We need more SPTA leaders to move into APA leadership! This statement reflects the experience and mission that we on the board have come to this year. Why this is important is the focus of my column. There has always been a pipeline from SPTA leadership to APA leadership. With the pandemic and the scaling back of the Practice Leadership Conference, this pipeline has been interrupted. While we have many SPTA leaders in APA leadership, such as Past President Dr. Jennifer Kelley and ACC past-chair and current APA Recording Secretary Dr. Kate Brown, it seems that many APA boards and committees are lacking members who understand the issues at the SPTA level and how keeping them front and center when national policy is developed by APA is important.
We in Division 31 are committed to helping facilitate state leaders’ entrance into APA leadership. Here are some reasons why this is an important goal. Many comments from APA members and leaders indicate that they don’t understand SPTAs, the structure that exists between APA and SPTAs and the need for local input into APA policy setting. Many see SPTAs as solely focused on private practice issues. They don’t appreciate that SPTAs are called upon to help with many types of advocacy at the state and local level that promote social justice, education and scientific interests. Instead of helping SPTAs recruit more psychologists from across the many fields of psychology, they condemn SPTAs for being narrowly focused. They don’t realize that SPTAs are separately incorporated and affiliates to APA and not chapters of APA. Most importantly, they don’t realize that without the local voice of SPTAs, APA would be a beltway organization, only reflecting national views toward policy setting, and not appreciating how certain national psychology policies might impact political realities at the state level.
One example of why the local voice is important is in the ethics revision process now going on at APA. While I really applaud the directions this revision is going for the most part, there are realities that need to be taken into consideration. The more prescriptive the regulations become, they need to appreciate that healthcare in the states leave many decisions in the hands of corporate entities or school systems, etc. which mean that individual psychologists can have limited control over decisions such as record-keeping, or access to confidential materials. Also, “who the client is” can be a complex issue when you look at prohibitions against harming people such as when you are doing employment evaluation functions. Finally, the most troubling issues are occurring around political climates which conflict with psychology’s stated social justice and EDI values. These need to be appreciated since our ethics codes are written into state statute or regulation by virtue of being referenced in our licensing laws. Other professions have faced backlashes resulting from trying to use social justice, inclusive, or educational language in their revisions of their ethic codes. Currently, psychology has one state which hasn’t even accepted our current code, referencing instead the 1998 code. I am in no way saying that these revision directions are bad but that APA needs to be aware of timing and language of these policy changes to protect against having a patchwork of different ethics codes across the country like we have with our licensing laws. A similar need for local input occurs with any proposed changes to licensing law policy. I am not implying not to do it, but rather to appreciate the complexity of implementation of new policies in light of this implementation occurring at the state level.
One important way to put this knowledge into APA policy-setting is to have APA leadership include psychologists who were leaders at the SPTA level and who can share this knowledge and keep local issues integrated in national policy directions proposed by their boards and committees.
I will now identify some APA Boards and Committees and briefly why they are important to illustrate how SPTA leaders can add to the agenda and knowledge base of these groups. How they can impact APA policy setting which makes sense at the local level.
- Board of Professional Affairs - This group ably chaired by Dr. Robin McLeod (an SPTA leader) considers many policies related to psychological practice such as licensing policy, and it is the oversite group for the Practice Leadership Conference. BPA expanded its role to subsume the functions previously held by CAPP before it was sunset.
- Ethics Committee and Ethics Revision Task Force - As stated above this is an important direction for APA and one which does have an able past SPTA leader, Dr. Linda Campbell at its helm, but Div. 31 is helping by generating a distribution list of SPTA Ethics Committee Chairs to make sure that they stay aware of the calls for feedback and review as drafts are produced.
- Continuing Education Committee - Many CE offerings at the state level have had difficulty getting approved for CEs because they are seen as not fitting CE policy. We know that good practice must make psychologists aware of how to practice ethically within the political health policy structure of the state. While this may not be grounded in the scientific literature as much as other CE offerings, the ability to allow for these important symposiums and workshops must be addressed in CE policy.
- Fellows Committee. - Division 31 has worked hard to establish that service and legislative achievements at the SPTA level can have national implications and be just as valuable and in need of recognition through the conferring of fellow status as a publication-rich CV. SPTA Fellows also have an important role as role models within their own SPTAs. We need SPTA fellows to be a part of this committee to make sure that recognition is preserved.
- Policy and Planning Board - This is the group that proposed the Council of Representatives (COR) reorganization that would have disenfranchised many SPTA and division seats on the COR. Their intent was to make COR more efficient. SPTA reps on this committee could help them realize the importance of the local voice in all its variety as well as the benefit of SPTA experiences in aiding board functioning at their local level.
- Advocacy Coordinating Committee - This group is the governance group for the “one APA” advocacy effort. As advocacy occurs so frequently at the state level, it is clear that it needs SPTA leaders who appreciate the impact of decisions and workload made at this level.
- APA Board of Directors - This is the group that integrates all of APA as their oversight function. It is crucial that there be board members who appreciate the importance of the affiliate SPTA groups to APA. This group has such a large role in APA that it is crucial to have voices that understand the impact of decisions at the local level.
- Council of Representatives - It is crucial that our hard-won role to seat all SPTAs (and divisions) is preserved. Often one voice from a very small constituency can be enough to open the minds of all COR members to an impact or a solution that they hadn’t considered. Our voice cannot be homogenized since the impact of a decision in California can be very different from that in Alabama.
I won’t continue with all of the boards and committees in detail but will name others that have missions important to and in need of representation from SPTA leaders. Think of recent APA foci which relate to: The Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest (BAPPI), the Finance Committee, the Board of educational Affairs, the Board of Scientific Affairs, the Commission on Accreditation, the Committee on Division/APA Relations, The committee on Professional Practice and Standards, Committee on Rural Health, Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender diversity, the committee on Women, and the Needs Assessment, slating and campaigns Committee. I won’t go on further, but I cannot stress enough the Committee on Early Career Psychologists since they are our lifeblood. While there are many great SPTA leaders on these Boards and Committees, we need to make sure our voice continues to be present.
What am I asking? I would like you all to think about getting more active in APA. Many APA subcommittees do not go through the election process but rather are appointed. These may be easier to break into and get your name and skills recognized. There are many ways to get involved and my experience has been that whichever group at APA I became a member of, I learned a great deal, honed my leadership skills and met many wonderful colleagues. Our division has many skilled APA leaders who can help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to be connected to one of them. We need you!