posted 09-15-2007 04:11 PM         

There were remarks in a previous thread that the APA should not (or perhaps may not) conduct surprise inspections, that all inspections must be announced in advance. I should like to suggest that surprise inspections ought to have a necessary place in the APA inspection repertoire.

Granted, some types of inspection ought to be announced in advance. This acts as an incentive, a deadline, to get the paperwork together, review the accreditation guide, ensure you’re up to snuff, and be prepared to answer questions. The chairs and tables are lined up, the shades pulled to the same height, and the students and instructors stand at attention (at least psychologically) as the inspector enters the room with a flourish of drums.

Nobody, nor any school, is perfect. None can pass a truly intense scrutiny without any imperfection or room for improvement being detected. Perfection is an unattainable goal, not a realistic expectation. However, when allegations of misconduct are being investigated, I believe it’s important for the inspector to see the realities of everyday conduct, warts and all, not a Potemkin village which disappears when the inspector’s back is turned. This can often only be done by a surprise inspection.

I’m proud that APA and TV O’Malley can and will go to the expense of a surprise inspection, including surveillance, when a serious allegation arises. If there’s nothing wrong, it is that type of inspection which is most likely to determine that the allegation was baseless. It’s analogous to taking a polygraph examination when one is innocent. It’s unpleasant, it’s intrusive, but it’s sometimes necessary. Although it’s tough on the school and individuals who are thus scrutinized, I believe that’s the cost of an effective policing of the standards expected of our profession.

Neither liberty nor ethics nor reputation come cheaply.

Just my two cents worth. Well, alright, a ha-penny.

Peace,

posted 09-15-2007 08:53 PM            

I think this shows a need for policies in advance. It's too easy to say somebody is being picked on without them.

Do the ends justify the means? Is it okay to break the rules (knowingly and willingly) break the rules to see if somebody else is breaking the rules? What if they (the one being investigated) weren't breaking the rules?

posted 09-16-2007 07:52 AM         

signed,
anonymous

p.s. That was too easy Dr. Barland

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 09-16-2007).]

posted 09-16-2007 11:21 AM            

For individual examiners, the APA is an association. It is primarily our local licensing and certification agencies that enforce compliance and respond to complaints.

For schools, the APA is an accrediting "agency," regardless of what we think about the strength of that accreditation.

The issues here seem to get clouded by what we perceive to be the objective

, or what may appear to some as mean-spiritedness.

There is nothing to prevent any agency from enacting permissions for surprise inspections.

However, if our hierarchy of objectives is to avoid problems first, and then to catch them when they are not avoided, then we may need to start to think about some form of continuum of process, in which we address concerns first by direct communication. Those activities tend to foster trust and productive relationships.

Responding to complaints is a special matter, and often requires and articulated form of due process - often beginning with direct communication. There is still nothing to prevent an agency from conducting a surprise visit in the context of a serious or egregious concern.

Moving too quickly to surprise inspections has the effect of possibly circumventing due process for the accused violator, and sets the primary objective at catching vs avoiding or fixing problems. The long term cultural effect within the professional populace can be anticipated as that of fostering division and mistrust.

Peace,

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)