABA
why not do lcme for medical schools too? (Chiropractor schools are above board and there is no need to change anything there)
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I've been in the field of professional clinical psychology since entering grad school in 1994 (32 years ago). I have been amazed at the ever-increasing layers of bureaucracy, 'oversight' of the oversight of the overseers of the sub-overseer accrediting bodies...and so on ad infinitum and ad absurdum without end. The micromanagement, preaching, chiding, and ninnying and nannying from the top-down and from all sides. Now we have overseers 'disqualifying' overseers while, simultaneously, discussions about 'licensing' of AI 'therapists.' Cue the carnival music. From Joint Commission, to APA committee on accreditation, to VA policy/procedures, to--you name it--these days about 70-80% of our time and energy is soaked up by bull-^&(* with only about 20-30% (at best) left over to actually do clinically-meaningful assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and intervention.
The net result of all this ostensible bureaucratic/oversight 'progress' has been--in my experience--a substantial deterioration of quality in professional practice across the board. There has been no 'improvement' in the quality of practice. There is only more bureaucracy. There is only 'nominal' 'progress' and self-congratulatory self-praise at the level of the profession while (in my experience) the 'quality' of the average psychotherapist/psychologist has gone down over time. A reliable empirical finding across studies of cognitive behavioral therapy for depression that people are trying to explain is the significant drop in efficacy of CBT therapists (in terms of results) from the 'old days' to more 'modern' times. This finding is not surprising to me...I have been in the field the whole time. Therapists almost never do individualized case formulation or thinking or hypothesis testing anymore. Most are taught that EBP is simply following a checklist and manual mechanically. No more emphasis on therapeutic relationships or individualized case formulations. Sure, you have to be technically proficient. Sure, it's a good idea to utilize worksheets/structure (though, 'in the old days,' we'd routinely craft individualized monitoring forms with/for clients based on individual case formulation). Sure, in general, you need to 'follow the manual.' But we used to prioritize (a) the therapeutic alliance/relationship and (b) individualized case formulation to a MUCH greater degree. We can throw around terms like 'flexibility within fidelity' as marketing / PR tactics but if this does not translate into actual sophisticated/flexible/individualized intervention, all the marketing is for naught.
But, long live the ever-expanding bureaucracy to meet the needs of the ever-expanding bureaucracy--all fueled by either Blue-colored Kool-Aid ideological fervor or Red-flavored Kool-Aid ideological fervor (they're both sides of the same coin).
The snake is eating its own tail and retirement can't come soon enough.
The net result of all this ostensible bureaucratic/oversight 'progress' has been--in my experience--a substantial deterioration of quality in professional practice across the board. There has been no 'improvement' in the quality of practice. There is only more bureaucracy. There is only 'nominal' 'progress' and self-congratulatory self-praise at the level of the profession while (in my experience) the 'quality' of the average psychotherapist/psychologist has gone down over time. A reliable empirical finding across studies of cognitive behavioral therapy for depression that people are trying to explain is the significant drop in efficacy of CBT therapists (in terms of results) from the 'old days' to more 'modern' times. This finding is not surprising to me...I have been in the field the whole time. Therapists almost never do individualized case formulation or thinking or hypothesis testing anymore. Most are taught that EBP is simply following a checklist and manual mechanically. No more emphasis on therapeutic relationships or individualized case formulations. Sure, you have to be technically proficient. Sure, it's a good idea to utilize worksheets/structure (though, 'in the old days,' we'd routinely craft individualized monitoring forms with/for clients based on individual case formulation). Sure, in general, you need to 'follow the manual.' But we used to prioritize (a) the therapeutic alliance/relationship and (b) individualized case formulation to a MUCH greater degree. We can throw around terms like 'flexibility within fidelity' as marketing / PR tactics but if this does not translate into actual sophisticated/flexible/individualized intervention, all the marketing is for naught.
But, long live the ever-expanding bureaucracy to meet the needs of the ever-expanding bureaucracy--all fueled by either Blue-colored Kool-Aid ideological fervor or Red-flavored Kool-Aid ideological fervor (they're both sides of the same coin).
The snake is eating its own tail and retirement can't come soon enough.
Last edited:
For now, it doesn’t seem like it will be a big difference practically, as APA is still recognized by CHEA, though obviously this is a horrible precedent in terms of politically motivated censorship.
I also think APA’s response to antisemitism has been an utter mess, in large part due to division in the Jewish community. I was on a couple of APA calls about antisemitism, and by the end of one call, people literally couldn’t agree if throwing things at a visibly Jewish person from a car would be antisemitic or not, because they didn’t know if the hypothetical person in question was a Zionist or anti-Zionist (or how either would be operationally defined). But I don’t think anything from this administration about antisemitism comes from a place of actually caring about actual antisemitism and usually makes things worse for Jews.
