We held a question and answer discussion about SCoPEd on our BACP Members’ Community Facebook Group. Fiona Ballantine-Dykes, who is chair of the project’s technical group, responded to a range of questions from our members about the project.

Below are Fiona’s answers to the questions asked during the 60-minute online chat, including her responses to questions that there wasn’t time to answer on the day and to ones that were sent to us in advance.

We’ve grouped them into several themes, including ‘how will this affect me’; ‘the position on counselling and psychotherapy’; and ‘entry points’.

Thank you to everyone who took part and submitted questions. We really value your involvement. We’ll be continuing to engage with members about the project and will keep you updated on these opportunities. 

Theme 1 – How will this affect me?

What reassurances can you give to those counsellors qualified to diploma level who are left feeling unsettled that the result of this process might restrict their chances of getting client work or worse still force them out of the industry?

Asked anonymously 

FBD: We hope this project could actually enhance the opportunities for counsellors, who are qualified at diploma level, to get work.

SCoPEd sets out competences, skills and knowledge of those at entry level 1 for the first time. If members decide we should take this forward we believe it would put us in a better position to promote the skills of members. This is about finding work for all our members. We want to recognise the value that people bring at each level. Other cognate professions have raised the entry level to level 6 – we’re doing the opposite because we know the incredible value that counsellors and psychotherapists bring at every level of entry to the career. 

I would like to know, how does the SCoPEd team see humanistic/person-centred therapists fitting into the proposed competency framework (ie hierarchical framework), particularly when certain elements of that framework include aspects which are rejected by those modalities?

From Peter Blundell

FBD: It’s intended that the framework will be inclusive and will represent humanistic, person-centred therapy at all three levels. We understand that the language has been a problem and we will be looking to recruit two new members to the expert reference group (ERG) to help us address this.

What are going to be the implications and outcomes of the framework on BACP registered members who are currently in private practice - specifically those who aren’t or don’t want to be accredited?

Asked anonymously

FBD: The framework doesn’t look specifically at private practice – this isn’t something that showed up in the evidence. There’s no implication that anyone would need to be accredited to work in private practice.

How will this affect new people into the profession and established counsellors who are accredited, thanks - will the level of qualification change for counsellors?

Asked anonymously

FBD: We understand that it is frustrating and unsettling to not have answers for specific member queries. However, this phase of the project is purely about mapping, not implementation. Therefore, we know this research phase will not have an impact on current members in any way other than to start to add some clarity to the entry level of the profession for employers, the public, and clients etc.

However, if the project, with the support of the memberships, were to lead into another phase, that looked at implementing something more, we would work with members in this process.

As a soon-to-be person centred counsellor I would like to know how this affects my prospects? After investing nearly £40,000 in loss of earnings and training costs, it’s concerning and feels unjust at present.

From Rochelle Newington

FBD: The framework is intended to represent the skills and knowledge of all members regardless of their theoretical orientation at entry level.  We know we have still got problems with language, but the principle is of an inclusive framework, not one that disadvantages any approach. This is why we are inviting new members to the ERG.

If the framework were to be adopted, we hope it will have a really positive impact, as it will increase the accessibility to our professions. This is one of the most crucial intentions of SCoPEd. The three organisations united in 2017 with the goal of providing clarity for the profession and the public.

How do play and creative arts therapists currently registered with BACP fit into the new SCoPEd framework? Play and creative arts therapy follows a psychotherapeutic approach and we are simply known as therapists. It takes four years part time to qualify to MA level.

Asked anonymously

FBD: Thank you for this question. It’s one we haven’t been asked before.  The title ‘therapist’ would not be the defining issue as titles are more about tradition and usage than competence.  It would be a question of seeing where your training and practice standards sits within the framework.

I have a level 5 foundation degree, that includes level 5 diploma, have worked for five years, and worked in acute mental health settings. The new framework suggests that I am not suitable to do the work I do.

