Funding

Discuss applications to the clearing house (and to courses that are not in the clearing house system), screening assessments, interviews, reserve lists, places, etc. here
anniecat
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 6:45 pm

Funding

Post by anniecat » Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:17 am

I notice the Clearing House site has been updated for the new round of applications.

However, it seems the position regarding funding is still unclear. I know it is still quite early and that the site wasn't updated with firm info about funding until the end of September last year but it seems this year things are particularly uncertain. I know there have been question marks/rumours/scaremongering over funding for some time but it seems this year it is even more unclear. It would be nice to think that such a change would come with at least a year's warning so courses and individuals could have some planning time but I think perhaps that is a slightly Pollyanna-ish view of things!

Does anyone have any idea about how training would be funded if things change? Is it likely to be loans or bursaries?

Advertisement
Pearson Clinical Assessment publishes a wide range of assessments to support psychology professionals including the Gold Standard Wechsler range. To view our range please visit: pearsonclinical.co.uk/cpf
alexh
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Funding

Post by alexh » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:41 pm

I wonder if the government will be too busy with brexit to make any change.

Alexander
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Funding

Post by Alexander » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:31 pm

I'm fairly sure this has been put on the back burner for a bit.

User avatar
lism
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:28 am

Re: Funding

Post by lism » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:05 pm

I heard talk of more funding for more places. Not sure if it was just the BPS petitioning or what...I really hope funding doesn't decrease it really would be a tragic shame. :?
Words are our most inexhaustible source of magic - Professor Dumbledor

icebluesparkles
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:49 am

Re: Funding

Post by icebluesparkles » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:26 pm

We were told at an interview I attended last year that last year would be the last year for funding. I agree with OP's view that it seems crazy to do it without notice - at least a year or two as people are making decisions aimed at a pathway that may not even exist or at least be viable.

lingua_franca
Posts: 907
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Funding

Post by lingua_franca » Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:59 pm

The Clearing House has this to say on funding:
[Funding] arrangements may be amended for candidates entering training in 2018, but this is unclear at this stage. Should we receive further information, we will update this page. In the meantime, the Clearing House will process applications as usual. There will be no extensions to deadlines so please do not wait for further information about the funding situation before deciding whether to apply.
I'm pretty sure they would update promptly if they knew anything definite about changes to funding, and I think it's unlikely that anyone on Internet forums is going to have that definite knowledge before it's issued by training providers, so I'm trying not to think about it much and just concentrate on the here and now. It is tough, admittedly. I'm going to be applying for the first time for 2019 entry and I do worry that the salaried route will be gone by then, so part of my brain is kicking the other part for spending over four years on a Master's and PhD instead of focusing on clinical training. But if I hadn't done the PhD I would perhaps have other regrets right now, and even if funding stays in place permanently there is no guarantee that I'll get a training place anyway, so it's pointless to think like that. I understand that we all need to plan ahead, but even with funding there is always that possibility that we won't get on the course, so we're dealing with a lot of uncertainty anyway. Reminding myself of that makes this particular uncertainty feel more manageable.
"Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
"Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
Piglet was comforted by this.
- A.A. Milne.

katiesykerd
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: Funding

Post by katiesykerd » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:41 pm

I work with somebody (sort of) involved in the shortlisting process and they've said at this point nobody knows, but it was the same case last year too so not to worry too much. If you wait for confirmation it'll probably be too late to apply so might as well go about normal business until we hear otherwise.

It seems that the way our government works we'd have to hear about it in plenty of time, since it'd take a while for all the paperwork/policies/new pathways to be set up.

ogglebog
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:40 am

Re: Funding

Post by ogglebog » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:57 pm

we had a meeting with someone from our local course recently and she basically said that last year the government changed how funding for all school of health courses was done. there's lots of info online about it but in a nutshell, lots of funding across health education has been cut. DClinPsy is included in this but not actually mentioned by the government, it's just grouped in there. no announcement will be made for a while, likely not until the new budget is announced next April. last year funding wasn't confirmed until after lots of course centres had already interviewed. it's a daunting place to be for candidates and unis as it's never really happened before. worst case scenario is that the courses would still run but would not be salaried positions and candidates might have to self fund.

there won't be an answer for a while but hopefully the course won't be affected like others have been.

icebluesparkles
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:49 am

Re: Funding

Post by icebluesparkles » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:12 am

Last year the funding was confirmed by the end of September so courses and applicants knew well in advance of interviews. However, as I said in an earlier post, we were told at an interview that this year (2017 entry) was likely to be the last year things are funded as they are.

