**It is the responsible of all candidates to be familiar with the following Guidelines for Progression**
A. First Year
All candidates are required to be engaged in a training analysis (a minimum of a four- time-per-week analysis) with a Training Analyst from the CFS by the middle of the first year classes. The Progression Committee (PC) will consider requests to postpone beginning the training analysis if a candidate is terminating a longstanding analysis. All candidates are required to be in a training analysis during the control work.
Candidates should inform their PC rep and in addition give written notification to the Administrator (Connie) regarding any change in training analyst, analytic frequency, psychotherapy supervision, control supervision, or candidate status so that their folder can be up to date and complete.
Requests for leave of absence are to be submitted in writing to the Chair of Progression. If the leave of absence extends beyond two years, the candidate must re–apply for training to the Admissions Committee.
Progression Committee members are responsible for monitoring the training of an assigned number of candidates. Each PC Representative will meet at least once a year with each assigned candidate to review training progress and instructors’ and supervisors’ evaluations. In this way, close communication with the candidate will be maintained and any training problems will come to the attention of the Progression Committee through each Representative.
All clinical work performed by non-licensed candidates must be supervised at all times, and candidates may take on one or more supervisors as needed. Candidates are entitled to one year of pro bono supervision from each supervisor on their psychotherapy cases. A list of supervisors willing to provide a year of pro bono supervision can be requested from the administrator.
Candidates may see patients up to twice a week face to face in psychotherapy prior to passing Readiness-for-Control (RFC). In the event that clinical circumstances warrant more frequent meetings, the candidate will discuss the clinical reasons for this with his or her supervisor, and the supervisor must approve this prior to making the change. Similarly, any use of the couch prior to passing RFC needs to be approved by the candidate’s supervisor who will take into consideration both the clinical circumstances and the candidate’s depth of experience. The clinical reasons for any approved increase beyond twice weekly frequency and/or any use of the couch should be articulated in a brief written paragraph (in collaboration with the supervisor) and submitted to the candidate’s PC Representative.
Candidates must pass RFC before undertaking a control case in psychoanalysis. Passing the RFC indicates that the Candidate is ready to undertake a supervised four times a week psychoanalysis with the use of the couch.
For candidates entering the program already in private practice with pre-existing analytic cases, the supervisor and the PC Representative should be advised.
Each candidate is assigned a reader for each control case. The reader and the PC Representative will meet with the candidate each time a yearly Case Summary is submitted on that particular case. The two readers will also serve on the candidate’s Case Presentation Evaluation Committee (CPEC). For candidates having more than two control cases, requirements regarding the assigning of additional readers and the writing of yearly summaries will be determined by the PC, based on the individual learning needs of the candidate.
B. Progression Steps
1. First Year Interview is an opportunity for candidates and representatives of the Progression Committee to review the first year experience both in classes and in analysis, as well as the Candidate’s overall experience in the program thus far.
Referrals from Clinical Services:
After completion of the First Year Interview, candidates may receive referrals from Clinical Services. When candidates are treating patients who have been referred from CFS Clinical Services, they must be in supervision with a member (or training analyst, when applicable) of CFS.
When LP candidates begin to do their clinical work under supervision, any referrals to them that do not come directly from Treatment Services must be screened by Treatment Services. This screening is provided so that an assessment of pathology can be made to protect candidates from clinical situations that may exceed their beginning skills. The LP’s supervisor will inform Treatment Services when they feel that the candidate no longer needs this service.
Candidates must have malpractice insurance covering the practice of psychotherapy at the location in which the treatment is to be provided. Documentation of current malpractice insurance must be placed in the candidate’s folder and name CFS as an additional insured certificate holder.
Candidates must be either licensed to practice a mental health profession independently in the state where the service is to be provided, or practicing formally under the license of a supervising clinician.
2. Readiness for Control (RFC)
a) A Readiness-for-Control interview with three members of CFS is required of all candidates in order to begin to see control patients in supervised analysis. Candidates typically request RFC by the end of the second year of coursework. For those candidates needing additional clinical experience, request for the RFC interview may be delayed. Early RFC may be held during the candidate’s first year of coursework after review by the PC. Requests for early RFC should detail coursework and training obtained prior to admission to the PTI of CFS. Candidates in the License in Psychoanalysis Program (LP) who have had no clinical experience prior to beginning the program must complete a minimum of 450 hours of supervised direct practice before applying for RFC. Generally, a minimum of a year of personal training analysis is required prior to applying for the RFC interview.
The candidate will make a written request for RFC to their PC Rep. The Progression Committee will evaluate the request.
b) It is strongly recommended that the candidate be in supervision with a CFS member on a psychotherapy case in preparation for RFC, as the RFC evaluation will include the presentation of some psychotherapy case material.
c) Once approved by the Progression Committee to take the RFC interview, the Chair of the Evaluations Subcommittee will assign three CFS members to serve on the candidate’s RFC committee (the RFCEC).
d) After the RFC interview and the candidate’s receipt of a letter outlining the findings of the RFCEC and the recommendations of the Progression Committee, the candidate may direct questions about the RFC evaluation to the Chair of the Evaluations Subcommittee. Additionally, the candidate may meet with the Chair of his/her RFCEC if further discussion is warranted..
e) If the RFCEC recommends to the Progression Committee that the candidate is not ready to proceed with analytic control cases, the PC will review the candidate’s status and progress in the program and will then make specific recommendations to the candidate. Candidates are advised to discuss the recommendations with their supervisors and PC rep before requesting another RFC interview.
f) If the Candidate does not agree with the findings of the RFCEC, they have the right to appeal to the President.
