SCoPEd and the EDI impact assessment - a review

 Last week saw the announcement from BACP that ‘all partners’ had decided to adopt SCoPEd and would be in touch with members with regard to ‘next steps’. What it will eventually mean is that according to your training you will enter at one of three points A, B or C (originally these columns were called ‘counsellor’ ‘psychotherapeutic counsellor’ ‘psychotherapist’). Jobs will likely be stratified according to at least the competencies listed in the columns, if not clearly by the columns themselves.

Elsewhere you can read views that SCoPEd is divisive and discriminatory, and we’d like to concentrate here on both the EDI assessment itself, and the impact on LGBTQIA+ practitioners and trainees as we move forward.

We will use the term ‘therapist’ here to cover anything that we would consider either ‘counselling’ or ‘psychotherapy’ in that whatever you call it, we are all aiming to be of some kind of therapeutic benefit when working with our clients.

Your TL;DR is: Without Membership Body (MB) data, we do not know if those in ‘protected characteristics’ will be discriminated against, and there is no MB data (and currently no suggestion that this will change). Without the ability to move between (up through) columns post-training, it is likely to impact those with less ability to pay for a longer/more expensive training. There is no ability to move between columns. Six therapists were consulted, none who were trans (because the people carrying out the consultation didn’t look hard enough), and there is no discussion of what the qualifications of those consulted are, to talk about ‘EDI’. Despite there being very little actual EDI work in this EDI impact assessment, and the results suggesting that there will be at least some impact on those more marginalised, the EDI assessment suggests we make a start on SCoPEd as it is and trust that the rest is worked out along the way.

The EDI impact assessment

We believe that as a process, this EDI impact was flawed. There are six member organisations that have signed up to SCoPEd. Whilst there will be a percentage of people who are in multiple organisations, the membership for NCS sits at over 9000, the membership for BACP sits at over 50,000, UKCP sits at over 11,000. That’s half the memberships listed, and although we expect BACP to be the largest, if we assume even 5000 for the others, that’s about 85,000 therapists (the SCoPEd announcement says 75,000), and more joining every year.

An ‘EDI impact assessment’ was commissioned to (one presumes) look at the impact of SCoPEd across all demographics. This impact assessment was conducted by a company called Eastside Primetimers, who state: “The strategic objectives that the Partners set for SCoPEd draw our attention to the dependency of its success on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) considerations”. 

Before they started on this project, Eastside Primers were calling SCoPEd a ‘groundbreaking project’ and a ‘pioneering project’. We wonder how easy that would be to turn back on if you were to find significant issues with the project. We don’t know - we’ve never been in that position.

The report states that it has struggled to get any information about those who might be in protected characteristics from the membership bodies (MBs) and they state at the start of the document that they cannot say (yet) what the impact on those people who might experience less privilege will be. None of the data collected is cited as being race/ethnicity, cis/trans status or sexuality, or disability (pg 13). In those where gender was collected, the average number of men in the profession is 16%. The report suggests (pg 11) that should SCoPEd NOT go ahead, that this will disadvantage people who have less privilege.It does not seem clear on why this is so.

The EDI report acknowledges that the framework is not a public-facing document so it asks ‘a small number’ of the public (12 people who’d had experience of counselling) to consult with it about SCoPEd. They approached six counsellors, 3 of whom were men (meaning that men proportionally have more of a voice as a reflection of the profession here), five were white, five didn’t identity as disabled, and none stated any LGBTQIA+ identity. There is no suggestion of their socio-economic status either. Four people interviewed were in private practice. Again an interesting choice, as those in private practice are potentially least likely to be impacted by SCoPEd. 

