Dr Andrew Reaves
British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
BACP House
15 St John’s Business Park
Lutterworth
Leicestershire
LE17 4HB
1 February 2017
Dear Andrew,
When I started training as a counsellor around eleven years ago, I was proud to join BACP: it was billed as the organisation for counsellors and psychotherapists in the UK. Today I find myself in the sorry position of resigning my membership.
I have had some disquiet about the direction the BACP has been taking for some time. It started with the BACP’s keenness for the government to make the terms ‘counsellor’ and ‘psychotherapist’ protected titles, seemingly without regard to the substantial number of members in opposition to that proposal.
When the government opted to create Accredited Voluntary Registers, the BACP responded by changing the criteria for membership to mandate all members to be on the register. In doing so, it removed a key element of the register: it was no longer voluntary in any meaningful sense. I felt that the BACP was looking to introduce mandatory registration by the back door.
I was dismayed when the BACP started to publish details of complaints on their website. I would not have minded too much if the published details only included upheld complaints, but they don’t. All the details are posted, even the parts of complaints that are not upheld. This feels totally unfair and so contrary to the principle of justice. It is so different to the standard applied elsewhere. If I commit a crime, the details of my crime are not published on the internet, and certainly not any crimes I may be accused of, without being found guilty. Yet the BACP feels it’s appropriate to name and shame those it deems to have violated its code, even when the finding is based ‘on the balance of probability’. For me, this practice feels very much like public flogging and the use of stocks; a practice civilised society left behind a long time ago.
Despite my completing a recognised counselling qualification, the BACP, in its wisdom, decided that this was not enough. To go on your register, I had to submit myself to your proficiency test. A test, seemingly, validated by no external body.
You encourage me to become an accredited member and charge for the privilege of assessment. I don’t object to that too much – someone has to pay for the assessment – but I do object to an increased membership fee for the duration of my membership of the BACP. I fail to see how this can be justified.
More and more, the BACP seems to focus on making money. I joined the Private Practice special interest group and was keen to organise a local meeting for practitioners. I contacted the relevant department and was told that I’d need to charge a £15 attendance fee, all of which goes to BACP, supposedly to make such events sustainable. I acknowledge that expenses can be recovered from the attendance fees, but what of the surplus? How is this used to make local groups sustainable? In the end, I simply created a local peer group and advertised it within my network. We have no costs; we charge no fee. Why does the BACP feel the need to make a profit from local groups, though they give nothing to them?
If I choose to pay for the online CPD activities the BACP offers, I gain time-limited access. Why? There is no additional cost to the BACP to provide lifetime access. I can only assume it’s more profitable for you that people pay more than once if they want continued access.
When I joined, the BACP used to offer free classified adverts to members. This benefit was removed some time ago. You now charge a commercial rate for members’ advertising; more profiteering.
The final straw was the survey you recently sent out. I have responded at length to all the questions so will not go into specifics here. However, certain core themes ran through my responses, and I do want to state those here.
Firstly, I got a strong sense that the BACP simply doesn’t trust me to act professionally, ethically, competently or even honestly. Instead, you seem to feel the need to have my supervisor take the role of policeman, verifying my supervision hours and reporting any concerns. Further, you appear to consider it appropriate to look to engage mystery shoppers and inspectors to come and inspect my practice, policies and procedures, etc. Such actions might be appropriate if the BACP was a government-appointed body, such as the CQC or OFSTED, but you are not. You are a private company; a members’ organisation. You seem to forget this and act above your station.
Secondly, it seems you are determined to change the role of supervision, bringing in a much stronger ‘policeman’ role. This sort of change was considered as part of the Ethical Framework review and was rejected. However, it seems that, as with compulsory registration, you now seem determined to introduce it by the back door. I cannot and will not accept the model of supervision you seem to be moving toward.
I believe the changes suggested in the recent survey violate your ethical principles. How does mandating certain CPD elements, dictating the number of CPD activities accord with the principle of autonomy? How does requiring supervisors to confirm supervision hours fit with counsellors being trustworthy? Does sending in snoops promote an environment of beneficence or one of doubt and mistrust? Does asking supervisors to ‘report any concerns’ promote an atmosphere of openness, in which a practitioner can explore and learn from any weakness or does it encourage fear, shame and secrecy? How are these helping to maintain the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence? Would a therapist who was fearful of talking about any weaknesses, for fear of being reported, be more or less likely to cause inadvertent harm to a client?
It also seems that many of the suggestions are entirely arbitrary and lack any evidence base. Is there any research to indicate that five CPD activities improve therapeutic outcomes more than any other number? Or that targeting ‘high risk’ practitioners for additional audit checks will improve public safety?
Some aspects of the proposals seem to violate research ethics. How can you assess therapeutic outcomes without doing long-term studies involving real clients, clients who did not consent to be included in such studies when they contracted for counselling?
Some suggestions in the survey run the potential to fall foul of data protection legislation. Two questions spoke of wanting to gain statistical information without specifying the purpose for which that information will be used; this feels unethical, at the very least, and maybe illegal.
While I appreciate that the backlash from the survey has led you to publish an apology, I don’t feel your apology addresses any of the above issues.
All in all, I do not feel that the BACP, in its current incarnation, is an organisation with which I want to be associated. I sincerely hope, but frankly doubt, that you (as an organisation), will head my comments, and those of others made elsewhere, and reconsider the direction you are taking.
I, therefore, tender my resignation forthwith.
