Tag Archives: mental health

Alliance update: Letters to the press on the general election

Dear colleagues,

The Alliance has taken a lead in organising two recent press letters, aimed at the election campaign, on government policies around people with disabilities and the nation’s mental health.

In the Daily Mirror:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/must-defeat-tories-sake-mental-10494187

And last week, this appeared in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/vote-labour-to-uphold-the-rights-of-disabled-people

For us, an important and exciting development over the past few years has been the involvement of therapists in campaigns of a wide nature, including  disability, psycho-compulsion, workfare, benefit cuts, and mental health. Crucially, these have been campaigns in which psychotherapists, counsellors, psychologists and other professionals have for the first time joined service users and welfare campaigners to plan and participate in protest, political lobbying and street actions on issues of social and psychological politics.

The initiatives for these alliances and for a more strident intervention in the social and political field have not come from the establishment of our profession (the regulatory professional bodies like BACP, UKCP, BABCP, BPC, BPS and RCP) whose voices have been slow to rise above the careful comprises of ‘realpolitik’, but from the growing energy of radical, more grass-roots organisations like the Alliance, Psychotherapists and Counsellors for Social Responsibility, Psychologists for Social Change, the Free Psychotherapy Network and the Social Work Action Network.

If you agree with the broad sentiments in the letters, we’d be most grateful if you would circulate and share the links far and wide through all your networks, including tweeting and social networking.

You can for the moment contribute your own comments below the line of the Mirror letter – please do! Thanks very much for your support.

Our warm regards,

Paul Atkinson (for the Alliance)

UEA Course Closures – An Attack on Values

The University of East Anglia (UEA) has decided to axe its renowned counselling courses, including the flagship intensive Post-Graduate Diploma in Person-Centred Therapy, from which I graduated in the late 90s. It is twenty years since I applied for a place on this course, two decades since I first held the role of ‘counsellor’ in a conversation, and I’ve worked in and written about counselling and psychotherapy ever since, with many formative experiences along the way. Yet UEA, the course, the staff and students, the Centre for Counselling Studies and the University Counselling Service are all tattooed onto my psyche as a practitioner.

The psycho-geography hums with resonance – the flattening lands around the A11 up to Norwich, the walk into campus from the Unthank Road, the iconic ziggurat buildings, high up from which the counselling rooms once gazed. I sat with my first clients in those stacked glass and concrete boxes, held and encouraged and distracted and moved by the big-skied view across the lake and the acres of shifting weather, which would nonetheless dissolve into irrelevance most sessions.

I attended personal development groups in these rooms too, grappling with the entwined attitudes of acceptance, empathy and authenticity. Seeing the value of the form, I once plumped for a private weekend encounter group in the same space – hours with a bunch of strangers from beyond the course, the first day running open-endedly into the evening as the room’s squared windows blackened to an array of mirrors. Given the intensive, full-time nature of the training programme either side of that weekend, I realise now I must have spent 12 days straight completely immersed in varying forms of experiential work, plus supervision, counselling practice and skills and theory sessions, with only two days break at each end (when assignments would’ve been emerging from my primitive word processor).

Later, after the diploma ended, I would return to co-facilitate a similar group experience and occasionally visited Norwich semi-socially, but always via my connection with the training and the therapy community around it. Although I no longer have contact with most of my fellow students, I gained one deep and ongoing friendship and still speak here and there with people connected to UEA.

But so what? Perhaps my disquiet at UEA’s decision to scrap the courses might be construed as nostalgic. Things change, don’t they? Tattoos bleed into the surrounding skin, lose their vibrancy, and whatever meaning they hold for the subject – and sometimes it is a sense of a long since departed self – they are at best curious adornments to everyone else.

Perhaps. But I think the loss at UEA has a significance beyond my own idiosyncratic history.

‘Say the right things, when electioneering…’

In the same year that I applied to UEA, Tony Blair’s New Labour swept to power on the back of a desire for change. It was 1997 and pop culture fizzed with champagne bubbles and cocaine-dashed nostrils. A rampant patriotism – initially art-school-ironic and then stadium-flag-literal – was busy ignoring or shouting down the prophetic gloom of Radiohead’s latest album, OK Computer, released that same year. In spite – or perhaps because – of its incongruence with the times, the album was nonetheless lauded critically and was wildly successful commercially – it’s anguished cry from Britpop’s shadow cutting through the din of the party.

I heard OK Computer to death in my job at what we optimistically still called a record shop (actually a video and CD chain store) but just recently, in advance of the album being re-issued next month, I’ve been giving it another spin, which is where – unexpectedly – our nostalgia thesis begins to unravel. Because there is little rose-tinted comfort in revisiting these songs. As they hit their twentieth anniversary, we – the citizens of 2017 – find ourselves not in Blur’s chirpy Parklife or in a big-hearted mass sing-along at an Oasis concert, but in the very atomised, alienated, divided and tech-engulfed times that Radiohead’s stunning, if overplayed, work of art-rock predicted, and about which it voiced a bleak but very human form of protest.