They gathered six people for interview. There is no suggestion that, in this ‘equality and diversity impact’ consultation, they interviewed six people who might be qualified to speak about these topics. In fact, their report states “Some communities (such as those identifying beyond the gender binary) are not represented due to factors, such as not responding to the invitation to interview or not meeting the survey criteria in some way, such as not being a member of a registered professional body” (pg15).  Dominic Davies from Pink Therapy, “the UK’s largest independent therapy organisation working with gender, sex and relationship diverse clients” has stated that he was not contacted for any help, and that had he been so, he would have facilitated the reaching out. There are over 200 people listed on the Pink Therapy directory who have a specialism in LGBTQIA+ topics, and 45 of these have ticked the ‘trans’ box as part of their own identity, suggesting that at a minimum there were 45 people listed with an MB who might have been open to being contacted. We do not know for certain that BAATN or Black Therapy Matters had a similar experience, but we’re willing to take a guess. This EDI ‘consultation’ didn’t try very hard to find a trans person (or any LGBTQIA+ person), interviewed ONE disabled person, and ONE person from a racialised background, and gives no real impact on what SCoPEd might mean for therapists with marginalised identities.

We do not really see any EDI impact in this 27 page document until pg 19 when we find  “There is a risk that Partners’ membership data systems do not facilitate EDI-relevant analysis of progress in widening access to and progression within the profession, and so in turn ensuring that the framework does not exacerbate barriers to access and progression”. This says to us that there is no way that we can know if SCoPEd will have an impact on the most marginalised counsellors because MBs don’t collect that data.

Page 20 of the EDI assessment suggests that without the ability to move between columns with further training (rather than only ‘core training’, which would require a qualified counsellor to start again as if untrained), that this will compound the difficulties those therapists with ‘protected characteristics’ hold, and make higher columns inaccessible.

Despite the information given above, this consultation sees no reason why SCoPEd can’t go ahead as it stands and we can iron out the details later. We believe however, that a profession based on expertise, especially in one’s own process should never be mediated by privilege. It is an impoverishment of the profession as well as injustice to practitioners with marginalised identities.

There is an interesting point in the data, which is that single women are less likely to support SCoPEd than partnered women, and we cannot help but wonder if this is part of the reason that SCoPEd votes are going through - that if you think it doesn’t affect YOU, PERSONALLY, you don’t necessarily consider the impact on other people. Those who are in a relationship will generally (we know, not always) have a second income coming into the family. Those who only have one income coming in have to be much more aware of SCoPEd and how this might impact. This ‘awareness of how all counsellors might be impacted is, in our opinion, what an EDI assessment would do, but does not.

This EDI assessment says (in short): as SCoPEd stands, you can’t move across columns without investing in more training; those who are more marginalised can’t afford more training; some organisations have already said they will start to stratify therapists according to columns, thus ensuring that column A therapists can only do ‘lesser’ qualified roles (which presumably one then gets paid less for, or the the process that we CURRENTLY see, which is that someone is ‘good enough’ to volunteer, but not good enough to be paid in the same role), thus meaning that those therapists earn less money and therefore have less income to be able to afford more training that might push them across columns. But please, feel free to get started and iron out these ‘small’ details later.

Trans folk, queer folk, disabled folk, folk with racialised identities, folk who are working class, will all find it difficult to move into the top two categories and are at risk of being pushed into lower paid jobs as a result, and kept there. For those people who are multiply marginalised this will be even more more likely and this ‘EDI impact assessment’ does not recognise intersecting axes of oppression in its report whatsoever.

We demand a rethink, and a proper EDI analysis that ensures that the impact on those who are least able to join 'column C' but who can be brilliant therapists in their own rights is considered.

case struck out!

​We are very pleased to hear that our colleague defending this case has had the case struck out. The official announcement is still to come and we are expecting it at some point this week. 

So let me just say congratulations and solidarity to this colleague and we await a fuller statement soon!

Trans joy is resistance

From one of our members: 

Attending Trans Pride recently, I saw a placard that read “trans joy is resistance.”

What might this mean for therapy?

Many things come to mind - perhaps starting at the thought that making space for joy can resist the idea that a trans identity is inherently joyless. As therapists, we spend a lot of time being with people as they talk about their distress, hurt and anger. But joy has an important place, too. Not as something we should all be striving towards or some sort of end point, but as part of the mix of emotions and experiences that make up being human. A recognition that joy is possible helps us get through the times when things are most difficult. It helps us imagine new ways of living, of being together. And recognising and celebrating sources of joy can be an important part of therapeutic work.

