London Regional

Psychological Association

London, Ontario, Canada

Membership

Based on the discussions at early meetings about the direction LRPA should take it was decided that the organization should represent the needs of both practising and academic psychologists. When LRPA began the membership ratio of practising psychologists to academics was approximately 6:4 (Evans 1995), but this has changed drastically in the years since, to a point where LRPA is predominantly made up of practitioners today. It is difficult to say which came first, the decline in educational and academic psychologists or the neglect of issues that concern them.

Even when there was a greater representation of academic psychologists from the University of Western Ontario most faculty, from this time agree it was largely members of the clinical department that participated (McClelland 1995). Therefore, even when there was a more equitable split between academics and practitioners they both came from the same area in psychology. This would be consistent with the theory that benefit is gained by exchanging information between these two groups. An attempt was made to quantify the representation within LRPA between academics and practitioners over the years, but unfortunately it proved difficult to assign certain individuals to only one group. A grey area exists in that some individuals with their Ph.D.s in clinical psychology participate in both the practical and academic fields.

A decline in participation of psychology students actively involved in LRPA has also been noted over the years. The steering committee's intention was that students with a minimum of a B.A. would be able to participate when they included a clause for Associate Members. The associate membership guidelines allowed for any student studying psychology to be capable of taking part in LRPA's activities. Yet again it has been mainly students in clinical psychology who have shown an interest.

That student interest is restricted to clinical students can be explained by two reasons. The first is that since mainly clinical professors are involved in LRPA, naturally their graduate students will receive a greater exposure to LRPA. Perhaps these students might be openly encouraged by their advisors to attend meetings. The second explanation is in the benefits clinical students might gain from their involvement. Benefits such as networking. For instance, LRPA offers contacts in the practical field which a clinical student could use to find an internship placement or upon graduation find employment in the practical fields.

These explanations for clinical student involvement lead to a theory for the decline in academic psychologists in LRPA. The theory is that when LRPA first began, the clinical area of the psychology department at UWO was relatively small (Ferrari 1995) and there were not many psychologists with private practices in London (Howe 1995). Therefore, there was an opportunity for graduates from the clinical program at U.W.O. to move into the private practice. In the early stages of LRPA there was a greater involvement of academic psychologists and as the clinical students graduated and went into private practice they perhaps influenced the shift within LRPA to a more practitioner-oriented organization. There has not been as much academic involvement because the former students are now in the practical field. Yet the number of graduate students in clinical psychology has not declined, why are these more recent students not representing a continued academic involvement and are not actively involved in LRPA themselves? Some suggest it is because the number of practitioner positions in psychology in London has reached a saturation point. Recent graduates are not able to begin a private practice because of the overabundance of already existing practices. Nor can they find work in institutions, since the number of available positions has been on the decline in recent years. Therefore, given all these factors clinical students do not realize the same benefits from being part of a network of psychologists in the London area. For the most part graduates now have to find employment outside London and LRPA's sphere of influence. It is only by directly canvassing students is LRPA able to maintain a level of student involvement similar to the early years.

Initiatives in Regard to Membership

Like all organisations it is important to continually bring in new members to ensure the viability of the organization in the future. LRPA is no exception, three initiatives undertaken by executives to increase membership will be discussed.

One of the first initiatives to increase general membership took place while Howard Lobb was president in 1976-77. Based on the structure of OPA, Dr. Lobb decided to experiment with subdividing LRPA into interest groups. The three special interest groups which emerged in 1977 were: education, mental retardation and private practice. This movement was reported (Ferrari 1995) to be successful in increasing the number of members but it had its drawbacks. The subdivisions of LRPA began to splinter the larger organization. Where individuals were faithfully attending the meetings of their interest groups they would have only sporadic attendance at LRPA general meetings. For this reason the sub-group idea was abandoned and the parent group, LRPA, began to focus on maintaining the interest of the members gained through this movement. LRPA has since then presented talks on varying issues of interest in the hopes of representing the issues of concern to all three sub-groups. It is unclear how many members resigned when the sub-groups were disbanded in 1979.

Another initiative that was briefly experimented with during the mid 1980's involved the organization of a 'benefit' program for members (Mitchell 1995). The benefit program involved soliciting local establishments for discounts for LRPA members and compiling a book of the participating organisations. The organisations that participated were places such as restaurants, entertainment venues and so on. LRPA also went so far as to organize group discounts on auto insurance for its members. These ventures did not have the desired effect, membership was not increased and it was found to be more problematic to utilize the benefits than the discounts were worth. This initiative was abandoned without any notable increase in membership (Ferrari 1995).