‘One day, I am gonna grow wings…’

The Person-Centred Approach (PCA) was – and arguably still is – another protest against the state of things, albeit one rooted in a model of potentiality and growth, rather than alienated despair. It emerged in the US as a critique of – and embodied alternative to – the psychoanalytic and behaviourist strangleholds on individual subjectivity, and spoke of a ‘quiet revolution’. It certainly challenged the power of the highly medicalised psychiatric and psychotherapeutic establishments, both theoretically and in practice.

As counselling gradually grew in legitimacy here in the UK, establishing its own organisations, literature and courses, the development of UEA’s person-centred training in the early 90s had a similar sense of creative protest. While the PCA had become a mainstream approach in the British therapy field – with one of its core texts (co-authored by the UEA course director) on the way to being one of the best-selling counselling books of all time in the UK – it still stood in counter-cultural contrast to some of the evolving norms of the emerging profession, which in any case remained relatively – by today’s standards – on the margins of our culture.

It was (and still is) rare for the PCA to be taught in a university setting, yet the UEA programme offered post-graduate training that remained defiantly values congruent: it had a deeply experiential approach; it was highly focused on the personal development of the practitioner; the spiritual and political dimensions of therapy were core themes; and completion of the course was through self- and peer-assessment. And this congruence between theory, principle and practice was also expressed socially through its embeddedness within the campus and city communities: trainees had placements within the university student counselling service and were encouraged to take up linked placements within the city. In my time there, students offered counselling in a diverse range of settings, from an insurance company, to voluntary sector services, to my own placement working with inmates at Norwich prison.

Following the 2003 retirement of the founding director, a prominent figure in the professions, the Centre for Counselling Studies maintained a high profile internationally within both the PCA and the counselling field generally. It staged a number of conferences and developed a successful Masters and PhD programme and towards the end of the noughties was undertaking qualitative and quantitative research into ‘outcomes’ at the University Counselling Service.

But sources at UEA suggest that this research was effectively ‘buried’. Then, around 2011-12, the university withdrew the team’s ‘Centre’ status and some of the associated funding, reducing it to little more than a teaching operation for the courses. The ‘Centre’ title, I’m told, was reinstated around 2014 as a branding exercise for the trainings but the staff budget allowed for no research or enterprise remit to expand its international profile. Then, in a typically Kafka-esque turn, the diminished Centre’s lack of research and enterprise was taken by the university as a sign of its ‘failings’, which brings us to the recent decision to axe it completely.

Many people, not least the students themselves and the local MP, have rightly challenged the wisdom of this decision on the grounds that it is unfair to existing trainees who were hoping to progress onto the higher level courses and – crucially – that it will drastically cut the availability of the real, in-depth counselling provided by diploma students, both in the wider Norwich community and at the university itself, where short-term CBT-based mental health support and group work is little compensation, as this moving post from a person who used the service makes crystal clear.

‘It’s just business…’

This is exactly what’s been happening in other sectors, of course, particularly the NHS, where instrumental, short-term models (therapy-lite, if you will) have become dominant. These are ideally adapted to the current, highly medicalised regime around mental health, with its diagnose-treat-cure approach to human distress. In its atomised conception of people and quick-fix mentality, this is in turn ideally suited to our current political and socio-economic conditions – often referred to as ‘neo-liberalism’ – in which therapy’s role is perceived by the State and its agencies to be simply to return ‘ill’ workers (or students) to their jobs (or studies) after a short course of ‘evidence-based treatment’.

In all levels of education, one impact of this neo-liberal order has been to prioritise the needs of business over both critical thinking and holistic personal development. In higher education (HE) especially, organisations are run as businesses themselves, with students considered consumers and staff expected to be compliant employees. The institution’s branding must not be tarnished because it needs to compete with rivals in the marketplace and generate as much income as possible. This can create a climate of fear, particularly when the organisational agenda begins to turn against a specific department or area, as appears to have happened at UEA.

These aren’t the kind of conditions in which in-depth counselling trainings are likely to thrive. While the courses might be in demand and over-subscribed, they can also be costlier than some other programmes, due to the intensive, experiential element, which requires plenty of contact time between staff and students. In discussing the events at UEA with colleagues, I learned that a number of other long-established counselling courses in HE have closed or been threatened with closure in recent years.

How does this fit with our culture’s contemporary interest in addressing ‘mental health’? Well, in one sense, it’s obviously completely at odds with it; but it also highlights how not all ways of responding to psychological distress are valued within the cultural and economic conditions I sketch above. While we are talking about mental health more than ever – which part of me welcomes because a decrease in shame, embarrassment or toxic silence is a good thing – unfortunately most of the talk is funnelled through a very narrow channel of acceptability: our distress must be seen as ‘just like any other illness’ and therefore the treatments must be medicalised and efficient. This is therapy as a drug-like healthcare intervention (with the reductionist ‘evidence’ to match) rather than it being a relational, exploratory dialogue – a meaning-making human encounter.

