The American Psychological Association (APA) suffered a 7.6 percent loss of its members from 2010 to 2011 — from 91,306 to 84,339. While in recent years, the APA has suffered from smaller membership declines, this is the first time ever in the organization’s 120-year history it has suffered such a significant one-year decline in members.
Is this downward trend specific to the American Psychological Association, or are other professional organizations suffering similar losses?
And what’s to blame for this precipitous loss of members in a single year? A few factors come to mind.
The APA’s 2011 Loss of Members
The APA is the largest professional association representing psychologists. It is, however, by no means the sole voice of psychologists. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are approximately 174,000 psychologists in the U.S. — which includes master’s level professionals. So the APA represents about 44 percent of psychologists in the U.S. — 75,746 of whom are full-fledged APA members with doctoral degrees.
When asked to comment about the decline in membership, the APA declined to answer our questions. ((In the past, the APA’s Public Affairs office has readily responded to our requests for comment.))
Here is some speculation as to the reasons behind the decline:
- It’s the economy. Indeed, one of the first items to go in a tough economy is a person’s membership in different clubs and organizations. However, since professional dues are a tax write-off (meaning it helps reduce the professional’s tax liability), it’s unclear how many professionals gave up their membership due to the economy alone. A professional may, however, trim their membership if they are members of a number of professional organizations and keep only the one or two they truly feel are most beneficial to their career.
- Lack of perceived benefits. This is something many professional and non-profit organizations struggle with. Since all organizations offer virtually the same set of benefits and perks (like discount magazine subscriptions), you may not keep a membership in an organization where you don’t feel like you’re getting your money’s worth.
- Graying of members without replacements. Although more new psychologists than ever are joining the profession every day, not nearly as many are joining the APA. Instead, they’re focusing on smaller organizations from the get-go that seem to better cater to their interests (see comment from the APS executive director below). Less than 13 percent of new APA members join a specialty division (where the actual networking takes place), and the average age of the APA member today is over 54 years old.
- Torture. The APA took what seemed like forever to come out and say that torture was wrong and shouldn’t be practiced by APA members. They had to keep revising their statementto satisfy the APA’s critics, and it was a PR disaster that just wouldn’t die. This may account for some of the initial downward trend in the late 2000’s.
- The practice assessment controversy.For nearly two decades, the APA has been charging some of its members — those who are in clinical practice — a “practice assessment” fee. This fee was thought to be mandatory by most members who paid it, because of the way it was worded and appeared on a member’s annual dues statement. It was used to fund a separate, independent political lobbying organization associated with the APA.In 2010, it came out that the mandatory practice assessment wasn’t mandatory after all. It makes sense that some clinical members may have been upset about this perceived deception, and spoke with their wallets. ((Some members were so upset, they filed a lawsuit against the APA, which was dismissed earlier this year.))
The American Psychological Association is not alone in this downward trend on membership numbers, however. The American Psychiatric Association — the professional association of U.S. psychiatrists — is also suffering.
“APA has experienced a decline in membership over the past few years, from 35,899 total members in January 2009 to 33,387 in January 2012, an approximately 7 percent loss in three years,” Susan Kuper told Psych Central. Kuper is the Directory of Membership for the American Psychiatric Association. ((The APA’s membership numbers reflect a total that’s actually higher than the reported number of psychiatrists in the U.S. — about 23,000 — by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, probably because the statistics don’t capture self-employed workers.))
“There are several variables contributing to the membership loss, including an increase in membership dues in 2010 (the first increase in almost 15 years) as well as the general state of the economy.”
The Association for Psychological Science, an organization founded in 1988 largely made up of research psychologists, hasn’t seen the same downward trend. In fact, their membership numbers keep going up-up-up: Overall growth since 2007 is 16.3 percent with an average annual growth of just over 4 percent.
- 2011 — 23,500
- 2010 — 23,300
- 2009 — 22,700
- 2009 — 22,700
- 2008 — 21,500
- 2007 — 20,200
“We also see huge growth in things like journal submissions,” Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the Association for Psychological Science, said. “I am guessing APA scientists have gotten older and fewer – just take a look at the average age of those in Division 1 (General) or 3 (Experimental) – whereas our growth is particularly in younger psychologist scientists.”
Touting Its Members and Non-Members as The Same
When this article was first researched, it seemed a bit ironic that, for an organization that promotes professional ethics, the APA continued to proudly state — without any qualifications up until a few days ago — that the “APA has more than 150,000 members and 54 divisions in subfields of psychology” on its website’s About page:
Snapshot of the APA “About” page one year ago,
and similarly up to a few days ago.
After we pointed out the discrepancy in how the APA describes itself and its membership numbers, the page’s wording changed:
Snapshot of the APA “About” page today.
This is still technically inaccurate, since student affiliates are not APA members. And since we didn’t point out that the discrepancy exists throughout APA’s website, you can still find it on the APA History page (for the moment):
We think that it’s incumbent upon the APA to be honest and transparent about the size of its organization, because its size denotes representation and unity. Counting student affiliates — who are not APA members and have little say in how the APA is run — as a part of the representation without clearly delineating the difference is disingenuous.