Asked anonymously

FBD: We recognise that as experienced counsellors and psychotherapists that this exercise may cause uncertainty or even anxiety. The framework is mapping ‘entry level’, therefore, we recognise that all our members' ongoing training and experience will not be accounted for within the current framework, due to the mapping only evidencing the three entry points upon completion of core training.

The vision is that the shared framework would apply to all those entering training in the future into the professions and seeking registration with any of the three bodies.

There are no pre-conceived ideas about how the mapping of the framework affects current membership and there will be further consultation and engagement as this work continues.

Hi Fiona, can you expand on how you feel the changes will benefit someone in private practice qualified to diploma level please?

Asked anonymously

FBD: The framework doesn’t look specifically at private practice – this isn’t something that showed up in the evidence. However, in terms of benefits to private practitioners, the aim is to educate the public about the minimum level of training and competence to expect from a counsellor and psychotherapist. In an unregulated environment, the intention is to help the public (i.e clients) to know the difference between the high levels of competence and training of a BACP member, in comparison to someone who has undertaken less than the minimal standards of training. The draft framework shows evidence of entry point from level 4 diploma onwards.

Can I ask where I find the information on each proposed tier? I’m unaccredited and been in private practice two years as a counsellor and animal assisted therapist. Where would I fit in the tier levels?

Asked anonymously

FBD: Here's the information about the SCoPEd project.

This phase of the project is purely about mapping, not implementation. Therefore, we know this research phase will not have an impact on current members in any way other than to start to add some clarity to the entry level of the profession for employers, the public, and clients etc.

However, if the project, with the support of the memberships, were to lead into another phase, that looked at something more we would work with members in this process.

I've noticed a lot of questions about how ScoPEd will impact current members. What we have presented is the mapping of current training and practice standards as they currently exist. We can't, at this point, talk about the impact of adopting such a framework on current members because we are still consulting with you. What we do know is there are different entry points and we have to find a way to talk about this to represent all our members and fight for opportunities for them.

This is part of a long engagement process and we will continue to speak to you about the project, ask for your views and answer any questions you may have. 

Theme 2 – Change of position on counselling and psychotherapy

Regarding the SCoPEd project, it would seem to me the ‘elephant in the room’ is in the definition of counselling and psychotherapy. As the BACP currently adopts the same definition for both terms, how are the BACP intending to address and/or implement this change/any changes?

From Lee Bradbury

FBD: There will continue to be overlap between counselling and psychotherapy. However, the evidence we have found so far shows that people enter the professions at three entry points.

We believe the descriptors for each entry point need revisiting, these were not intended to be titles and we want to look to you, our members, for help with better descriptions for the entry levels.

One option may be to have a senior/advanced counselling title for the third entry point currently described in the consultation as ‘psychotherapy’? We’d be interested in your views of what the titles for entry points might be.

Why has the BACP changed their position in regards to the delineation between counselling and psychotherapy? (an unanswered challenge originally offered by NCS I believe).

From Sam Driscoll

FBD: BACP has always argued that there is no difference between counselling and psychotherapy in the world of different areas of practice, contexts and levels of experience; this will continue to be so.  However, there is clear evidence in the competence framework that there are different entry points to the profession in terms of competences and practice standards. 

There was a lot of debate in 2009 about the difference between competences at entry point and the practice of individual therapists over time. Whilst the Professional Liaison Group (PLG) was constantly reminded that the work was meant to be about entry level, the debates, including BACP’s own at the time, were always about practice - where there will continue to be overlap.

The objective of SCoPEd was to look at what was there to see if we could map what the evidence showed.  This more inclusive evidence-based approach is one reason why the debate has progressed from the areas identified during the 2009 PLG discussions.

BACP faces a difficult choice. We could continue to argue that there is no difference, even though the mapping so far shows clear evidence of differences at entry point. Or we could try to articulate these differences in ways which value all our members and the important contributions that they all make to helping clients and changing their lives.

The entry levels are not saying that one therapist is more important than another, but simply different therapists have different training experiences and expertise at the start of their career; this is no different to any other professional group.