So courses such as UEA’s person-centred training are not only a bit expensive to run, in a highly competitive and monetised system, but also they represent a direct challenge to the prevailing ideology in education, mental health and the culture at large. I’m sure many of us would hope that this kind of critical, creative and counter-cultural thinking and practice would be encouraged by our universities – even when it’s not much of an earner – but clearly this is no longer the case.

‘Fitter, happier, more productive…’

Tellingly, UEA is maintaining its training programmes in a highly manualised form of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), which feed directly into the NHS Improving Access to the Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme. The training resides in the Clinical Psychology department of the university’s Medical School. If you look at the web page, there’s a link for ‘IAPT and Other Modalities’ (meaning non-CBT approaches), which leads to an otherwise blank page saying, Coming soon. Let’s not hold our breath on that one.

IAPT has come in for heavy criticism on many fronts: using an overly manualised and bureaucratised (i.e. de-humanised) healthcare approach; discriminating against other therapies (and the clients who want them) due to a narrow and inappropriately medicalised understanding of evidence; massaging data to claim greater success; having absurdly long waiting lists and a dysfunctional triage system; not taking care of its staff, who burn out quickly; unethically colluding with the efforts of the Department for Work & Pensions to reduce the welfare bill; and more.

In my own work, I fairly regularly hear from people with unhelpful experiences of IAPT, not least that a person’s history – their childhood experiences particularly – are barely considered. Huge losses, abuses or other deeply significant events that clients begin to explore in counselling within the first session or two, might never even have come up with their IAPT practitioner. Yet across all therapy sectors outside of the private sphere, the pressure is to follow the NHS model, as if its legitimacy is unquestionable, as if its version of what distress means, and how we should respond to it, is reality itself.

This then delegitimises all other responses to distress, however valued they are by the people who use them. In my own sector, counselling in further and higher education, I have seen this creep occurring first-hand. The professional division for the field (BACP UC) recently followed its parent organisation’s desires by creating a ‘competency framework’ based on the same CBT-derived Roth & Pilling/UCL methodology that we see in UEA’s IAPT training. This despite the fact that relational work – humanistic, person-centred, psychodynamic, integrative – is far more widely practised in the sector. While the framework apparently welcomes all models of therapy, it is nonetheless skewed to a technocratic and instrumental healthcare approach, and has alienated a number of highly experienced practitioners in the sector who do not recognise their work in the final document.

‘We are standing on the edge…’

Where, then, do we go from here? On the brink of a general election, with a very different Labour opposition to that of 1997 but a very familiar Conservative government, which is apparently emboldened by the country’s divisions, how do we shift the language and practices around ‘mental health’ away from the thin comforts of ‘illness’ and ‘treatment’? How do we take back human distress from its enclosure by neoliberalism, healthcare and the State, and re-integrate it into our everyday lives and relationships so that we can respond with ordinary compassion, rather than professionalised diagnosis and treatment, even (or perhaps especially) when we seek out a therapist to discuss our concerns?

What still excites me about the spirit of the Person-Centred Approach, is its deeply respectful commitment to the right to self-determination; to the inherent value and potential in subjectivity; to honouring the connectedness between us as persons in a social world; to witnessing, exploring and embracing all of this with a principled and creative not-knowing, rather than dogmatic expertise. It is these precious things – despite all the mental health policies, initiatives and media campaigns – that we see being lost at UEA and beyond.

Recently, a small controversy bubbled up at UEA about the appearance of Anthony Gormley’s life-size human statues on the roofs of its concrete structures. One looks out from a building behind the ziggurats, gazing across the same land and skies as the view from the counselling rooms. It is mesmerising, unsettling, challenging. Some have complained they are reminiscent of suicide.

In a BBC interview, Gormley said,

‘These works are nothing to do with suicide, they’re actually to do with life… Universities are places where people spend a lot of time thinking about the thoughts of others… I think it’s a wonderful place to balance that intellectual life with an object that is silent. It doesn’t need to be read. It has to be felt, it has to be lived with.’

Let’s hope the statues are a defiant symbol of the persistence of these values and aspirations, rather than a memorial to their passing.


Song lyrics from Radiohead’s OK Computer.

Andy Rogers is a counsellor and service coordinator in a large FE and HE college, a registered member of BACP, and has written about the politics of therapy and the person-centred approach for the best part of twenty years.

Alliance video: protest against New Savoy Conference of psy-organisations

The Mental Wealth Foundation, supported by The Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy, challenge attendees at the 2017 New Savoy Conference.

Why, despite some of the recent rhetoric, are the professional psychological organisations colluding with the Department of Work & Pensions view that being out of work is a pathology requiring treatment? Why support psycho-compulsion by working in environments in which those claiming benefits can be coerced into a distorted form of counselling and psychotherapy? Why support the emergence of State therapy?

OiOiSaveloy from Denis Postle on Vimeo.