3. Control Case Development
a) Control Case Development applies to candidates who are post-RFC and who are either seeking control analytic cases, or believe that they may have one.
b) Control Case Development takes place under the supervision of a Training Analyst of the PTI of CFS, and where successful, results in the designation of a patient for control analysis and the writing of an Initial Summary (with the supervisor’s help) before the beginning of the control analysis.
c) The supervisor of a Control Case Development must not be supervising an ongoing control case for the candidate in question and is expected in most cases to become the supervisor of the case that is identified.
4. Requirements for beginning a Control Analysis
Before a candidate can take a patient into analysis:
a) The Case Development supervisor agrees that the patient is an appropriate patient for a control analysis.
b) The candidate, with the supervisor’s help, writes the Initial Summary. Suggested guidelines for the Initial Summary are available and can be requested from the Administrative Director.
c) When the Summary meets the supervisor’s expectations, the supervisor and candidate sign the Initial Summary indicating they agree that the patient is an appropriate patient for a control analysis with the candidate.
d) The candidate sends the signed Initial Summary with the Control Case Data Sheet to the Administrative Director for the candidate’s file, and to the candidate’s Progression Committee Representative. who informs the PC that the control analysis is beginning.
e) The case begins officially when the Initial Summary has been completed, signed by both the supervisor and candidate, submitted to the appropriate persons (see above) and the patient is attending sessions a minimum of four times a week. (Note: The Progression Committee will allow a three month grace period, that is, if the signed initial summary is submitted no later than three months after the beginning of the analysis, the accumulated treatment hours will be counted retroactively.)
5. Clinical Control Work
a) In order to receive credit for control work, candidates are expected to have conducted a minimum of two control (supervised analytic) cases. One needs to be seen four or five times per week and one could be seen three times per week in person. The cases are to be under the supervision of two different CFS Training Analysts. Supervision is to be on a once a week basis, or double sessions every other week for candidates at a geographic distance. A candidate at a distance of 35 miles or more where commuting is a hardship, can be supervised via telephone. In such a supervision, the supervisor and the supervisee will have at least four face to face meetings during the first year of supervision. This requirement for face to face time may be adjusted if the supervisor/supervisee pair determines that fewer or more face to face sessions are indicated. The optimal frequency of face to face meetings during subsequent years will be established by the supervisor/supervisee pair.
b) A minimum of 200 hours of supervision between the two control cases is required. Candidates will receive credit for a case that has been in a supervised, reported, and reviewed psychoanalysis for at least one year. Three years or approximately 150 hours of supervision is required on the control case to be presented towards graduation before a Case Presentation Evaluation Comminec. Exceptions to this requirement may be considered by the Progression Committee.
c) When control supervision is begun, the PC Representative will be notified in writing. (Sec Control Case Development above.) The candidate’s Progression Committee Representative must be notified of all changes in the status of control cases.
d) A candidate who has been accepted with advanced standing and who is already conducting an analysis under the auspices of a psychoanalytic training institute he or she previously attended is expected to consult with his/her Progression Committee Representative regarding subsequent training requirements on the case.
e) Two $75 control supervisions are available to Candidates.
f) Control supervisors are required to write yearly evaluations on the analytic work of their supervisees. Reports on control supervisions with a duration of less than one year are also required. The evaluation reports are to be reviewed and signed by both candidate and supervisor, then submitted to the Administrative Director for the candidate’s file and to the Progression Committee Representative.
g) Candidates are required to write yearly case summaries on control cases. For candidates with more than two control cases, a determination about yearly summaries on the additional cases will be made by the Progression Committee based on the individual learning needs of the candidate. Yearly case summaries will be reviewed with the control supervisor before being submitted to the Administrative Director for the candidate’s file and to the PC Representative. Suggested guidelines for the writing of the yearly summary can be obtained from the Administrative Director.
h) Once the first yearly summary of a control case has been submitted by the candidate, the PC Representative will request that the Chair of the Evaluations Subcommittee assign a reader for the case. The candidate will then send a copy of the summary to the case reader.
i) The PC Representative, after discussing the summary with the case reader, will arrange for a meeting with the candidate and the reader to give feedback on the summary. The candidate has the option of inviting the control supervisor to the meeting. Note: As per the Control Case Development guidelines above, the candidate has the option of requesting a reader when the Initial Summary is written and which occurs at the very beginning of the analysis. The reader at this point is an option and not a requirement. See also (k) below.
j) The PC Representative, in consultation with the case reader, will write a letter to the candidate summarizing the meeting on the case summary and the feedback given. This letter will be approved by the Progression Committee. and copies will be sent to the control supervisor and to the Administrative Director for the candidate’s file. This process will be repeated with the submission of each yearly summary.
k) The candidate has the option of requesting that a case reader be assigned to the control case when the Initial Summary is submitted, though a reader at this point is not required. Informal feedback can be obtained from the reader and the PC Representative on the Initial Summary, though no formal meetings or letters for the file are required on the Initial Summary.
l) The candidate may take on more than two control cases with the permission of the Progression Committee. which will also make a determination about the frequency of supervision on the additional cases, based on the learning needs of the candidate. Weekly face-to-face supervision is required on at least two control cases until completion of training. (See 5a for policy regarding candidates considered at a geographic distance.)
