BACP and the end of Person-Centred Practice.

Since the World Association of person-centred and experiential psychotherapy and counselling (WAPCEPC) conference was held at the University of East Anglia in 2008, I have focused my energies on the development of the person-centred approach in England in the NHS. At that conference, it was announced that for the first time, the government was going to invest in psychological therapies to the tune of  millions of pounds.

At that time, there was no plan to involve counselling and psychotherapy in this funding. ‘Counselling’ was potentially at risk of being wiped off the agenda, CBT was going to be the only show in town, with huge implications for academic institutes and independent training bodies across England. The BACP got themselves into action and using the body of evidence that showed the person-centred approach was the main way their members identified their practice, gathered together an expert reference group and agitated for counselling, in the form of the person-centred approach to become part of the IAPT programme.  Since then various institutes have been involved in offering those employed by IAPT as counsellors , the person-centred experiential cpd  qualification for use in IAPT.

 BACP has changed dramatically since  2008. At one point, this qualification was unknown to the new people who took over the positions previously held by Andy Hill and Helen Coles. Despite numerous emails I sent, I had no response. At the time,  the 2^nd edition of the course handbook had just been published  and were agitating to have the approach named correctly in IAPT- as the term ‘counselling’ had become a meaningless term, and we wanted the name of the approach to reflect the pedagogy it came from. The person-centred approach, a growth approach to change, not burdened or  obscured by short cut pathologies or diagnosis.  Interestingly, I finally had a response when I sent a ‘tweet’ to BACP, and that was the only way BACP began to re-engage with our project. Sadly, it seems the new managers at BACP lost sight of the fact the person-centred approach has a different (but in my view, ‘equal’ stance,) and has sacrificed the non-medical stance to be involved in the medically driven counselling ‘industry’. 

The development of a taxonomy that mirrors the hierarchical approach of mental health services is threatening the entire understanding of the person-centred approach. Employers are demanding their staff are accepted to attend a course before they employ people to their service. Let’s not forget what that implies. Someone who has gone through any person-centred counselling training, which we know takes much commitment, cost and dedication, is not deemed to be ‘qualified’ to be employed, or practice, unless they are accepted to attend an IAPT approved course. The implications of this are really troubling.

 When we started offering our courses at the University of Nottingham in 2013, people could choose to  participate in the training. As the years have passed, it has become mandatory. However, the systems supporting person-centred counsellors are not matching this mandatory expectation. It is  rare for an IAPT service to have person-centred supervision in place. Ways of measuring a client’s experience or growth are  not established in services, and the only tool that is used to evidence a client’s process is based on a form developed by Pfizer to monitor the side effects of pharmacological medication. Despite this, the evidence still showed that counselling was equal to CBT.

Earlier in October 2021, those of us who are offering courses were ‘told’ about a new qualification that is being funded by IAPT which is at MA level. They put the course out for tender- with a deadline of 15 days to apply. Anyone involved in academic work will know any new qualification takes much longer to be approved. This expectation to get an instant response is typical of how so many managers operate in the mental health teams across England. It is matched by an expectation of a ‘quick fix’ approach, monitoring counsellors through outcomes and results and in the meantime missing the humanity , not only of the client, but also of the counsellor.

 What became clear on reading the proposed curriculum, was that it mirrored the  medical approach of IAPT . In the meeting we were basically told how lucky we are that we even got a seat at the ‘table’. I think some ‘tables ‘ represent a diminution of values, ethics, and a threat to pedagogical understanding. BACP was not interested in seeking any input from academic colleagues. We have two Professors in our department at the University- neither have been contacted by the BACP or IAPT to seek their consideration about this new qualification. To me it indicates a disrespect and lack of regard to those who have dedicated their careers to the thinking  behind and implications of this ‘revolutionary paradigm’.

It is time for the person-centred experiential approach to take its own stance, separate to the BACP as it is evident, the values of the approach are for sale. Some will think- ‘we knew that at the beginning’. I guess I held out hope for growth and change. It seems now, that hope is really being crushed, and I wanted to make this known to those sympathetic to my position. It is why I resigned my membership from BACP, and why I am looking forward to retirement.

 I will continue to offer what I can to the people I am delighted to meet who come to our courses, but unless as a group of person-centred practitioners we speak up, the approach will soon be used as a technique to manipulate people rather than be the radical revolutionary approach Rogers, Bozarth, Schmid ,Thorne,  Mearns, O’Hara, Bohart and many others brought to the twentieth century.