Government Attack on Benefits Claimants: A Message from the Alliance

In response to the latest Government attack on benefits claimants with mental health and physical disabilities, the Alliance has written to the press and to the major psy-organisations, who we call upon to take a much more critical stance on these issues. See both letters below.


Letter to the Psy-Organisations

Dear Senior and Representative Colleagues,

The Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy is part of the Mental Wealth Alliance that has been engaging with most of the addressees of this e-mail. We have asked that you distance yourself from the DWP in an unmistakeable way and take up a much more combative and critical stance in relation to what is happening to ‘welfare’.

We assume that you are aware of the latest DWP issue referred to by the Daily Mirror and many other media outlets. If not: Tory ministers have rewritten the law to deny increased disability benefit payments to more than 150,000 people

The response we get is that your organisations are doing all that can be done and that there is no difference between your position and that of the Mental Wealth Alliance.

It is time to put your money where your mouth is and start to exert pressure on the DWP to operate in a more equitable, consistent and honest manner.

We believe that your various memberships are expecting this, and we urge you not to follow what is effectively, a collusive path. True, by muting protest you retain your access to the seats of power. But, in these circumstances, this is simply not the proper attitude to maintain.

Below, please find the letter sent by the Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy to the Daily Mirror and other newspapers. Will you take similar or analogous actions?

Yours sincerely,

Paul Atkinson and Professor Andrew Samuels (for the Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy)


Letter to National News Media

The Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy is a nationally recognised interest group of mental health professionals from diverse clinical and academic backgrounds. We were appalled to learn that last Friday, February 24th, without consultation or warning, the Government launched yet another vicious attack on the psychological, as well as financial resources of benefit claimants with mental health and physical disabilities (Tory ministers have rewritten the law to deny increased disability benefit payments to more than 150,000 people Daily Mirror, 24 Feb).

Emergency legislation has over-ridden the rulings of two tribunals that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) should expand the reach of Personal Independence Payments (PIP). At stake is mobility support for over 140,000 people who suffer “overwhelming psychological distress” when travelling alone, and more than 1,000 people who need help to take medication and monitor a health condition. The courts ruled both categories of support needed to be included in the PIP assessment of people’s needs. The DWP itself admits this will include for example those who have a learning disability, diabetes, epilepsy, anxiety or dementia.

In September 2016, Theresa May and her DWP ministers promised there would be no more welfare cuts on top of the string of draconian measures agreed last year as the final contribution of Cameron and Osborne’s campaign to punish those who cannot work. It seems her promise was another lie. With delicious irony, Disabilities Minister Penny Mordaunt said this latest move would “make sure we are giving support to those who need it most”. Meanwhile on Marr this Sunday, Tory party chairman Patrick McGloughlin responded to criticism of the emergency legislation by stating “as far as supporting disabled people in this country is concerned, we do very proudly”.

This is a government determined, come hell or high water, to strip welfare provision to the absolute bone, an ideological commitment it justifies in terms of the fiscal necessity of austerity savings and the therapeutic magic for all benefit claimants of getting themselves into work. As mental health professionals, we find it tragic and painful to be living through a period in which the social contract between the advantaged and the disadvantaged is under full-frontal attack.

More particularly, we find it shameful that our own professional bodies – psychotherapists, counsellors, psychologists and psychiatrists – continue to participate in the abuse of human rights and of their own ethical codes through their involvement in the psycho-compulsion of benefits complainants through the DWP’s workfare and Work and Health policies.

We call on the government to reverse its policies of welfare cuts as a minimum step to honouring Theresa May’s promises for a fairer deal for those struggling to cope to maintain any decent conditions of life. And we call upon our fellow ‘psy’ professionals to now insist on a withdrawal of all involvement in supporting the psychological coercion and punishment by the DWP of the most disadvantaged members of our society.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Atkinson and Professor Andrew Samuels (for the Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy)

 

Jobcentre Therapy: MWF exchange letters with the big Psy-Organisations

Following the Mental Wealth Foundation’s (MWF) letter to the five large psy-professions organisations, challenging their statement on jobcentre therapy and psycho-coercion, the organisations responded (see that response at the end of this blog).

The MWF replied on 12 April 2016, raising further issues and proposing a meeting for further dialogue. At the time of writing, this and other requests to meet face-to-face have gone unacknowledged.  Please read on for the full MWF reply…


From:

Mental Wealth Foundation

Mental Health Resistance Network; Disabled People Against Cuts; Recovery in the Bin; Boycott Workfare; The Survivors Trust; Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy; College of Psychoanalysts; Psychotherapists and Counsellors for Social Responsibility; Psychologists Against Austerity; Free Psychotherapy Network; Psychotherapists and Counsellors Union; Critical Mental Health Nurses’ Network; Social Work Action Network (Mental Health Charter); National Unemployed Workers Combine; Merseyside County Association of Trades Union Councils; Scottish Unemployed Workers’ Network; National Health Action Party

To:

British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies; British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy; British Psychoanalytic Council; British Psychological Society; United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy

Professional bodies scrutinise Government therapists in job centres plans

Thank you for your response of 24 March 2016. We would like to reiterate our invitation to a dialogue around these issues. We are a unique alliance of 17 diverse organisations, representing clients, therapists, campaigners and academics with a unique breadth and depth of perspective. We would very much like to share this wealth of experience and expertise with you; and to understand your position better. We think your members would expect you to meet with us, given the very diverse range of organisations that have united in order to communicate with you.