C. Case Presentation Evaluation
When a candidate and the current control supervisors believe that the candidate is ready to graduate, the candidate informs the PC Representative of the interest in presenting a case for graduation to a Case Presentation Evaluation Committee (CPEC). Before the Progression Committee can evaluate this request, all annual supervisory reports must be up to date on all control cases. If not stated in the most recent evaluation of the supervisor(s), the supervisor(s) will submit a brief note offering an opinion about the candidate’s readiness to graduate. In addition, all yearly case summaries must have been submitted and reviewed on all control cases.
Based on a careful review of the supervisory reports, yearly case summaries and instructors’ evaluations, the Progression Committee will make a determination about the candidate’s request to present to a Case Presentation Evaluation Committee (CPEC).
If the Progression Committee approves the candidate’s request to present, the Chair of the Evaluations Subcommittee will assemble a five member Case Presentation Evaluation Committee (CPEC). The CPEC comprises the candidate’s two case readers and three additional CFS members who are not familiar with the candidate’s work. One reader has followed the case to be presented in yearly meetings with the candidate and with the PC Representative, but has no other contact with the candidate. The second reader is not familiar with the case to be presented but has followed another control case of the candidate on a yearly basis. The three additional members of the CPEC have had no knowledge of the candidate’s control work. One of these three, one will chair the CPEC. The candidate may eliminate up to ten CFS members, including their analyst and supervisors.
The CPEC will hear and evaluate the candidate’s case presentation. Information in the candidate’s folder will not become part of this evaluation. Upon receipt of the CPEC’s detailed report, the Progression Committee will meet to make a final determination about the candidate’s readiness to graduate, i.e., whether or not the candidate has the capacity to work independently as an analyst without supervision. The candidate will be apprised of this collaborative decision after the Progression Committee has met to discuss the findings. Every effort will be made to communicate the the committee’s determination to the candidate in as timely a fashion as possible.
If the Progression Committee makes a final determination that the candidate is ready to graduate, the PC Representative will call to notify the candidate. The candidate will also be informed in writing by the Chair of the Evaluations Subcommittee and a summary of the CPEC report will be included in the letter. At the next CFS Board meeting, the Director of the Institute will present the candidate for inclusion into membership. The candidate will be sent a letter signed by the Director of the Institute and the CFS President as soon as possible congratulating the candidate on fulfilling all the requirements for graduation and inviting the candidate into membership. The candidate will receive a certificate at the next graduation ceremony.
D. Appeal Process:
After the PC has received the report of the CPE Committee, if a candidate does not agree with the committee’s findings, the candidate may send a letter of appeal to the Director of the Institute, who will carefully review the findings of the CPEC and the Progression Committee. This review may also include meeting individually with each person involved in the ongoing progression of the candidate’s training, reviewing all minutes of the Progression Committee pertaining to the candidate, consulting with the candidate’s supervisors and instructors, and meeting with the candidate. If necessary, the President will be engaged in the review. The decision of the CFS President and Institute Director will be binding. If the appeal is granted, the case presentation can be re-done.
The timing of the second evaluation will depend upon the recommendations of the Progression Committee.
In addition, a candidate who has not been approved for graduation after the first final Case
Presentation has the right, after review, to a second Case Presentation Evaluation if the President and Director of the Institute conclude that something about the first procedure was irregular.
If the second Case Presentation Evaluation Committee decides that the candidate has not demonstrated a capacity to conduct a psychoanalysis independently and the Progression Committee concurs, the candidate cannot appeal this final decision.
The Progression Committee may suspend or terminate a candidate’s training in the case of failure to meet standards for reasonable progress toward graduation. Reasonable progress toward graduation shall mean continued satisfactory reviews by instructors, supervisors, timely completion of yearly case summaries and adherence to requirements for control and training analyses. The candidate has a right to appeal this decision under the appeal process described above.
E. Code of Ethics
Candidates are required to be in compliance with the Code of Ethics of the Contemporary Freudian Society. The Ethics Committee shall receive written complaints of possible violations from members and candidates in good standing. The committee shall investigate such complaints, holding any necessary hearings and shall report on its findings and recommendations to the President and the Institute Director. Recommendations may include suspension or termination from the training program and the President and Institute Director may institute such actions on the recommendation of the Committee. The committee shall provide sixty days for a candidate so charged to respond in writing or in person to the complaint and shall provide the candidate with written materials pertinent to the complaint.