The APA’s true size today is an organization consisting of 84,339 members. ((Full disclosure: I’m still a member of the APA.)) That’s nothing to be ashamed of — it’s a big professional association representing the guild interests of many psychologists. It’s downward decline is not necessarily a sign of a permanent trend — but it is a disturbing one that signals the changing times.
With access to social media and other communications modalities not as readily available 20 years ago, some of the APA’s purpose — helping like-minded professionals socialize and network with one another — is going away, replaced by profession-neutral organizations.
The APA’s challenge is to repurpose itself, showing that it can adapt to the changes in the profession. It also wouldn’t hurt it to become more transparent and responsive to its members’ concerns.
Edited on July 14, 2012 to add detail.
19 comments
APA has treated the membership with arrogance and deception for decades. Now, with the internet and other avenues many of their inaccuracies are finally being exposed. Excellent analysis and critique of how APA presents itself, because in DC the more people you represent the more perceived power you have as a lobbyist – hence APA’s deceptive membership numbers.
I think the former APA President, Dr. Cummings, explains fairly clearly why membership has dropped. Something not mentioned in this article …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPgq1c4TYi4#t=16
Clearly it has become a “Politically Correct” organization under the aura of being scientific. Clearly it is no long a science-based organization, as holding opinions different from the liberal bias are excluded.
Can’t speak for your APA, but both mine as A Psychiatric A and the AMA are basically irrelevant to psychiatrists and doctors in general as the hierarchy of both groups are only focused on money, politics of the few and purely partisan, and in my opinion what older members need first and foremost.
This is not leadership or representation of the majority of a profession, but, just selfish and narrow minded interests to the detriment of clinicians and patients in the end.
Where does your APA stand on psychologists prescribing these days?
The APA is still actively lobbying, through its affiliated lobbying organization the APA Practice Organization, states every year to expand prescription privileges for psychologists. Every year, they are thwarted after spending millions upon millions upon this effort. In fact, a good portion of APA members’ practice assessment fee goes to support these efforts.
As I’ve written in the past, I believe prescription privileges are a dead-end for psychologists. They will simply become what psychiatrists before them became — professionals mostly focused on prescribing, not therapy.
John
Amen to your last sentence. Should insurers and big pharma convince the majority public to just live through chemistry to seek care, well, REM sang it well. “This is the end of the world as we know it”.
By the way, while this other issue was at a different post, just read the Psychiatric Times’ reporting of this ketamine issue, and offer this to readers to ponder with organizations like my APA who will sell this garbage: “…a subanesthetic dose of ketamine administered via a 40 minute infusion elicited robust antidepressant effects within hours of administration that lasted for several hours.” , and then later go on to note, rather minimally I interpret, “However, there remain safety concerns surrounding the drug’s acute and chronic physiological and psychological effects, it’s abuse liability, it’s effects on the kidneys and liver, and also it’s potential neurotoxicity.”
Kinda like watching the usual drug commercials that wiz by “this medication could kill or maim you, see your doctor for a prescription!”
Just what we need, people saying depression could be lifted in a few hours and keep you happy. Wasn’t that the sales pitch for cocaine in the ’70s to ’80s!?
I work at Kaiser Permanente part time and they have dealt with the declining number of psychiatrists by having nurse practitioners do the prescribing under the supervision of an MD. That’s working out very well and I suspect other organizations will begin to do the same thing. I would be very surprised if psychologists ever get Rx privileges.
This includes a pretty good summary of issues that led me to leave. Another big one is the misguided support of RxP. That horse has now been beaten to death, dug up from the grave, and then beaten some more. Even if that was a good idea– and I do not think it is, in its application in either NM or LA– the cold reality is that we are outspent at least 10-fold by the medical lobbies and in state after state it has not passed. We should be focusing on advocating for what we do well now… psychosocial treatments that HAVE been proven to work. APA fails miserably in this regard. While it touts the efforts of its individual members in that direction, it does not walk the talk, failing to enforce ethical training guidelines and actively campaigning against master’s level clinician licensing (despite the fact there is no good evidence that such individuals provide inadequate care). APA no longer spoke for me, and then added injury to insult with its practice assessment… and that’s why I left.
I quit APA years ago, because of 1) their schoolyard level animosity towards the American Psychiatric Association, and 2) the aggressive push for prescription privileges for psychologist. To my knowledge, the APA never polled its membership about this issue. I felt things were settling out fine, with both sides doing what they were trained to do. IMOH, if today’s psychologists really want to be physicians, they should suck it up in college and take organic chem.
.
Thanks for this article. I was unhappy with APA and very concerned about the cronyism and power politics constantly at play for many years.
The torture controversy pushed me out the door (it still is not resolved to the satisfaction of many critics). The Practice Assessment revelation didn’t surprise me one bit. I WAS surprised by the letter I received from APA (despite no longer being a member) explaining that of course we all knew it had never been mandatory. Really?
It’s even more disheartening to read that a considerable sum went to lobbying for prescription privileges.