We appreciate your assurances that you oppose as unethical any coercion or sanctioning connected with psychological therapy’s contribution to the government’s workfare programmes. We also welcome your statement that “[you] do not believe the role of therapists should be to get people back to work”, and that the therapeutic value of employment is conditional both on individual circumstance and the nature of any particular employment and its environment.

At the same time, we are aware that as members of the New Savoy Partnership four of your organisations have welcomed recent workfare proposals, have initiated collaboration between DoH and DWP on Health and Work pilots, and have invited Lord Freud as Minister of Welfare Reform to open a number of your recent annual conferences. Your ‘Joint Pledge on Welfare’  states:

“We welcome the opportunity the Work Programme provides to support more people with mental health conditions into appropriate and sustainable employment.  Specifically, we will develop our expertise to help people with mental health conditions find, enter and remain in employment.” (emphasis added)

We cannot see how your position differs in any significant aspect from that of the DWP and you seem to have allowed yourselves to be drawn into becoming active partners in the government’s workfare policies. We believe – and we know many of your members agree – that the “psy” professions are being let down by our professional bodies going along with government aims and schemes, instead of using their professional knowledge together with service user experience to influence the proper provision of therapeutic services in more appropriate settings, for the benefit of clients and the profession. Clearly your views do in fact differ significantly from ours. Isn’t this something better explored at a meeting?

Over recent months, dozens of adverts for DWP financed mental health advisor and employment coach posts have invited applications from people accredited by you, including as we have already pointed out, those in Therapy Today. These job descriptions are explicit that the role is to get people off benefits and into work. Our concern remains that no action has been taken to inform or protect your members or their clients about involvement in work of this nature which breaches ethical practice.

The top-down nature of policymaking causes alienation and distrust of government workfare policies with a reliance on expert think-tank research, “evidence-based” reports, and a reluctance to engage in any real collaboration with either service users or practitioners.   We are offering you an opportunity to do something different. We believe it is within your role and responsibility, as national professional bodies representing psychological therapies, counselling and psychotherapy in the UK, to hold open an independent arena of public debate on issues of national policy.

We believe your collusion with the government is now threatening to undermine the ethical integrity of the “psy” professions among service user/survivors and professionals. A year ago, our joint letter to the Guardian signed by 440 psychologists, psychotherapists and counsellors raised the alarm about the probability of mandatory psychological therapy coming into being through the co-location of IAPT workers in Job Centres. A year on, the development of Health and Work projects under the DWP’s workfare banner is promoting more, not less fear, demoralisation, and distrust among the members of the organisations the MWF umbrella represents.

As survivors and witnesses of the impact of these developments, we are compelled to act against welfare to work policies and associated government-sanctioned psychological coercion which harms service users and professionals alike. You didn’t reply to our call to cease engagement with the Government Joint Work and Health Unit, and to hold a national event where all stakeholders views can be heard. We would like our campaign to include open debate with the professional bodies whose interests must surely include upholding the ethical values of psychological practice, for the sake of all.

We look forward to your response to our offer.

 


Appendix

Letter from psy-organisations to MWF, dated 24th March 2016:

Dear members of the Mental Wealth Foundation,

Thank you for your letter,

It might be useful if we started by clarifying a number of points that we have made repeatedly to the Department for Work and Pensions. We do not believe that anyone should be coerced into therapy and would denounce any coercion or sanctioning in relation to ‘job centre therapy’. As a result of ethical concerns raised last summer around coercion and sanctioning in relation to ‘job centre therapy’ we, as professional psychological therapy organisations, immediately contacted the Department for Work and Pensions. We were also acutely aware of, and remain acutely aware of, the wider context of sanctions and cuts.

Work is not always good for people’s mental health and wellbeing and we too recognize that poor quality, stressful and insecure employment can be detrimental and profoundly damaging. We also do not believe that employment should be viewed as a universally beneficial health outcome. At the same time, however, good employment can help people, by adding security and purpose to people’s lives, thus enhancing their mental well being. There should indeed not be a ‘one size fits all’ approach and we do not support a policy of work as cure.

We share the view that clients should have their current needs, perspective and autonomy respected but we also make it clear that we do not believe the role of therapists should be to get people back to work. Instead, we believe that the role of the therapist should always be to work with clients to help them resolve their mental health issues. We also do not believe people should receive psychological therapy in an environment where they feel uncomfortable and we do not believe client’s privacy should be compromised.

