A critical examination of the SCoPEd iteration July 2020
The SCoPEd framework concerning the counselling and psychotherapy profession can be found here: https://www.bacp.co.uk/about-us/advancing-the-profession/scoped/scoped-framework/
I examine the latest SCoPED iteration, the second published in July 2020.
A mental health familiarisation is required for column B therapists. This is clearly subjected and undefined. Personal therapy is not mandatory for column A BACP therapists, not mentioned for BACP column C therapists and yet the requirements at level B exceed those of column C! That is: “BACP: not mandatory but should be consistent with approach and evidence of personal awareness and (or) development needed for individual accreditation”.
Column C therapists will want to know what constitutes a “mental health placement” and “familiarisation”. As with much of the framework how this is evidenced will be of a major concern to practitioners.
Under ‘Theme 1 Professional Framework’ where column B and C refers to “ability”, let’s examine what a typical dictionary definition is here: “possession of the means or skill to do something.” Constantly throughout the framework we find ourselves going back to how everything is evidenced (with the exception of clearly defined say academic attainment levels). Arguably the framework does not ask for evidence that the ability has been enacted. Arguably the entry point provides much if not all of the “ability”, which then renders themes 1 and 2 automatically acquired. The term “be able to” (which also features) I equate with the same value as “ability”.
1.12.c. states “Ability to take an active role within the professional community locally and nationally. Be able to communicate effectively with other professionals in imparting information, advice, instruction and professional opinion.” I am interested to know what practitioners think about providing advice and instruction to other professionals and how the very deed conflicts with that ‘other professional’ upholding the framework!
A column C therapists (2.1.b) is asked to have the “Ability to conceptualise and (or) formulate ways of working with clients or patients with chronic and enduring mental health conditions” yet there is no explanation of the subjectivity of what a chronic and enduring mental health condition is. Once again we find more ambiguity in “2.2.a. Ability to recognise more significant mental health symptoms and difficulties, and know when and how to refer on.” The significant remark here I suggest is “more”. It’s quite likely criteria “2.4.a. Ability to critically appraise and conceptualise a range of symptoms of psychological distress, functioning and coping styles (with due understanding of cultural norms), during assessment and throughout therapy” will be met through entry point of academic experience, although I am not sure what the distinction between “during assessment” and “throughout therapy” is all about. How can a practitioner fail to meet the second part if the initial “during assessment” part is met?
Criteria 2.7.a. requires a column B therapist to have the “Ability to devise and use a comprehensive risk assessment strategy.” I argue this is misplaced in the framework, in that surely all practitioners need to be assessing risk as an ongoing practice throughout the therapeutic work.
Moving on to ‘Theme 3 The relationship’ “3.6.a. Ability to work with issues of power and authority experienced in the ‘unconscious’ or ‘out of awareness’ processes of the client or patient as part of the therapeutic process” does not address very well the language of all modalities. Why highlight what for example appears to align with a gestalt goal of bringing into conscious awareness what may otherwise remain unconscious or out of awareness? 3.12.b reserved for column C therapists also refers to ‘unconscious’ and ‘out of awareness’. Despite appendix 1 attempts to redress – the framework fails to acknowledge different philosophies and modalities and the language is not inclusive and is too diagnostic and aligned with the medical model, which in turn moves away from the theoretical approaches underpinning practitioners in this framework.
Gateways representing post-qualifying training and experience and how these can be attained, maintained and evidenced is a major omission. When referring to appendix 1, point 6 (practice standards) reference to finding common ground between the three participating bodies is unequivocal evidence that the National Counselling Society, the Association of Christian counsellors (ACC) and Human Givens Institute are by-standers in this framework. It therefore progresses far from the all-inclusive joined up approach BACP, UKCP and BPC would like you to believe.
In respect of Appendix 1, point 7, gaps, I will leave the ACC to comment on “culture and worldview” as they brought up how religion was initially ‘hidden’ within culture. Furthermore in gaps the framework iteration says it has separated ‘suicide’ and ‘self-harm’ yet at each entry point on the framework where ‘suicide’ appears, so does ‘self-harm’.
When column B therapists consider “the potential issues arising when ending therapy in the light of the client’s or patient’s previous experience”, will practitioners need a crystal ball?
Now moving on to theme 4, knowledge and skills, criteria’s 4.2.a and 4.2.b as with 2.4.a. (see above) will most likely be met through academic entry. Criteria 4.3.a. “Ability to work with suicidal risk and (or) other self-harming behaviours and associated ‘unconscious’, or ‘out-of-awareness’” processes and perceptions, including the conflictual and paradoxical nature of suicidal ideation” seems ridiculous to restrict to only the aforementioned theoretical constructs. However, we need to remember all the criteria under column A must be applied under column B (and C) so this tends to mitigate the restricted and select theoretical constructs. Nevertheless, given the wide range of theoretical constructs across all modalities, why reference any of these?
I invite a pure classical person-centred counsellor in how to respond to 4.6.a “Ability to demonstrate the capacity, knowledge and understanding of how to select or modify approaches to respond appropriately to the needs of the client or patient”. Point 4.12.a. “Ability to critically appraise published research on counselling and psychotherapy, and integrate relevant research findings into practice” is a huge task to evidence how this is integrated into practice and along with much of the framework will be a major difficulty for practitioners mostly or wholly working in private practice.
Next I look at theme 5, self-awareness and reflection. If ever there was an example of how the framework fails to support individuality then 5.1.a. (“Ability to be emotionally prepared for intense and complex work, which requires reflexivity, and which is potentially taxing for the therapist”) goes all the way here – what is “taxing” for one practitioner will be less “taxing” for the next and so on. This goes to illustrate how flawed the concepts within the framework are. You cannot enforce homogeneity upon the diverse richness of the profession. Point 5.5.a. (“Ability to review and evaluate supervision arrangements and take responsibility for adapting supervision to the evolving and changing requirements of ongoing practice”) seems rather odd to be included when supervision per se is excluded from the project, or in the context of 5.5.a is it?
Finally, I look at the appendices and the irregularities within. The expert reference group acknowledges that it doesn’t represent all modalities. Given the low number of experts by experience within the overall SCoPEd project it’s hard to imagine all modalities are represented. Furthermore, to what extent has this taken into account Rogers view that "We must be guided by each client as the expert in what hurts and what heals in order best to facilitate an easing of the pain." (reference ‘Client Issues in Counselling and Psychotherapy’).