I often feel as though the narrative around trans people in therapy, and conversion therapy, assumes that trans/ non-binary/ gender non-conforming people only ever go to therapy because they are confused about their gender and want to discuss that confusion. But many, many trans people access therapy for other reasons, and their gender is not a focus. They might want to discuss a bereavement, a breakup; to think about how their early family relationships are affecting their current relationships. To adjust to a move or a job change. In short, trans people – like anyone else – might access therapy for a myriad reasons.

For those who want to discuss their gender, often it’s not about their own ‘struggles’ with this, but about other people’s reactions. Perhaps rejection by family, or their experience of discrimination or violence. I hear a lot of gender critical therapists speak as though ‘affirming’ someone’s gender means reacting to anyone wanting to explore their gender by pushing them to immediately pursue transition. There is a whole other blog in the role of exploration in therapy – for now I will just say that I know as a client how powerful it can be to have a space to explore freely, one where there is no value assigned to the outcome of that exploration. This applies to gender and sexuality, but to a host of other topics as well.

But for now I am thinking about people who come to therapy and feel settled in their queer identity. They’re not wanting to explore it; it’s a part of who they are. It might inform how they see the world or their interactions, but again it’s not what they want to focus on.

How does this connect to joy?

Because the other thing I hear clients talk about is exactly that. The joy they have found in community or accepting themselves. Sometimes that joy replaces hateful family relationships or harmful media messages. It might be what gives them the strength to pursue a dream, start a new relationship, create communities – even to come to therapy. And for me, as a therapist, being beside someone as they are able to share all of themself, as they find the sense of safety they need to begin the work they want to do – that is its own source of joy.

conversion therapy demo 29th June in London- join us!

​hi folks,

A group of therapists will be joining the conversion therapy demo on 29th June at midday in parliament square, London. TACTT will be meeting at the Nelson Mandela statue. Some of us will be remaining on the periphery due to vulnerability and covid and others I’m sure will be in the thick of it. So whether you feel ok being in the middle or would rather stay at the back, you’re assured of a friendly face if you’d like to join us. 

Won’t you come protest for your right to be able to offer a safe space for clients to explore their identities in safety?

First principles...

This blog post comes from one of our members  Karen Pollock MBACP who you can find on twitter @counsellingkaz

Let's start with a question to all the therapists reading this -

Is it OK to be trans?

Ignore for a moment the structural oppressions, prejudice and discrimination which might make a trans person's life more difficult; that is a different blog. Put to one side gender-affirmative medical treatments; they are part of some trans people's experiences, but, not a part of the identity. Instead spend a few moments reflecting on whether you believe it is OK for an individual to be transgender, to know and feel that their gender is different to the one that the midwife assigned to them at birth.

Take your time; it's a blog. I am not going anywhere; let the question filter through automatic responses, shoulds, fears and theories. Perhaps pause for a moment, gaze out of the window, put the kettle on, hold the mug in your hands, smell the coffee, feel the warmth. Let the question rise like steam.

Is it OK to be trans? 

This question lies at the heart of the current debate about conversion therapy, calls for the exclusion of trans people from participating in sport, in wider society, and indeed now, for calls to reduce the number of trans people.

The stance of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (MoU) was that it was, indeed, OK to be trans, or gay, or bi, or lesbian, or asexual. This “OKness” is described as the affirmative approach; the idea being LGBTQAA is no better, or worse than being cisgender and heterosexual. Since  we cannot draw neat lines around human experience all of these identities are intertwined. You cannot say it is not OK to be one, without also, even silently, insinuating it is not OK to to be the others. Again, perhaps the topic for another blog.

The MoU is based on the agreement that it is OK to be trans, and that attempting to make someone not trans, because it is a perceived better way to be, is harmful and wrong. It also doesn't work, as we know from all research into conversion therapy. To work ethically within the MoU we need, as therapists, to be able to believe both trans and cis are equally valid ways of being, both ok, and an acceptable way to be. 