It is nevertheless important to recognise that access to psychological therapy remains restricted and people are suffering needlessly because of this. It is also the case that rates of mental health problems among people who are unemployed remain unacceptably high. There are likely to be a multitude of reasons for this, from loss of sense of purpose, to the stresses of the sanctions regime – and we wish to see all of these factors tackled. Improving voluntary access to psychological therapy for jobcentre clients is therefore a policy which deserves proper consideration and as organisations which represent psychological therapists, we recognise that the provision of appropriate, voluntary, therapy can play a role in alleviating distress.

The DWP has repeatedly told us that there will be no coercion involved or sanctioning of clients who do not wish to enter psychological therapy. It has also said that clients will have
a choice of where they can access their therapy. We have also secured a promise of a thorough evaluation of their planned small-scale co-location feasibility trial, which should provide a clear indication of whether people’s health and wellbeing is genuinely being improved in both the short and the long term. We suggest it is prudent to review these evaluations before prejudging a project that could provide genuine help to jobcentre clients who experience issues with their mental health.

We also note that your letter conflates different projects. Our organisations are concerned with the provision of therapy to jobcentre clients. We are mindful that other projects have
been initiated in regard to the co-location of work coaches in GPs surgeries, and that other organisations have engaged in scrutiny of these projects. We do not believe we are the most appropriate organisations to comment on those proposals, given they do not involve therapeutic coaches or psychological therapy – which is why our joint response made no mention of those plans.

We would also ask you to note that any past job adverts for positions outside of our organisations should in no way be regarded as the official opinion of any of our organisations individually or collectively.

Yours sincerely,

The British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies
The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
The British Psychoanalytic Council
The British Psychological Society
The UK Council for Psychotherapy

‘Welfare Reforms and Mental Health – Resisting Sanctions, Assessments and Psychological Coercion’. Conference Report – Part Three

In the final part of our report from the conference, Jay Watts and Nicola Saunders share their reflections on the day.


Jay Watts

I’ve slightly volunteered myself to write something about the ‘Welfare Reforms and Mental Health – Resisting Sanctions, Assessments and Psychological Coercion’ conference because it was, I think, the most exciting event I have been to in a twenty-year history as a mental health professional. Why?

First of all, thinking and planing the conference was a real collaboration, led by Paul Atkinson and Roy Bard. Some of us were lucky enough to hear reports back as they ventured off to territories unknown to find a space that would capture the ethos of the event – a place embedded in the community and activism, as Wade Hall turned out to be. I remember an email from Paul after one such trip, telling me of his delight at finding a local pub to use for small groups called ‘The Winnicott’, so named as the publican had done the one year introduction course to group analysis in the 1970s and been inspired! Here, the kind of embedding of therapy ideas in the community we really need!

“professionals lagging hopelessly behind”

When I arrived on the day, I was greeted with a hug by the marvellous Paula Peters, the kind of touching relations the day, I believe, fostered between those on the front line of disability activism, and us professionals lagging hopelessly behind. Hopelessly? Well, certainly not after the mutual feeding, planned actions, and passion of the day. The opening speeches by Paula, Denise, and Paul were inspiring – as others have written about. But perhaps the banter and respect between the three was as important as a model of what collaborative work might look like.

At 11:00, Rob Stearn and I set off to run our workshop on ‘psychocompulsion’ with about thirty survivors, professionals, and the undefinable. This was both an honour, and a bit of a blow as it meant missing out on other workshops being run at the same time. One of our group – Liz Hughes – has written beautifully about the themes of our conversations so I won’t repeat this. But let me add that I was most taken by the emotional honesty of our grouping, many of whom were suffering that very day with insistent forms and letters from the DWP who just won’t let go of the persecution.

One of the main feedbacks of the day was how nice it was to have a warm lunch ready, so we could talk together and not splinter off to find local amendments. Steaming plate of soup in hand, we settled in to share stories, greet new friends, make new connections. It was especially nice to meet in person many of the twitter activists – we who have shared so many passions, disappointments and hope whilst missing the embodied experience of one another.

“There is a moment in all this, a moment we are in, a moment of potential profound change in how we work together, and the social power we can thus wield”

Afternoon now, I found myself in Roy Bard’s workshop on ‘Mental Wealth’, after the now normal flurry of wondering how I could be in four separate workshops at one time. Roy proposed a new consortium of organisations – survivor, professional, academic, activist – to fight together to challenge the current organisational structures that exist, so deeply in the pocket of the establishment, desperate for crumbs of prestige and funding at the cost of a true ethics. As a group, we held vastly different ideas of what was going wrong, what needs to be done. But out of our dialogue, a tapestry began to be sewn of what the next stage of our activism might look like. And lo and behold, even in the weeks since the conference, the new ‘Mental Wealth’ consortium has bought together very diverse organisations in our first action – a statement to the professional organisations piercing through the ‘reassurance’ of a recent professionals’ press statement saying any link between therapy, job centres and benefits will be ethical.