I also think APA’s response to antisemitism has been an utter mess, in large part due to division in the Jewish community. I was on a couple of APA calls about antisemitism, and by the end of one call, people literally couldn’t agree if throwing things at a visibly Jewish person from a car would be antisemitic or not, because they didn’t know if the hypothetical person in question was a Zionist or anti-Zionist (or how either would be operationally defined). But I don’t think anything from this administration about antisemitism comes from a place of actually caring about actual antisemitism and usually makes things worse for Jews.
Willfully agreeing to be pawns in a right wing culture war won't possibly come back to bite them in the ass...
Sanman
O.G.
This is why I had a problem with APA stances during the previous administration. Once you wade into culture wars nothing good happens. I am anti-violence and pro peace no matter the sides involved unless absolutely necessary. Who cares if throwing something at a Jewish person is antisemitic or not, it is simply wrong. Antisemitism is in the mind of the perpetrator only. APA needs to stick with its business. Accreditation, getting better reimbursement, and training. The Ed Sheeran debacle shows that even a neutral stance can be bungled with poor PR.
Last edited:
PCSAS looking more and more attractive nowadays 
Sanman
O.G.
PCSAS looking more and more attractive nowadays
I had thoughts about that. Not sure if rhey come out a winner or it just splinters into so many groups that it is irrelevant to state boards and such.
Last edited:
How established are they with state boards currently?PCSAS looking more and more attractive nowadays
They claim to be recognized by our state, but our statutes still list APA/CPA accreditation, but has the old verbiage that one can demonstrate equivalency as long as they prove they have met the requirements as set forth in the rules.
Yeah, I think it would be hard to dislodge APA accreditation as that is asking 50 independent legislatures to reverse course to act on a dizzying number of accreditors all because we're incapable of playing nice with each other. PCSAS, for instance, doesn't really seem like a meaningful alternative as their model would impose trade restrictions for seemingly shallow reasons (insert rageful rant about here about continued failure to include counseling and school psychologists). Heaven forbid that APA just corrects course and fixes its awful response to antisemitism.
Sanman
O.G.
I honestly do not think so either. I think state boards are more likely to simply not use any accreditation as a licensing shortcut and just create more work for applicants. Prove education, prove internship criteria is met, etc. No more just stating things are just accredited. At which point having the accreditation is just meaningless vanity.
I recently reread A. T. Beck's Cognitive Therapy for the Emotional Disorders, which really emphasizes all of the quoted for me. It's amazing to think about how we went from "hey, maybe we should just work with people's interpretations of their own mental phenomena" to either a sophomoric understanding of Cognitive therapy (i.e., never moving beyond teaching people about categorizing thinking errors) or a rigid one described above. Both are wrong ways to think about cognitive therapy and are nevertheless routinely practiced.
Official APA statement:
A message from APA-CoA to accredited programs about its federal recognition status
The APA Commission on Accreditation is deeply concerned with NACIQI’s recommendation to the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to suspend its recognition, despite a Final Staff Report by ED staff to NACIQI that supported renewal. If accepted and implemented by the U.S. Department of Education, this recommendation would have real and lasting consequences for psychology programs, future psychologists, and the nation’s mental health.
We want to first assure you that the Commission remains fully committed to supporting psychology programs and to the quality of psychology education and training necessary to prepare the next generation of mental health professionals. Site visits will continue to occur as scheduled and the Commission’s review of programs scheduled for October will take place as planned.
We want to share what we currently know about the implications this recommendation, if implemented by ED, may have on your faculty, current students, and prospective students, and we will continue to update you as we learn more.
SHORT TERM IMPLICATIONS
Right now, this is a recommendation, not a final decision. The Commission continues as a federally recognized accreditor until the final decision is issued by ED.
NACIQI is an advisory committee to ED, and it could be up to three months before the Senior Department Official (SDO) at ED provides a final decision about the Commission’s federal recognition as an accreditor.
It is important to remember that the report prepared by the ED staff for NACIQI with input and answers from CoA, known as the Final Staff Report, recommended NACIQI vote to re-recognize the Commission as well as expand its scope to cover accreditation of remote learning and masters’ programs, based on extensive documentation submitted as part of the re-recognition process.
Additionally, the SDO who renders the decision is not bound by the NACIQI recommendation or the recommendation in the Final Staff Report. Possible outcomes range from suspension to recognition with compliance reports or limitations, both of which were raised as alternative approaches during the NACIQI meeting. Termination of recognition is also possible, though it was considered and rejected at the NACIQI meeting.
