Tag Archives: UKCP

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.

Andrew Samuels on Jobcentre Therapy and the Psy-Organisations

Letter submitted to Therapy Today (the BACP journal) but not published.


I’d like to respond to Catherine Jackson’s interesting article Colocation or collusion? How ethical are the Government’s proposals for closer working between IAPT services and Jobcentre Plus?’ (Therapy Today, April 2016, pp.8-9).

Catherine’s title suggests that the issue is generating heat and, at the end of this letter, I make a suggestion for a dialogical, relational next step.

What Catherine wrote illustrates the usual dilemma that the large professional organisations find themselves in with regard to Government policies – in this case, the many linkages between employment on the one hand and psychological therapies on the other. If bodies such as BACP, UKCP, BPC, BPS and BABCP are too robust in their criticism of Government policies, they will be labelled as ‘the awkward squad’ and ‘the usual suspects’. Doors in Whitehall close, requests for meetings go unanswered or evaded. That doesn’t serve the interests of the members. But what if they are too compliant, too accepting and even collusive with Government policy? What if the Big Five (as I call them) have inadvertently fallen into a role as being one of passing on reassurance to their memberships about the reassurance they themselves have received from the Department of Work and Pensions? That isn’t what members expect either.

I suspect that getting this particular balance right matters a lot to BACP members – it certainly did at the UKCP when I was Chair and the conundrum continues to be frequently discussed there. It is a really difficult balance to achieve. Be that as it may, Catherine’s article describes a significant new development in the field, in which 17 separate organisations have united to make the claim that the Big Five professional bodies referred to may need to do more to bring to the attention of their members what the overall thrust is of the linkages being made at many levels between employment and ‘mental health’. These 17 organisations include service user/survivor groups working alongside organised groups of professional counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists, social workers, mental health nurses and academics. In all my 44 years as a therapist involved with public issues, I cannot remember anything like this happening before. It’s really important that BACP, in particular, with its deserved reputation for being the most outward-oriented of all the big professional bodies, clocks the significance of what has happened; I hope that the recognition of the importance of user-professional co-operation is not being too slow to arise. (See Note 1, below, for a roll call of the organisations concerned; the names tell their own story.)

In the public correspondence between the Big Five and the 17 organisations challenging them, there seems to be one point of agreement – at least in the abstract, at the level of principle. This is that therapy which has employment as a specific goal stated in advance is questionable from clinical and ethical standpoints. This is what the memberships of the Big Five believe, I think, and hence it is what they expect their leaderships to support.

But there is an increasing amount of ‘therapy-for-work’ being offered in Britain today and the Big Five know about it. Not least, their websites carry adverts whose job descriptions make it clear that the client’s employment is to be the clinical goal of the therapist that will be appointed. To be clear: the main issue here is not that our organisations carry the adverts. The thing is, now it has been pointed out, it is a little problematic to go on saying that this is not happening on the ground. The evidence is very close to hand. Or, to give a further and more general example, the New Savoy Conference, of which four of the Big Five are members, has been explicit that the stated clinical goal of psychological therapy should be employment. IAPTs, too, follow the same line, as Catherine mentions.

Counsellors and psychotherapists, who bring psychological perspectives to bar on public affairs, will understand that the proposals to locate ‘therapy’ in job centres will have (and has already had) a profound emotional impact. Counsellors and psychotherapists all know that the line between ‘suggestion’ and ‘compulsion’ is a very difficult one to demarcate. Vulnerable people can and often do say ‘No’ to what they believe will damage them, no matter how well intended. But, as therapists, shouldn’t we be concerned at what a false compliance does to the emotional state of an individual going through a difficult time?

Returning to the suggestion I flagged up in my opening paragraph, how about BACP convening a Stakeholders’ Meeting at which these matters can be more deeply explored. The Big Five plus the 17 smaller organisations would be at the core of such a gathering. Whether the Department of Work and Pensions would attend is something to discuss.

Andrew Samuels

Professor of Analytical Psychology, University of Essex; former Chair, United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy


Note 1

The organisations referred to are: 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

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

MWF Letter To Therapy Organisations – Jobcentre Therapy & Psychocompulsion


Mental Wealth Foundation (MWF) is a broad, inclusive coalition of professional, grassroots, academic and survivor campaigns and movements. We bear collective witness and support collective action in response to the destructive impact of the new paradigm in health, social care, welfare and employment. We oppose the individualisation and medicalisation of the social, political and material causes of hardship and distress, which are increasing as a result of austerity cuts to services and welfare and the unjust shift of responsibility onto people on low incomes and welfare benefits. Our recent conference focused on Welfare Reforms and Mental Health, Resisting the Impact of Sanctions, Assessments and Psychological Coercion.