There is a moment in all this, a moment we are in, a moment of potential profound change in how we work together, and the social power we can thus wield. The conference inspired me most, I believe, because it was one of the first spaces I have been in where the personal, professional and political were taken equally seriously with survivors, professionals and activists present in equal numbers as equals. As someone who has been under psychiatric services in my day, been on disability, but got to get out, this is the only way of being that makes sense to me, that brings it all together.

“We felt mobilised, emboldened, fierce”

After this nourishment, it was with hearts lifted that we reconnected as a larger group for workshop feedbacks, final comments and questions. We felt mobilised, emboldened, fierce. But dotted in amongst this spirit were comments reminding us again and again of the lost lives, anguished realities, and impossible-to-bear poverties the welfare state has inflicted upon us. These comments bought tears to me eyes.

As the formal parts of the day closed – to make way for dance, poetry and music – all of us professionals – I feel – were left with both a renewed horror in what our theories have been used to legitimise, and a profound sense that this event gave us a glimmer that something different was, is, possible. That a different way of being together, supporting each other, fighting for each other is not only conceivable, but the only ethical way to go forward as individuals, professionals and friends.

In solidarity – Jay.


Nicola Saunders

I was late after getting lost but fortunately bumped into Andy, a colleague from the Free Psychotherapy Network, and others talking about how good the opening speakers were, whilst walking to the Winnicott pub for the psy-compulsion workshop – I joined them. We were a mix of survivors, service users, students, psychotherapy trainees and psy professionals. The workshop began with an introduction from Jay and Rob from Boycott Workfare.

After a short silence the group discussion was started by a person who had been forced to stop work because of ill health.   After being told they couldn’t work again and coming to terms with the impact of that on their life, they were told they were ‘fit to work’ at a medical assessment. Looking for work and not being employed because of their illness, they had met Rob and joined Boycott Workfare and the campaign to inform and influence charities from joining workfare.

“The person sitting next to me spoke about not wanting this to be like other meetings where ‘we just talk’.”

A ‘mental health advocate’ had travelled from outside London, spoke next, wanting to be at the conference but frustrated at finding themselves on the waiting list, decided to take the risk after speaking to Paul and ‘came anyway’. Much of their job is now supporting people to engage with the benefits system in order that they receive the benefits they are entitled to. They were very pleased to be there and be with people who want to do something about what is happening.

The person sitting next to me spoke about their not wanting this to be like the other meetings they have been to where ‘we just talk’. Following a discussion on how do psy-professionals engage with other professionals who take up jobs in job centres, they suggested we ask to speak on their training courses and explain to them what happens to the people they see when they do these jobs.

After lunch I went to the Mental Wealth workshop where there was a wide and diverse range of views and critiques of neo-liberalism. It felt to me at times that that there was such a wide a range of views being expressed, that it might prove too difficult to find a consensus, and a big enough campaigning umbrella for all to come together under. I wondered if it might have been helpful for the Mental Wealth and Direct Action workshops to have come together at this point!

Gradually though the campaign to save mental health day services in Liverpool was spoken about. Service users, social workers and academics coming together to defend day support from local authority cuts – and winning. Local defend council housing campaigns were mentioned – 1 in 4 people living on the street have a mental health problem (St Mungo’s: 2016). There was a suggestion for a way of collecting details of the many campaign groups in order that learning and resources can be shared.   And on the Monday after the conference the beginning of the writing of the joint public statement on psychocompulsion under the Mental Wealth umbrella began. I’m sure all in the workshop would have approved.

Nicola

Go back to part one and part two of our report.

‘Welfare Reforms and Mental Health – Resisting Sanctions, Assessments and Psychological Coercion’. Conference Report – Part Two

In part two of our conference report, Richard House reflects on an historic event


Psy Users and Professionals Join in Common Activist Cause: a report on a one-day conference in Bermondsey, London, 5 March 2016

An historic event

This historic conference, entitled ‘Welfare Reforms and Mental Health – Resisting Sanctions, Assessments and Psychological Coercion’, was jointly organised by the Mental Health Resistance Network (MHRN) and the Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy, with the aim of bringing together activists and campaigners, both mental health and claimant activists and psy professionals, with a view to resisting punitive Conservative Government’s welfare reforms.

We use the term ‘historic’ advisedly, because to our knowledge this is one of the first (if not the first) occasion/s where service users, survivors, clients, psy professionals and academics have come together without the usual, often stultifying ‘expert’/‘client’ hierarchies of power. Indeed, it has rapidly become evident to members of the Alliance in recent months that when it comes to activism, we professionals have a huge amount to learn from the users and survivors of the services that professionals provide. So there was a really tangible sense of equality between everyone present at this gathering – the kind of thing that over-professionalised elements of the therapy world would no doubt be appalled by, and would construct allegedly sound, self-serving theoretical rationales as to why such equality wouldn’t be good for users/clients! Our response to such balderdash probably isn’t printable in a public document of this kind; but we warmly welcome this, the latest foray into what an exciting ‘post-professional’ psy world might begin to look like.