Why has counselling been symbolised as 'less than' in comparison to psychotherapy, what about the dodo bird verdict?

From Sam Driscoll

FBD: The Dodo Bird verdict said the theoretical approach was not significant and didn’t particularly look at the difference between counselling and psychotherapy. I think I've answered the rest of this in a previous response.  Let me know if you feel I've missed anything. Here is the previous response:

There will continue to be overlap between counselling and psychotherapy. However, the evidence we have found so far shows that people enter the professions at three entry points.

We believe the descriptors for each entry point need revisiting, these were not intended to be titles and we want to look to you, our members, for help with better descriptions for the entry levels.

One option may be to have a senior/advanced counselling title for the third entry point currently described in the consultation as ‘psychotherapy’? We’d be interested in your views of what the titles for entry points might be.

The mapping shows that there are no psychotherapy trainings at level four, which is what led to the descriptors. We’re not trying to divide counselling and psychotherapy, this research project was to look at what the evidence showed about entry points to the professions.

I am concerned about the difference you have created between the terms counsellor and psychotherapist - with psychotherapist being at the top of a hierarchical structure. I want to ask if it is the intention of the BACP to differentiate, and if so why, and on what basis are you making this decision which is a complete change in policy from the previous membership agreed statement that there is no difference between counselling and psychotherapy?

From Ani De La Prida

FBD: Hi Ani. Thank you for your question. SCoPEd hasn't created differentiation. The evidence we have found so far has shown there are different entry points. Somewhere along the line it would be helpful to have agreed terminology for these entry points. We are committed to continuing to consult with our members on this.

Why are ‘counselling’ and ‘psychotherapy’ being separated when BACP’s previous stance stated there was no difference, and the Dodo bird verdict shows the importance of the therapeutic relationship rather than the modality?

From Victoria FD

FBD: Thanks for your question. It’s very similar to the ones asked previously, so you can see the answer I have given here:

The Dodo Bird verdict said the approach was not significant and didn’t particularly look at the difference between counselling and psychotherapy.

There will continue to be overlap between counselling and psychotherapy. However, the evidence we have found so far shows that people enter the professions at three entry points.

We believe the descriptors for each entry point need revisiting, these were not intended to be titles and we want to look to you, our members, for help with better descriptions for the entry levels.

One option may be to have a senior/advanced counselling title for the third entry point currently described in the consultation as ‘psychotherapy’? We’d be interested in your views of what the titles for entry points might be.

The mapping shows that there are no psychotherapy trainings at level four, which is what led to the descriptors. We’re not trying to divide counselling and psychotherapy, this research project was to look at what the evidence showed about entry points to the professions. 

It feels very like I’m being pushed towards the expense of becoming accredited which I’d prefer not to do. I believed the BACP’s former position and wonder what has changed?

From Carole Howells

FBD: BACP recognises that individual accreditation is a choice. If the framework were to be adopted, we will consult on any developments regarding implementation. However, it is not the intention of the framework to ‘impose’ individual accreditation.

I think our responses to the questions above cover the main points in answer to your question about our position.

Some people posting above have asked for BACP to outline how they feel 'counselling' and 'psychotherapy' are different. No concrete answer has been forthcoming. From reading through the framework it would appear that the ScoPEd team thinks 'counsellor' equals uneducated simpleton while 'psychotherapist' equals someone who is intelligent.

From Gary McK

FBD: Thank you for your question. The project could enable the collaboration to promote the very high level of expertise of all our combined 60,000 practitioners, a wholly under-utilised workforce within a profession that is too often misunderstood or ignored by policymakers.

I think our answers above should also help answer your question. 

Theme 3 – entry points

Currently, BACP accredited counselling courses are asking students to demonstrate competencies to qualify that exceed those of 'Qualified Counsellor' yet no courses currently meet the criteria for 'Advanced Counsellor', most notably client hours. How does this fit within the publicised message that the framework is merely a representation of the current entry points into the profession and not a hierarchy?