21 March 2016

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; Social Work Action Network (Mental Health Charter); National Unemployed Workers Combine; Merseyside County Association of Trades Union Councils; Scottish Unemployed Workers’ Network; Critical Mental Health Nurses’ 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 centresplans

We write in response to your joint public statement of 7 March 2016 outlining the outcome of your meetings with the Government’s new Joint Health and Work Unit and your scrutiny of the Government’s plans to place therapists in job centres [1].

There is no indication that any consultation has taken place with members of your organisations with knowledge of these matters nor with service users, clients and their representative organisations. This lack of consultation and opportunity for wider reflection has contributed to your organisations departing from your own ethical structures and frameworks, and being seen as agents of harmful government policy [2]. It is by now generally accepted that the consequences of the DWP and government policy in this area are far reaching for physically and mentally disabled people on social security benefits. Inexplicably your organisations’ scrutiny of government plans has failed to recognise this.

“It is wrong for therapy organisations to buy into the unthinking praise for ‘work’…”

The joining of Government Health and Work Departments is not helpful, and current DWP policy intended to reduce the socio-economic causes of mental illness to the one simple fact of unemployment is clinically and intellectually ridiculous. The resulting policy promoting work as cure, which your organisations are now supporting, is offensive and dangerous. It is wrong for therapy organisations to buy into the unthinking praise for ‘work’ that often forms part of the rhetoric of governments.

While for some clients improving employment prospects may be an objective, for many others this is not the case and may be profoundly damaging. Indeed, for some people, their mental health problems may have begun because of work e.g. through experiences of bullying in the workplace. This one size fits all approach is simplistic. Premature return to work can result in loss of confidence and relapses affecting future ability to get back to work. This can also lead to prolonged periods without benefits and no income [3].

You state that plans must be aimed at improving mental health and wellbeing rather than as a means of getting people back to work. These are not the aims and objectives being expressed by the people who are implementing the programme right now, involving targeting ‘hard to help’ clients who are likely to be people with enduring physical or mental health difficulties. For example in the Islington pilot project Councillor Richard Watts has stated, “We think there is much more that health services can do to promote the idea of employment for people with health conditions.” In the Islington CCG Commissioners’ report in November calling for employment services in GP surgeries to reach ‘hard to help’ claimants, they state that, “to improve the system we need to…maximise the contribution of all local services to boost employment, making it a priority for health, housing, social care and training. We need to open up how we talk to people about employment, including asking healthcare professionals to have conversations about work with patients, as part of their recovery. We need to give professionals the information and tools to help them to do this.” [4]. For all clients, establishing a trusting relationship is the first priority, involving respecting their current needs, perspectives and autonomy.

“We fail to share your reassurance from the government that these punitive measures will not be pursued against clients”

Jobs advertised on the BACP website in November 2015 have the explicit aim of getting clients back to work and engaging with employment services e.g. “your role will include: producing tailored health action plans for each client, focusing on improving their health and moving them closer to work…generate health and wellbeing referrals to ensure continued engagement with employment advisers” [5]. Similarly G4S advertise jobs for BABCP accredited CBT practitioners with job roles including: “Targeted on the level, number and effectiveness of interventions in re-engaging Customers and Customer progression into work” [6].

We respectfully submit that information about these jobs was known to all of your organisations when you issued your joint statement. This inconsistency is seriously misleading.

We are glad that you oppose conditionality, coercion and sanctions. Clearly such punitive measures have no place in the therapeutic relationship. We fail to share your reassurance from the government that these measures will not be pursued against clients. DWP have repeatedly claimed that sanctions are a last resort and only happen in a tiny minority of cases. The reality is that millions of people have been sanctioned. In the twelve months to September 2015 alone, over 350,000 ESA and JSA claimants were sanctioned [7]. In the Employment Support Allowance Work Related Activity Group the majority of sanctions were of people who have been placed in the group specifically because they are experiencing mental health issues and research shows that benefit sanctions on people with mental health problems has increased by 600% [8].

“therapy may not be explicitly linked to conditions/sanctions but will feel so for many of its prospective clients”

It is not possible to consider this issue without considering the context of sanctions, cuts and persecution which is endemic in the current system. You fail to acknowledge that attending this proposed therapy may not be explicitly linked to conditions/sanctions but will feel so for many of its prospective clients who are on benefits. There is a structural power imbalance between job centre employees and those on benefits. With their income under threat, those on benefits will be especially susceptible to cues, suggestibility and positive reinforcement when attending job centres. Many on benefits have experienced oppressive power relations for much of their lives. Saying no in relation to an apparent free choice in this context is hugely difficult, especially when saying no has uncertain consequences [9] .

Attempts to coerce people into work are detrimental not only to their health but to their safety and, in many cases, present a risk to life. The extreme fear and distress caused by the current welfare reforms, including changes in disability benefits and the new Work Capability Assessments, is widely reported including instances that have led to suicide [10]. Therapy alongside this coercive system breaches the ethical principle of non-maleficence.