The conference

The conference was ably introduced and chaired by Paula Peters of DPAC (Disabled People Against Cuts), and Paula introduced us to two magnificent and inspiring speakers: Paul Atkinson of the Alliance, and Denise McKenna of MHRN (both addresses are to be reproduced in the Humanistic Psychology journal Self & Society later this year; also see Denise’s address here).

“the politics of austerity and neoliberalism, and their noxious effects on those most susceptible to psychological distress and fragility in society”

Paul and Denise spoke incredibly movingly about the backdrop to just why we were all assembled here, each striking an admirable balance between ‘diagnosing’ the problem and the issues, and calls for action and effective mobilisation and resistance. The main focus was on the politics of austerity and neoliberalism, and their noxious effects on those most susceptible to psychological distress and fragility in society, especially poor and disabled people. Indeed, the state as abuser was a recurrent motif that ran through the whole event.

We then broke for a series of inspiring and richly diverse workshops – something for everyone – the only drawback seeming to be that everyone wanted to go to all of them! The following workshops comprised the event:

  • Welfare reform and psychological coercion – with Rob Stearn and Jay Watts
  • Recovery In The Bin (RITB) – 19 Principles
  • Organising to tackle professional bodies, charities, and DWP staff – with Paul Atkinson
  • Campaigning Priorities – with the Mental Health Resistance Network
  • Emotional support for Survivors and Activists
  • The Mental Wealth Foundation – with Roy Bard
  • Direct Action – with Andy Greene

It’s quite impossible to do justice in this short review to the range of vital themes identified and explored on the day. To name just a few raised in one of the workshops I attended:

  • the issue of how we might step up campaigning around the collusion of professional organisations and charities with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and Work and Health initiatives on welfare to work;
  • the theme of why psychology and psychotherapy are being used by government-funded agencies to legitimate oppression;
  • Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) promoting a CBT agenda designed to coerce people into being productive consumers rather than offering care; examples of how survivors and mental health workers organised together to opposing the cutting of a successful peer-led project in Liverpool;
  • how community psychologists are organising campaigns in Brighton and elsewhere in the country;
  • how we might use the local press alongside social media to by-pass the bias of official national media.

Each participant was able to attend two workshops in all and my sense was that the discussions were wide-ranging, with the synergy of users, psy professionals and academics producing a quality of discussion and sharing which was far more than the sum of its parts. This surely has to be just the start of something new, exciting and vitally important in the world of psy.

The evening social

As if the rich fare of the day wasn’t sufficient for us all, we were then treated in the evening to a stunningly excellent artistic cabaret of talented musicians and poets, with the likes of Edgar Broughton (he of the legendary 1970s prog rock Edgar Broughton Band), the amazing iconoclastic singer-songwriter Dave Russell, and the radical performance poet, Woman Of Bones Tara Fleur.

Two particular highlights were Dave Russell’s extraordinary cover of the Sex Pistols’ ‘Pretty Vacant’ (‘Beefheart meets Stockhausen’, as someone remarked at the time) and Tara Fleur’s poem ‘I.D.S.I.O.T’., in which she searingly exposes the outrage that is the government’s back-to-work regime for those with mental health issues; a poem that brings humour and hilarity, visceral passion, outrage and tragedy – all wrapped into one breathtaking bravura performance. A ‘John Cooper Clarke moment’, as one poster expressed it on YouTube. This 12-minute, must-watch poem is indeed now on YouTube – and we strongly urge all our supporters to circulate this link to all of their contacts – a poem that will hopefully become a key ideological port of call in the struggle against the appallingly iatrogenic back-to-work regime. It was certainly good to be reminded that talking-shops do have their limits, and that brilliant agitprop and political art can reach places that nothing else can.

And what next?

All in all, then, this conference was a crucial and necessary staging-post on the way towards creating a critical mass in and around psy that can effectively resist the flagrant class attacks on poor and disabled people that the current government is perpetrating. The hope was also expressed that these events might become on ongoing forum of support for those working in and around ‘psy and the state’ – so watch this oppositional space! Certainly, as we write some strong post-conference initiatives are already underway. A dozen activist therapy and service user organisations are currently preparing an open letter to the main professional organisations, calling them out on their tacit support for the DWP’s welfare to work policies. A working group will be meeting to develop the Mental Wealth Foundation, an umbrella for radical mental health activism. We are developing groups of support and advocacy for people facing Work Capability Assessments. The working group for the next conference is forming. The day was also filmed, including face-to-face interviews with some key psy ‘movers and shakers’; and a film is currently being made which will soon be available on the Alliance, DPAC and MHRN websites.

And finally, we’d like to offer our heart-felt thanks to Gary, Mandy and Ilona at Wade Hall, Dickens Estate, Parker’s Row, Bermondsey for providing such a great venue for this event, for coping so wonderfully with the mushrooming number of attendees and for the wonderfully generous catering.

And once more to Paul Atkinson and Roy Bard for the tremendous work they put into organising this stunningly successful event.


See part three of our conference report here.

Go back to part one here.