From Ashleigh Dunford-Bishop

Can you advise which courses offer level 2? Because this appears to relate to accreditation rather than an entry point.

From Peter Blundell

FBD: I believe my response here will cover both of these questions. But this is difficult to answer without making assumptions about implementation which is not yet where we are.  However, the mapping has shown, that there is ‘equivalence’ between accredited counsellor and psychotherapeutic counsellor, once the practice hours have been achieved and we would expect this equivalence to be reflected in any future plans.

Why is the focus on creating a hierarchy in the counselling/psychotherapy profession which will only apply to three voluntary bodies, and not focusing on getting regulation and protected titles? Isn’t this arbitrary labelling meaningless?

From Victoria FD

FBD:  At a strategic level, the three professional bodies agreed to collaborate and take a leading role in agreeing standards within the counselling and psychotherapy professions because of the critical importance of being able represent our workforce of 60,000 practitioners. This is a ground-breaking first step, and it is hoped that the wide range of other professional bodies will find the SCoPEd competence framework useful as a reference point for their standards and training.

It is not within the remit of BACP to seek statutory regulation, but by collaborating with our partners in this way, and conducting this mapping exercise, we are in a strong position to respond and influence statutory regulation should it arise.

What would make the third tier senior? Depending on mode seniority cannot then be achieved could it?

Asked anonymously

FBD: Thanks for this question. I hope it will be helpful to know that we recognise from your feedback that some modalities feel their practice is not represented at the highest level.  We are addressing this in several ways, including widening the ERG to new members to capture more voices on this issue.

What about level 7 counsellors who are at qualified level due to lack of accreditation? It seemed to put them "down" to entry level one in this case does it not?

Asked anonymously

FBD: There have been quite a few questions about accreditation. There is no intention to impose either individual or course accreditation on anyone or any training course. 

How does critically appraising published research make a more advanced helper? Also how are accredited members suddenly imbued with this competency?

Asked anonymously

FBD: The framework captures competences and practice standards; but the level at which the qualification is delivered also has an impact on the academic expectations of the associated level of learning.  Your question is important as it indicates that being able to critically appraise published research would be an expectation of training delivered at a higher level alongside more advanced practice requirements. This is where the framework might help shape the training of the future.

Question from the same person in response to previous answer:

Thank you. My point is it is saying accredited members can do things that accreditation does not measure. This is in part why it is not reflective of the current state of play.

It is as if accreditation is hitching a ride on the UKCP "entry point" and that is not accurate?

FBD: Thank you for this question. The competences and practice standards required for accreditation are more closely aligned with those of the UKCP psychotherapeutic counsellor [second entry point] than either the first entry point or the third. 

Theme 4 – Competence specific questions

What does "unconscious processes" mean to you? I ask this as it is in a neat tick box. I am not sure this is a tick boxable thing..seems absurd..what do you mean?

Asked anonymously

FBD: We recognise that we haven’t quite got the language right and we identified this within the draft framework itself, when it was published. This is an area that is being re-visited by the ERG. In addition, we are recruiting additional ERG members to help with this task, and we are particularly welcoming volunteers from the person-centred, humanistic and/or systemic communities.

While every attempt has been made to avoid describing competences within the framework in modality-specific language, there are certain psychotherapeutic terms which are associated with a particular modality, specifically, ‘conscious or unconscious’, ‘transference or countertransference’, ‘therapeutic relationship’, etc. This created difficulties in standardising the competence descriptors. Therefore, for the purposes of this draft, the Expert Reference Group (ERG) reached a decision not to standardise the language and instead to use language which concisely described the phenomena, for instance ‘unconscious’ could refer to ‘non-conscious’, and ‘transference or countertransference’ could be described as the ‘the client or patient’s internal experience of the therapist, and with one’s own experience in response’. Where terminology has been used that could be interpreted as being modality-specific, this is not the intention. 

How is it possible to work privately if you cannot assess client suitability or evaluate own work within an ethical framework?