You state that there must be choice as to location of therapy. There is a clear danger in putting DWP representatives into GP surgeries, community centres and food banks that are seen as safe havens for people on low incomes and benefits. The presence of DWP compromises this. DWP/Maximus workers in the GP surgery, with access to medical records, will serve as a deterrent to people visiting their family doctor. The model currently in use in Islington allows Remploy/Maximus workers to access and write into GP records; this jeopardises any commitment to client privacy and confidentiality [11].

The choice of method of therapy is an illusion and therapists of all modalities are subject to the stresses of an unjust target driven culture [12]. We are concerned that under-qualified and inexperienced staff, such as job centre coaches, will be in a position to make referrals to Health and Work programs. This is exacerbated by the fact that referrals are likely to be to IAPT workers, many of whom themselves lack in-depth training and experience of severe mental health issues. Inappropriate referrals are increasingly likely in a target-driven culture.

“We call on you to cease your engagement with the Government Joint Work and Health Unit and instead hold a national stakeholder event”

We are not reassured that the feasibility trials planned by the government will contribute to knowledge and understanding and are not reassured by your echoing what government is saying. Instead you and government must listen to the voices of survivors who describe the reality of government plans on their lives and are fighting for services with a vision of humanity beyond work [13].

It is clear from your public statement that you have failed to critically examine and scrutinise the ongoing activities of the Government Joint Work and Health Unit. We call on you to cease your engagement with this unit and instead hold a national stakeholder event which is guaranteed to involve the participation of representative organisations for service users and therapists with direct knowledge of the area, as well as professional bodies like yours. There should be no government involvement in such an event. From it, a representative group can be selected that will adequately represent the views of service users and therapists to the appropriate government departments as well as to the opposition.

References

  1. http://www.bacp.co.uk/media/index.php?newsId=3906
  2. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/dr-lynne-friedli-robert-stern/why-we-re-opposed-to-jobs-on-prescription
  3. https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-a3e3-Joblessness-branded-a-mental-illness#.VuKWT4SFDzI
  4. http://www.islingtonccg.nhs.uk/Downloads/CCG/BoardPapers/20151111/4.3%20Health%20and%20Employment%20Programme.pdf
  5. ‘Mental Health Advisor – Job Details’ Retrieved from http://www.bacp.co.uk/jobs/jobs.php November 21st, 2015. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a6p9mod1jb08dne/Mental%20Health%20Advisor%20-%20Job%20Details.docx?dl=0
  6. http://careers.g4s.com/jobs/Cognitive-Behavioural-Therapist_58526/6 crisis
  7. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/jobseekers-allowance-and-employment-and-support-allowance-sanctions-decisions-made-to-september-2015
  8. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/benefit-sanctions-against-people-with-mental-health-problems-up-by-600-per-cent-a6731971.html
  9. For a fuller discussion of these issues, see http://mh.bmj.com/content/41/1/40.full
  10. http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/10/26/jech-2015-206209.full
  11. Para 4.3: http://democracy.islington.gov.uk/documents/s6740/Health%20and%20work%20-%20HWB%20update%20Jan%202016%20final.pdf; http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/home/finance-and-practice-life-news/gps-told-to-inform-patients-dwp-will-obtain-their-fit-note-records/20030820.article. See also http://files-eu.clickdimensions.com/hscicgovuk-amnje/files/emed3dpnlettertogppracticesv1.0.pdf?_cldee=Y29yYWwuam9uZXNAbmhzLm5ldA%3d%3d&urlid=0
  12. http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2016/feb/17/were-not-surprised-half-our-psychologist-colleagues-are-depressed
  13. http://recoveryinthebin.org/2016/03/10/welfare-reforms-and-mental-health-resisting-sanctions-assessments-and-psychological-coercion-by-denise-mckenna-mental-health-resistance-network-mhrn/

Therapy as State Sponsored Brainwashing?

Unpublished letter to The Telegraph by Professor Andrew Samuels, Centre for Psychoanalytic Studies, University of Essex.

‘As Chair of the UK Council for Psychotherapy 2009-12, I very much hope that all the psychotherapy and counselling registering bodies, particularly those held under the accredited voluntary register scheme of the Professional Standards Authority (PSA), will pay heed to what Sarah Wollaston has said (Stripping benefits claimants if they refuse depression treatment is ‘unethical’, The Telegraph, 13 July 2014).

For any registered member to participate in this Government scheme would constitute serious professional misconduct and lead to serious sanctions. The PSA and the registering bodies that it accredits should immediately issue a joint statement to this effect. From Freud’s idea of ‘free association’ to Jung’s concept of ‘individuation’ to Carl Rogers’s idea of ‘person-centred’ therapy, counselling and psychotherapy are practices that rest entirely on the autonomy of both parties being recognised. That is why, in the contemporary lexicon, therapy is referred to as a ‘co-created’ activity. It can never be allowed to become state sponsored brain-washing.’