I think it is very easy to say 'don't worry' but this is a very challenging position for people (and courses!) - trying to plan ahead when things are so uncertain. Do people stay in poorly paid AP or support worker positions when there is no career progression available to them? That is enough of an issue as it is knowing that only 15% of applicants will get in anyway. But there is a huge difference between taking a risk on something that actually exists to spending years aiming for something that is a zero option (for financial reasons)...

However I wouldn't expect too many people in our current government to be concerned about that.... But I would say, fine, if that decision needs to be made, make it, but with a year or two's notice!

I am not sure how this course can be self-funded except by the super wealthy - a 3 year full time course?!? Just as the profession is making real efforts to become more inclusive, it would be such a shame... This will possibly make it impossible for so many - people who do not have parents or partners who can support them, older career changers etc. Will they be able to make the courses part time? Condense them into 2 years?

User avatar
Spatch
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:18 pm
Location: The other side of paradise
Contact:

Re: Funding

Post by Spatch » Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:02 pm

I share some of the above concerns, but also having seen how other countries arrange their clinical psychology training (and how we arranged training prior to 1991), I don't think it is necessarily game over.
I think it is very easy to say 'don't worry' but this is a very challenging position for people (and courses!) - trying to plan ahead when things are so uncertain. Do people stay in poorly paid AP or support worker positions when there is no career progression available to them? That is enough of an issue as it is knowing that only 15% of applicants will get in anyway. But there is a huge difference between taking a risk on something that actually exists to spending years aiming for something that is a zero option (for financial reasons)...I am not sure how this course can be self-funded except by the super wealthy - a 3 year full time course?!? Just as the profession is making real efforts to become more inclusive, it would be such a shame... This will possibly make it impossible for so many - people who do not have parents or partners who can support them, older career changers etc. Will they be able to make the courses part time? Condense them into 2 years?
I agree it's not helpful to say "Don't worry" (that would annoy me too), but it may be an idea to start thinking ahead about one's own circumstance. Some services have funded employees to go onto counselling psychology training, and this may be an option for some services to do so for clinical. Similarly, there may be other links/charities/ funders in the locality that may be worth cultivating if the financial situation changes. I can imagine future cohorts may end up with trainees from mixed backgrounds (i.e. self funders, sponsored employees, scholarship candidates, charity funded and others) as this has happened in the past.

I don't like it, but it's also against a backdrop of where people are seeing education as a commodity, and are willing to pay for it (undergrad upwards). At the time I was very opposed to tuition fees and removal of grants, as I was sure that more disadvantaged folk would be deterred from entering higher educaiton, but have to admit that the UCAS data didn't support my view and that reality was more nuanced.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30684462

My gut instinct is to think that removal of salary support would work against inclusivity, but I have to be open to the possibilty it may not. For all I know, it could be that self funding opens up more slots for training as places are not strictly limited by NHS workforce planning, like it has with universities. People don't have to run the gauntlet of poorly paid work/extra qualifications/voluntary posts so a more diverse crowd ends up on training. Who knows? What we do know is that training has been funded for close to two decades and there are still problems with diversity, whereas paradoxically counsellor training, counselling psychology and other psychotherapy routes often can have a greater diversity in age, background etc. The more I dig into the data and surrounding info the less certain I feel.

Still don't like the lack of planning and due consideration, and have already been involved in trying to justify salary support to local HEE.
Shameless plug alert:

Irrelevant Experience: The Secret Diary of an Assistant Psychologist is available at Amazon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Irrelevant-Expe ... 00EQFE5JW/

icebluesparkles
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:49 am

Re: Funding

Post by icebluesparkles » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:11 am

You make some really interesting points Spatch - some I agree with and some I don't. To be honest, I do think there is some justification for ending salary support for Clin Psych training. After all, it is a ridiculously overly privileged position - doctors, nurses, other mental health professionals don't get such support. I guess the deal breaker will be what is put in its place. Absolutely if the plans are to set up some of the options that you suggest, the profession will have to adapt and I agree that some of the changes may be positive ones. As someone who self-funded through training in another professional training, I get it. However, that was possible because of the flexible nature of training - sure it was hard and involved a lot of personal sacrifice but it was do-able.

I guess my main concern is timing. I think it is really probably pretty inevitable that funding will change at some point in the future. Making the plans you suggest are great for those who are maybe still in their undergrad course etc. It is just challenging for those who are applying this year or next I think. It bothers me that there seems to be some possibility it may happen without a notice without at least a year or two's notice? That really was my point. Surely such a drastic change needs a year or two at least in terms of notice for courses and applicants to plan. However, I doubt that is of much concern to the government.

Anyway, nothing we can do except wait :?