Depending on the SDO’s decision, the Commission has the right to appeal to the Secretary of Education. Again, the Commission would continue as a federally recognized accreditor until the Secretary’s final decision.
POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS ON FEDERAL FUNDING YOUR PROGRAM MAY RECEIVE
As a program accredited by APA-CoA, the only federally recognized health service psychology accreditor, your program has access to critical federal grant funding, including the HRSA Graduate Psychology Education (GPE) Program and the Behavioral Health Workforce Education and Training (BHWET) Program. If the NACIQI recommendation is upheld by the Secretary of Education, the APA-accredited programs currently receiving funds through these grants would no longer be eligible for them. The Commission is deeply disturbed about the very serious harm this would cause to the programs that depend on this funding and to the students and communities they serve.
Access to Title IV student loan money would be unaffected assuming that the institution in which a program resides is accredited by a federally recognized institutional accreditor, such as, for example, the Higher Learning Commission, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, New England Commission of Higher Education, WASC Senior College Commission, and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.
ONE IMPORTANT NOTE Regardless of the SDO final decision, CoA can and will still accredit programs. Programs’ accreditation status will be unaffected by the SDO final decision and, as mentioned above, Commission operations (i.e. self-study submission dates, site visit dates, and CoA program review) will continue normally to maintain the CoA’s commitment to programs, students, and the public in advancing quality education and training. The Commission remains recognized as an accreditor by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and will continue to apply its Standards of Accreditation so that students receive quality training and programs meet rigorous national standards.
CONCERNS RAISED AT THE HEARING ABOUT ANTISEMITISM
We also want to speak directly to concerns about antisemitism and discrimination in psychology education and training programs that were raised during the NACIQI meeting. We take these concerns very seriously. Our Standards of Accreditation provide that all students deserve a learning environment free from antisemitism and all other forms of discrimination.
Antisemitism is a reprehensible form of hatred and bigotry that is a stain on our country. All students deserve a learning environment free from antisemitism and all other forms of discrimination. A training environment that tolerates bias against any group also falls short of preparing psychologists to serve the public well.
If you have experienced antisemitism or other discrimination in an APA-accredited program, we encourage you to submit a formal complaint to CoA so we may review and address concerns. Students, faculty, and members of the public are entitled to submit a complaint to us and remain anonymous from the program. You can file a complaint directly with CoA here: Complaints & Third-Party Testimony. In addition, you are always also free and encouraged to submit third-party comments about programs scheduled for Commission review, which CoA considers when making an accreditation decision about a program. If you want to understand these options, you can contact us directly and staff will walk you through the process.
LOOKING AHEAD
The Commission understands the anxiety and uncertainty that NACIQI’s recommendation creates for programs, faculty, and students. NACIQI’s recommendation is unfounded and we intend to challenge it. Ultimately, that is not about the Commission, it is about the programs and students we serve for the ultimate benefit of the American public.
CoA Association Chair for Quality Assurance co-chair Douglas Peterson, PhD, addressed this directly in his remarks to NACIQI, “Let me share personally, as someone who is part of a program in the rural state of South Dakota. Without the federal recognition necessary for federal funding, it would be nearly impossible for my institution and many others in rural communities to provide high-quality training to students in a psychology program to serve the frontier via telehealth and address the opioid crisis.”
The Commission is firmly committed to supporting your programs by taking those actions that will avoid harming students, allow programs to remain financially viable, and ensure that your programs are able to continue to provide quality education and training to students in health service psychology. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at [email protected].
We are in this together and will do everything we can to keep you updated and support you as we navigate these challenges.
We have also shared an open letter to students who are concerned about the implications of this recommendation on their careers. Please feel free to share this letter among the students in your programs.
A message from APA-CoA to accredited programs about its federal recognition status
The APA Commission on Accreditation is deeply concerned with NACIQI’s recommendation to the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to suspend its recognition, despite a Final Staff Report by ED staff to NACIQI that supported renewal. If accepted and implemented by the U.S. Department of Education, this recommendation would have real and lasting consequences for psychology programs, future psychologists, and the nation’s mental health.
We want to first assure you that the Commission remains fully committed to supporting psychology programs and to the quality of psychology education and training necessary to prepare the next generation of mental health professionals. Site visits will continue to occur as scheduled and the Commission’s review of programs scheduled for October will take place as planned.
We want to share what we currently know about the implications this recommendation, if implemented by ED, may have on your faculty, current students, and prospective students, and we will continue to update you as we learn more.
SHORT TERM IMPLICATIONS
Right now, this is a recommendation, not a final decision. The Commission continues as a federally recognized accreditor until the final decision is issued by ED.
NACIQI is an advisory committee to ED, and it could be up to three months before the Senior Department Official (SDO) at ED provides a final decision about the Commission’s federal recognition as an accreditor.
It is important to remember that the report prepared by the ED staff for NACIQI with input and answers from CoA, known as the Final Staff Report, recommended NACIQI vote to re-recognize the Commission as well as expand its scope to cover accreditation of remote learning and masters’ programs, based on extensive documentation submitted as part of the re-recognition process.
Additionally, the SDO who renders the decision is not bound by the NACIQI recommendation or the recommendation in the Final Staff Report. Possible outcomes range from suspension to recognition with compliance reports or limitations, both of which were raised as alternative approaches during the NACIQI meeting. Termination of recognition is also possible, though it was considered and rejected at the NACIQI meeting.
Depending on the SDO’s decision, the Commission has the right to appeal to the Secretary of Education. Again, the Commission would continue as a federally recognized accreditor until the Secretary’s final decision.
POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS ON FEDERAL FUNDING YOUR PROGRAM MAY RECEIVE
As a program accredited by APA-CoA, the only federally recognized health service psychology accreditor, your program has access to critical federal grant funding, including the HRSA Graduate Psychology Education (GPE) Program and the Behavioral Health Workforce Education and Training (BHWET) Program. If the NACIQI recommendation is upheld by the Secretary of Education, the APA-accredited programs currently receiving funds through these grants would no longer be eligible for them. The Commission is deeply disturbed about the very serious harm this would cause to the programs that depend on this funding and to the students and communities they serve.
Access to Title IV student loan money would be unaffected assuming that the institution in which a program resides is accredited by a federally recognized institutional accreditor, such as, for example, the Higher Learning Commission, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, New England Commission of Higher Education, WASC Senior College Commission, and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.
ONE IMPORTANT NOTE Regardless of the SDO final decision, CoA can and will still accredit programs. Programs’ accreditation status will be unaffected by the SDO final decision and, as mentioned above, Commission operations (i.e. self-study submission dates, site visit dates, and CoA program review) will continue normally to maintain the CoA’s commitment to programs, students, and the public in advancing quality education and training. The Commission remains recognized as an accreditor by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) and will continue to apply its Standards of Accreditation so that students receive quality training and programs meet rigorous national standards.
CONCERNS RAISED AT THE HEARING ABOUT ANTISEMITISM
We also want to speak directly to concerns about antisemitism and discrimination in psychology education and training programs that were raised during the NACIQI meeting. We take these concerns very seriously. Our Standards of Accreditation provide that all students deserve a learning environment free from antisemitism and all other forms of discrimination.
Antisemitism is a reprehensible form of hatred and bigotry that is a stain on our country. All students deserve a learning environment free from antisemitism and all other forms of discrimination. A training environment that tolerates bias against any group also falls short of preparing psychologists to serve the public well.
If you have experienced antisemitism or other discrimination in an APA-accredited program, we encourage you to submit a formal complaint to CoA so we may review and address concerns. Students, faculty, and members of the public are entitled to submit a complaint to us and remain anonymous from the program. You can file a complaint directly with CoA here: Complaints & Third-Party Testimony. In addition, you are always also free and encouraged to submit third-party comments about programs scheduled for Commission review, which CoA considers when making an accreditation decision about a program. If you want to understand these options, you can contact us directly and staff will walk you through the process.
LOOKING AHEAD
The Commission understands the anxiety and uncertainty that NACIQI’s recommendation creates for programs, faculty, and students. NACIQI’s recommendation is unfounded and we intend to challenge it. Ultimately, that is not about the Commission, it is about the programs and students we serve for the ultimate benefit of the American public.
CoA Association Chair for Quality Assurance co-chair Douglas Peterson, PhD, addressed this directly in his remarks to NACIQI, “Let me share personally, as someone who is part of a program in the rural state of South Dakota. Without the federal recognition necessary for federal funding, it would be nearly impossible for my institution and many others in rural communities to provide high-quality training to students in a psychology program to serve the frontier via telehealth and address the opioid crisis.”
The Commission is firmly committed to supporting your programs by taking those actions that will avoid harming students, allow programs to remain financially viable, and ensure that your programs are able to continue to provide quality education and training to students in health service psychology. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at [email protected].
We are in this together and will do everything we can to keep you updated and support you as we navigate these challenges.
We have also shared an open letter to students who are concerned about the implications of this recommendation on their careers. Please feel free to share this letter among the students in your programs.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Similar threads