Asked anonymously

FBD: Thank you for your question. The mapping is only evidencing the competences at the point of completion of core training. 

Do you think then that insurers will want to insure unaccredited counsellors for private practice, when SCoPEd declares them incapable of independently assessing somebody's suitability for counselling or independently making ethical decisions?

From Erin Stevens

FBD: We would expect any reputable insurance company to insure all our members regardless of what category they are in as is currently the case.  Issues of when someone is ready for private practice is an individual decision which the framework does not attempt to describe.

Hi Fiona. 4.2.b. of ScoPEd states that only a psychotherapist would possess an ‘ability to critically appraise the history of psychological ideas, the cultural context, and relevant social and political theories to inform and evaluate on-going practice.’

Does BACP really believe that a ‘qualified counsellor’ or ‘advanced counsellor’ would be unable to fulfil the requirements of 4.2.b? I’m thinking BACP must think anyone below ‘psychotherapist’ must be very stupid. What about those of us with degrees in political science, sociology or economics? What about those of us who work with trauma in post-conflict Northern Ireland, where the nuances of political history, ideology and identity are enmeshed with an individual’s sense of self? I must admit I nearly choked with disbelief at the extremely patronising 4.2.b statement.

From Gary McK

FBD: Thank you for your feedback, we will be looking at responses to particular criteria along with the relevant evidence in the second stage of the project.  Your point has been noted.  If you feel something has been missed in training standards please let us know.

Theme 5 – other questions

The BACP said they would present a "multifaceted debate" on SCoPEd, presenting all the relevant viewpoints in May's Therapy Today. The article allocated 1547 words to people broadly in favour, and 418 words to those against. A further 748 words were allocated to the BACP to respond. The title of the piece was "A Challenging Step... A Necessary Journey" and all the bold quotes were in favour of SCoPEd. How does the BACP justify presenting the debate in such a skewed manner, and do they believe that their membership will not see, or have concerns this disparity? 

From Erin Stevens

FBD: We’ve received a lot of positive feedback about the article, which many members felt helped to show the different angles of the debate. Many of the views portrayed were quite nuanced – being neither fully pro or fully against the project. Is there a particular argument you felt was not represented? If so, please tell us because we’d like to be able to talk about all our members’ views of the work.

Is it ethical to base policy-change on research which has been shown to have an unaccounted-for bias in the methodology selection? Given that the research has been shown to lack rigour, how does the BACP establish that it is fit for purpose?

From Erin Stevens

FBD: Thank you for your question. This work is a research project, and we want to work with members to see what happens next. SCoPEd did not use the Roth and Pilling Methodology alone, we used an adapted methodology – you can see this on the website, if we’ve missed anything please tell us. We believed this was best suited to capturing existing competencies. However, as the Expert Reference Group (ERG) reconvenes, they, alongside the other people working on the project, are addressing the question of gaps and omissions in the evidence. One of the key aspects of consultation was to help the ERG to identify literature and sources of evidence that may have been missed.

Fiona, I note you are the former head of qualifications at CPCAB and have co-authored a CPCAB book. SCoPEd appears to support the CPCAB qualification model, with a two-tier level of entry for counsellors, and “psychotherapeutic counsellor” – a CPCAB upper-tier qualification, is listed under “advanced counsellor”.

Were all potential conflicts of interest declared at the inception of the ERG and technical group, and is the BACP willing to publish the documentation which shows that conflicts of interest were properly declared at the time in line with charity commission regulations?

From Erin Stevens

FBD: Hi Erin. Good to hear from you again.

Everyone has different backgrounds and experience when they come into a role. Experience of the wider training landscape was one factor in being eligible to apply for my role.

I was indeed head of qualifications at CPCAB and have taught counselling in further education context for many years.

This experience is useful for the job but I don’t see that it is a conflict of interest. With the SCoPEd project we mapped what is out there – CPCAB referenced alongside ABC and AIM Awards.

The framework does not fully support the CPCAB model which distinguishes between level 4 (agency work) and level 5 (private practice) for example. The framework does not make this distinction.