Equally acceptable might be a sticking point for some. What Califia described as the “charity f*ck'' of human rights, sees LGBTQ people as poor unfortunates who cant help the way they are, and rights conferred from a place of pity and power over.

Pity has no place in the therapy room.

Is it ok to be trans? 

Pause again, ok, what does that mean? Not better, not best, not above, just, OK, 

 All correct, all right; satisfactory, good; well, in good health or order. In early use, occasionally more intensively: outstanding, excellent. Now frequently in a somewhat weakened sense: adequate, acceptable. OK by (someone): fine by (a person), acceptable to (a person). Chiefly predicative. OED 

Is it acceptable to you for someone to be trans? 

 

If it is not, should that have a space in the therapeutic relationship? If a therapist believed it was not acceptable for a client to be divorced, or gay, or black or disabled would we give that belief space? We can of course have many different beliefs, personally, but professionally we must be able to separate what we believe is or is not acceptable and leave it outside of the room. 

 

The MoU makes clear that exploratory therapy is allowed under the premise that there is no more or less acceptable outcome. To put it very bluntly, that in the exploration you have no preference for the destination, trans or cis. 

 

Why then are the proponents of conversion therapy claiming a ban would prevent this exploration? The answer is simple, because, when asked that question, is it OK to be trans, they cannot answer yes. It is not the exploration they want but the power to decide the destination.

 

As therapists our job is to follow where the clients lead. It is the first principle. We do not decide the outcomes for them. A client wants to decide if they stay in their marriage or not. Whether it is OK to stay, or go (assuming there are no safeguarding concerns) is up to the client, not us. Another client wants to decide if they change jobs. A third if they have an abortion. The next whether they leave their university course. Another whether they are cis, or trans. 

 

First principle -we go where the client wants to go, not where we believe they should want to go. 

non-maleficence and ‘conversion therapy’

​no matter what kind of therapist you are, you will probably be registered with BACP, NCS, UKCP BABCP or HCPC. 

Having read the ethical framework for all of them, they all mention the care of clients. The first four are much clearer on some form of non-maleficence than HCPC who only say ‘you must encourage service users (where appropriate) to maintain their own health and well-being’, where each of the others specifically mentions avoiding harm. 

The majority of people reading this are registered with one of the above groups. 

As a therapist bound by a code of ethics that says you must not harm a client, you are bound not just by the memorandum of understanding on conversion therapy (which some ‘gender critical’ therapists have argued is “confusing”), but by your ethical framework itself to basically ‘do no harm’, and many of them also have a note on beneficence (do good).

The government, in considering this law, commissioned Adam Jowett and colleagues at Coventry University to do some research for them on this topic. Jowett et al’s research (activate link here) found no research of good quality that showed that ‘conversion therapy’ works, and no evidence that undergoing ‘conversion therapy’ has any benefit to clients. Their research also finds that LGBT people who have undergone such ‘therapy’ also have higher suicidal ideation and more suicide attempts, suggesting that not only does ‘conversion therapy not help, but that it actively harms.

I suggest that this means that you cannot be an ethical therapist under the main counselling-related bodies and participate in ‘conversion therapy’, whether this is requested by an over 18 year old who ‘consents’, or whether it’s because of being trans (the same evidence applies).

If you offer conversion therapy, you risk harming your clients, upto and including the risk of being directly responsible for their deaths, as well as losing your own ethical body membership, and the risk of being sued. 

If you’d like to join TACTT, please activate this link to fill in our form

Open letter to Liz Truss

In the light of the government’s decision to allow some forms of conversion ‘therapy’ despite acknowledging that it doesn’t work (they do not seem to acknowledge the damage that research tells us it does) we have penned an open letter to Liz Truss, which we invite you to join with us in signing if you are a therapist who cares about client work in any way. 

One cannot consent to coercion, and this act as it stands is dangerous to people both cis and trans (and those who a) don’t know or b) are neither). 

https://openletter.earth/open-letter-to-liz-truss-about-the-proposed-ban-on-so-called-conversion-therapy-2d220900

Won’t you join us to save countless people being harmed?