I, too, quit APA for a variety of reasons, most of which have been mentioned by other commentators. I have been very disappointed by APA’s lack of visibility in the new health care reform conversations and planning. I’m involved in governance at the state level and the general perception about APA, psychologists, and HC reform is usually “the train has left the station” and we were not on it.
I looked at the line up of presentations offered at the APA convention in August 2012 and there is NOTHING about HC reform and it is going to affect psychologists. It’s as if nothing is happening and it’s business as usual. I notice that any activity around this topic is being done at the state level and I’m putting together a group of interested psychologists to begin to educate each other about what may be coming down the road. Although we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, we do know that SOMETHING is going to happen. The more information we can gather and the more brilliant minds we can put together, the greater the chances we will survive these changes (and hopefully thrive in the new system).
One thing is for sure, if we wait for APA to take the lead, we’ll all be looking for new jobs in the not too distant future!
The American Psychiatric Assocation hyperlink included in this article is not correct. Please use http://www.psychiatry.org. Thank you.
You should talk to Google, since they think your site is at psych.org — and that URL works just fine.
If, on the other hand, you’re trying to change domain names, you’re doing it wrong. Asking for whatever random blogger linking to you to change the link isn’t going to help.
As an addendum to the original article, we also found out through helpful member Jean Carter, Ph.D. (of the Washington Psychological Center, PC) information that could account for most of this one-year decline — a change in how the APA counts members who stop paying dues:
When next year’s number comes out, we’ll see if this is indeed the case.
Based on action by the APA Council and a vote of the membership, the APA Bylaws were amended in 2010 to decrease the time a member can stay on the membership file in unpaid status from two years to one. This change led to a larger than typical reduction in the number of association members (across all membership categories – full member, associate member and affiliate member) from 154,842 in 2011 to 137,086 in 2012. Prior to the bylaw change, APA experienced small levels of growth in its overall membership; thus, the drop in the total number of members is in large measure related to the new Bylaw.
However, it is important to note that while APA experienced slight growth before 2012 in the affiliate and associate membership categories, the number of full members (doctoral level members) experienced slight declines in 2010 and 2011. For 2012, APA full members number 84,213; in 2011 the number of full members was 91,012. Prior to this year, APA would lose about 6,000 doctoral level members a year. We also recruit about 5,000 new full members annually. The net effect on the number of doctoral level members would therefore be a reduction of approximately 1,000 full members. The new Bylaw had its largest effect on the affiliate member categories. APA had 63,830 affiliate members in 2011 and 52,873 in 2012.
Staff in the APA Office of Membership Development, working with the Membership Board, are devising programs to increase doctoral level member retention particularly amongst early career psychologists.
The effect of the new Bylaw is expected to be a one-time correction to the APA membership count.
Hello everyone:
I did not renew my membership a few years ago with the APA for many of the reasons listed in the article and mentioned above.
But more specifically, I felt the APA was simply an organization interested in pushing their political agendas and personal positions on certain matters. The organization also charges too much as far as renewal fees and dues to those of us who simply receive magazines from the APA. I’d rather be a part of an organization who seems interested in truly advocating for important matters and writing some wrongs,instead of paying $100 just to renew a “magazine membership.”
Even the membership “benefits” did not offer enough to keep me as a member. The “benefits” are simply false props to keep members renewing their membership.
The organization asks much, but doesn’t give much.
Their website and mobile applications are buggy and far behind the curve. Until they find a way to embrace the tech savvy new generation, the APA will continue to be viewed as increasingly irrelevant.
I think the APA is out of sync with my generation. I used to be a student affiliate and went to one annual conference, but it was just a bunch of people trying to be more important than they really are, rather than focusing on advancing scientific research with practical significance. It also lacked in diversity. There were hardlu any people of color present.
I just became a member of the APA as a student affiliate. I was wondering about the exact position I would have in the organization as I am a psychology student and not a practicing clinician or doctor. I am glad that the APA extends students like myself the resources that it does for research and reference, however, I never considered myself on par with anyone on the professional level. I guess what I am trying to say here is that I know my place and where I fall. I personally do not take offense to the APA listing student affiliates as part of their membership numbers; after all, we did have to pay for our membership and therefore it should count for something, but I can understand the air of frustration in this post and others about them doing just that. But I agree with Dr. Grohol with what he stated as the numbers being “disingenuous” in accurate representation without that much needed delineation. Perhaps they could form a completely separate area for student affiliates and all other affiliates, away from practicing professionals and clinicians? I would happily hop on over there and remain until I earned my way to the full APA site with the rest of my professional peers. Thank you for your very candid post Dr. Grohol! And as a side note…my very future aspirations are to become a PsyD just like yourself. Wish me luck in my continued endeavors, won’t you sir?
As a young professional, fresh out of graduate school, I found the membership fees that increased every year were not commensurate with the perceived benefits of membership. I also will fault the APA on its very poor handling of internship crises. I use the plural form because this has happened more than once and has impacted me personally. I was also appalled by their management of the torture controversy.