This is a slightly puzzling question, nobody from CPCAB is on the ERG. If you think there is a conflict of interest please let me know.

Charity commission defines a conflict of interest like this: "a conflict of interest is any situation in which a trustee's personal interests or loyalties could, or could be seen to, prevent them from making a decision only in the best interests of the charity." 'could be seen to' is operative here. Many people have made this connection and charity commission states it is the trustee's responsibility (and also the organisation) to foresee this.

Do I infer from your answer that no such declarations were made? Did UKCP or BPC declare their conflicts of interest given that the framework enshrines their qualifications as superior?

From Erin Stevens

FBD: Members of staff are not trustees and are therefore not subject to making declarations to the Charities Commission. However, all members of both the Tech Group and ERG were completely transparent about their affiliations.  Re your second point – all available practice and training standards were included.

SCoPEd proffers that qualified counsellors can not make independent ethical decisions or independently assess a client's suitability for counselling. If I were an insurer reading that, I would not be insuring qualified counsellors for private practice.

FBD: I think I've answered your question about insurers above, but just to reiterate my answer. We would expect any reputable insurance company to insure all our members regardless of what category they are in as is currently the case. Issues of when someone is ready for private practice is an individual decision which the framework does not attempt to describe.

How does the BACP respond to the observation that SCoPEd suits the financial aims of some of its commissioners, notably placing UKCP and BPC trainings at the higher end of the competency continuum? Is it justifiable to place counsellors, including those graduating from BACP accredited courses at the bottom end of the competency continuum, particularly in light of the article by Dr David Murphy, which demonstrates, using an evidence base, that competencies asserted in SCoPEd can be disproved (focusing on the example of competency 3.10 - ruptures). 

From Erin Stevens

FBD: Our aim with SCoPEd would be for it to have a positive financial benefit on our members by increasing opportunities for employment.

We value all of our members, and if this framework is adopted BACP accredited courses would have the opportunity to demonstrate they meet the second entry point.  Some BACP members would also meet the third level entry point and practice standards – it may be the issue of title that is causing the difficulty.  One possibility might be to have a counselling title for the third entry point?

The article you are referencing looks at client outcomes during practice over time, not competences acquired at the point of completing training and entering the profession – which is what this project does. SCoPEd was never designed to look at evidence based on client outcomes. We do not have this kind evidence at the moment, that is what makes lobbying with NICE’s depression guidelines so tricky. This work captures training and practice standards of therapists at entry point, not what they will go on to do in their practice.

Why does BACP (and, I think, the other partners) keep saying there's been a good response rate when actually the rate of response was quite low across the total membership of 60k? It's this kind of thing which undermines confidence in the work, unfortunately. I regularly come across people (it was just the same when I was in another line of work) who don't engage with their professional body and don't read emails/read journals. Not a mindset I understand but it needs recognising that it's very common so numerous members will still be unaware of what's going on.

From Roslyn Byfield

FBD: Hi Roslyn, Thank you for your question. The research company that conducted the consultation for us told us that the response rate was a lot higher than would normally be expected for a consultation of this kind. However, we, like you, want as many members as possible to give feedback on this work. This is why we are, and will continue, to engage with members in as many ways as possible over the next few months about different aspect of the SCoPEd work.

Can you please tell us exactly which are the ways you will undertake this task?

Asked anonymously

FBD: We're planning a lot of member engagement over the next few months. This will include online chats, videos, presentations, email bulletins, focus groups and much more. We will keep all of our members in the loop as this progresses.

The online response gave a very small indication of members' opinion. How are you going to reach all BACP members to gather more accurate data?

Asked anonymously

FBD: Thank you for your question. We are working hard to ensure that all of our members are kept informed about this project and have the chance to have their say. We were told the initial consultation response rate was high. However, we would like to increase member engagement, and that was very much the initial not the final communication. We will continue to talk to members at every opportunity about this work – using all of our communications channels from our all-member emails to Therapy Today and social media. 

See also ...