Another significant change to effect LRPA's membership was the change in meeting venues. When LRPA began they conventionally held their general meetings at places like Andre's Steak House, The Grosvenor or The Lamplighter Inn. These dinner meetings were well attended up until the late 1980's when the attendance at the meetings began to decline. In 1987 the executive noted that poor attendance could be a result of the rising cost of attending a dinner meeting. As a result, subsequent general meetings and speaker forums have been held at members' homes and have thereby kept the cost to members at a minimum. This initiative was successful, and members attendance at general meetings was revitalized. To an outsider this change may not appear significant, but to many of the long-time members it represented a notable departure from the original format (Brawn 1995, Howe 1995, Mitchell 1995). Yet in assessing this change, this meeting format is closer to the original mandate of the organization, avoiding barriers to individual's participation where possible. The movement to members' homes also manifested the relaxed format LRPA always intended to portray. Most agree that the resurgence in attendance was worth the cost of abandoning traditional meeting spots.

Relations to Other Organizations

Throughout LRPA's twenty years of existence there has been a fluctuating relationship with OPA in the steering committee's first report there was a desire to show that LRPA was not a regional division of OPA. The primary reason LRPA's first executive sought this distinction was to allow themselves autonomy in controlling the direction of their organization. As a regional OPA body it would have been necessary for LRPA members to also be OPA members and be subject to all the decisions of the OPA. Being independent of OPA allowed LRPA to control their cost of participation by not requiring members to pay an OPA membership fee as well. One of LRPA's mandates was to structure the financial obligations so that personal finances were not a limiting factor on membership and they have always maintained minimal membership fees. At the time LRPA also did not agree with some of the expenditures OPA was making on publications (Evans 1995). Being independent of the provincial body allowed LRPA to limit the barriers which might have prevented individuals from joining LRPA.

However, although not official, there has always been a relationship between OPA and LRPA. In 1976 LRPA sponsored the annual OPA meeting held in London. Drs. Gerry Stone, Peter Carlson and Alan Slemon were three of the key organisers of the event. Since this time LRPA has had a good working relationship with OPA, and when both groups had a common objective (often government lobbying) they would collaborate their efforts.

Over the years OPA has benefitted from having an established organization in the London area to help mobilize attendance, lobbying or event organising that may take place in the area. For this LRPA is well recognized by psychologists in the province (Mitchell 1995). Another reason for recognition is LRPA's history of having one of their own act as President of OPA. Dr. David Evans was the first LRPA member to serve as President and was followed by Drs. Warren Nielson and Beth Mitchell who was President in 1994. All three have been former LRPA Presidents as well. This record of Presidents acknowledges the respect psychologists in the province have for LRPA members as individuals. This is significant because the relationship between LRPA and OPA has never been formalized, but instead is based on individual relationships and involvement in both organisations. There has always been a certain number of individuals that belonged to both OPA and LRPA and from this group someone would take it upon themselves to act as a liaison between the groups. Nowadays, regardless of whether there is an OPA representative for LRPA or not there is always an informal liaison between the two groups.

Similarly, the relationship LRPA has developed with local politicians is based upon the same principle of individual relationships. One of the initiatives of recent executives has been the annual political breakfast. Each fall since 1990 LRPA has invited local politicians to a brunch with members of their organization. The primary intention of the brunches was and still is to establish a forum for psychologists to express their current concerns to the local politicians. True to the culture of LRPA the breakfast forum is a casual setting where the different politicians sit at different tables with usually 4-5 LRPA members and the individual tables discuss issues at their leisure. There are also some brief speeches intended to set the tone for the table discussions. The breakfasts are a friendly approach to a relationship that is often adversarial in nature. LRPA members are able to express their views on topics of concern without a formal written lobbying effort. The friendly atmosphere has served to make the political breakfasts a success in terms of attracting local politicians on a regular basis. The breakfasts in themselves need not be considered lobbying but instead the development of individual relationships between LRPA members and the politicians which form the basis for future lobbying. LRPA provides the system for psychologists to develop relationships with politicians, and it is with these individual relationships that LRPA accomplishes their political lobbying objectives.

In a similar way the relationship LRPA has with the Thames Valley Regional Health Council is based upon individual connections. There is no recognized position, in which LRPA is represented on the District Health Council, nor is there a position for the health council to be represented on LRPA's executive. However, often there is a LRPA member who sits on the Thames Valley Mental Health Board and acts as an unofficial liaison between the two groups. In the past when the LRPA member who worked in this facility resigned, the LRPA executive made an exerted effort to encourage other qualified members to fill the vacancy on the board, in order to ensure continual LRPA representation. Similar to the arrangement with OPA, the relationship LRPA has with the District Health Council is informal in structure and relies on the individual relationships its members have with the other organization to pursue their goals as an organization.

© 1995 Michael C. Schaab

<< < 1 2 3 4 > >>