Alexander
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:19 pm

Re: Funding

Post by Alexander » Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:52 pm

The comparison with medicine doesn't hold water, I'm afraid. Both medics and clinical psychologists pay for their undergraduate training and, currently, both get paid to do further education. True, the medics pay more for their five-year undergraduate degrees but they, as I understand it, benefit from a much more clearly defined post-qualification professional development pathway, aka the route to consultant.

bunnies
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Funding

Post by bunnies » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:21 pm

Any updates on this?

User avatar
reishi
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:31 pm

Re: Funding

Post by reishi » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:50 am

I recieved an email from DCP.

The current position
Clinical Psychology training courses have had confirmation of funding for 2018-19 with training numbers sustained.


Full email:
Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) Funding of non-medical Training

January 2018 Update on the work of the DCP working group & national actions

A DCP working group chaired by Professor Tony Lavender has been in place since 2016, with the main aim of influencing key strategic policy and decision makers around future funding for clinical psychology training, and raising concerns about the negative consequences of including Clinical Psychology or IAPT training in the new funding model for training Nurses and AHPs (i.e. funding transferred to Student Finance England and market led uptake of training).

The group reports to the DCP Executive and the BPS Workforce Advisory Group, and feeds in to the BPS Presidential Task Force on Applied Psychology Training in the Statutory Sector.



The current position
Clinical Psychology training courses have had confirmation of funding for 2018-19 with training numbers sustained.

Future finding of training
The BPS organised a meeting with Health Education England in November 2017 at which DCP chair, Esther Cohen-Tovée, was present. This provided a useful update on future plans.

First, there is a great deal of interest and support for the diverse roles that Clinical Psychologists can and might play in a future mental health workforce.

Second, no decision has yet been made about commissioning for NHS England training after 2020.

Third, in the near future, salary support for training is being reviewed for a number of professions, including clinical psychology. This may involve a phased or fixed reduction, or no change. No decision has yet been made and a consultation process is due to begin in 2018 during which we will have an opportunity to influence the process.

HEE have expressed a desire to work with the BPS and other professional bodies looking at the need for a sustainable approach to develop the wider psychological workforce.

Current activity of the DCP working group
Members of the group are contributing to and/or helping to coordinate responses to consultations on the NHS workforce and training when opportunities arise, and circulate relevant information. This includes the mental health workforce strategy, the Psychological Professions Network document on meeting the strategic plan workforce demand, local sustainability and transformation plans, and Public Health England’s draft ‘Facing the Facts Shaping the Future’ paper.

The group remains active in liaising with colleagues in other professions, in the devolved nations, and coordinating information from colleagues in other fora. The group are represented on the BPS Presidential Taskforce on Applied Psychology Training by DCP Chair Dr Esther Cohen-Tovée and GTICP co-chairs Dr Jan Hughes & Dr Gary Latchford, and Scotland representative Judy Thomson.

Finally, Esther Cohen-Tovée stands down as DCP chair on 18 January 2018, and Julia Faulconbridge will be interim DCP chair.



For more information or to pass on information you can contact:
Professor Tony Lavender, DCP Comprehensive Spending Review Training Funding Group Chair tony.lavender@canterbury.ac.uk
Dr Esther Cohen-Tovée, DCP UK Chair DCPUKChairDrEstherCohen-Tovee@ntw.nhs.uk
Dr Julia Faulconbridge, incoming interim DCP chair dcpchairjpf@gmail.com
Dr Jan Hughes, GTiCP co-chair J.Hughes@leeds.ac.uk
Dr Gary Latchford, GTiCP co-chair G.Latchford@leeds.ac.uk
"Ever since psychoanalysis came up, everybody's ill more or less."

HWoody
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:14 am

Re: Funding

Post by HWoody » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:07 pm

Interesting discussion, I agree with *Spatch* that those (like me) who are still a couple of years off applying need to prepare for less or no salaried positions.

Being honest, for me the trade off with unfunded places would be less intense competition and hopefully less need to spend potentially years in honorary / low paid positions to get a place(which arguably may have a greater detrimental impact on diversity than unfunded places, as some people are just not in a position to embark on years of low/no pay without the certainty of getting a place - at least after 3 years of an unpaid doctorate you're a clinical psychologist at the end of it!).

If it also meant more places and more universities offering the doctorate, with maybe the possibility of part time courses, that could all improve diversity.

Those in the hardest position will be those who enjoy already invested the years of low / unpaid work only then you be the first not to gain a funded place.

What could also be considered unfair would be effectively working for the NHS for free for 3 years (assuming trainees provide some value to the NHS whilst training?)?

Obviously I'm not saying I'd welcome the change, but the current route into the profession is not conducive to diversity either.

I think the main thing is for the powers that be to make a decision one way or the other so applicants have the opportunity to decide whether they can afford to continue down this career path.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests