Funding

[icebluesparkles]

I am not sure if I am reading this right or even if it is clear at all... The email that reishi kindly posted seems to suggest that universities have been guaranteed funding to provide places but not it's not clear if that means salary support has been agreed?

[flaman]

I am trying to understand the prospects of funding for the 2020 entry.

As far as I understand, the full spending review is unlikely to be done in time for 2020-21 because of the Brexit mess; however, it is not clear to me whether they will simply sustain the same funding as in previous years. See:
https://www.hsj.co.uk/finance-and-effic ... 34.article

This is what a report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies says:

The government has already committed an extra £20.5 billion to the NHS by 2023–24. Given other existing commitments on defence and aid, the path for over half of day-to-day public service spending (£156 billion in 2018–19) has already been largely decided.

Before setting individual departmental budgets, the Chancellor needs to decide how much to spend in total. Due to pre-existing commitments, the overall size of the ‘spending envelope’ will determine how tight settlements will be for ‘unprotected’ areas. The latest provisional totals imply an increase in overall day-to-day spending, but cuts to areas outside of the NHS, defence and overseas aid.

Over the four years from 2019–20 to 2023–24, the Chancellor would need to find an extra £2.2 billion to avoid real cuts to ‘unprotected’ spending overall. He would need to find an additional £5 billion to avoid this spending falling in per-capita terms and £11 billion to avoid it falling as a share of national income.

A disorderly Brexit would be likely to lead to lower economic growth in the short and long run, but may not mean less money available at this Spending Review. This would eventually require lower spending, or higher taxes, than would otherwise have been the case. But a fiscal tightening would not need to happen immediately, and there could be a case for more spending over the next few years, not least to assist with border issues and to mitigate the impacts for the worst-hit sectors or areas.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13854

Does anyone have any information regarding funding for the 2020 entry? Thanks!

[Randomswirls]

I thought it had been confirmed for a few years but I can’t find anything beyond people saying 2019s funding was secured so I am not sure of the latest.

[Speaker]

The ACP tweeted this back in June
"Briefing paper from @NHS_HealthEdEng out today confirming no changes to model of funding for clinical psychology training in England until 2021. Review to be carried out in consultation with stakeholders over next few months. ACP-UK to continue to press for full salaried support."

[flaman]

Thank you, this is good news!

[Speaker]

The BPS have successfully negotiated with NHS England to ensure funding remains as it is currently https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/ ... y-trainees

[miriam]

ACP announcement:

I am delighted to let you know that, following several years of uncertainty, Health Education England has finally decided to fully fund trainee salaries for the foreseeable future. Members will be aware that there had been proposals to substantially reduce trainee salaries following and in line with the withdrawal of nursing bursaries. This is as a result of critical meetings between clinical psychology representatives, including myself representing ACP-UK, and senior HEE civil servants. I was vociferous in representing the view that any interference with trainee salaries would be damaging to recruitment, widening access and ultimately the calibre of the profession. HEE has also realised that the implementation of such proposals would be wholly impractical and counterproductive.

It is gratifying that HEE has listened to this opinion and that the previous long period of uncertainty is now at an end.

Moreover HEE is presently discussing with DClinPsy courses the prospect of substantial expansion of training places following the NHS Long Term Plan (England) implementation proposals arising from the HEE/NHSE/NHS-I PPN group.

Best wishes,

Mike Wang

Chair ACP-UK

[Victoriomantic]

Amazing! Thank you

[Spatch]

This is really good news. I can also see the huge amount of work, negotiation and persuasion that those stakeholders must have done in order to secure this. That will not have been easy, and it's the sort of thing to flag up when people say "What has the BPS ever done for us? What is the point in joining?"

[PinkFreud19]

ACP announcement:

I am delighted to let you know that, following several years of uncertainty, Health Education England has finally decided to fully fund trainee salaries for the foreseeable future. Members will be aware that there had been proposals to substantially reduce trainee salaries following and in line with the withdrawal of nursing bursaries. This is as a result of critical meetings between clinical psychology representatives, including myself representing ACP-UK, and senior HEE civil servants. I was vociferous in representing the view that any interference with trainee salaries would be damaging to recruitment, widening access and ultimately the calibre of the profession. HEE has also realised that the implementation of such proposals would be wholly impractical and counterproductive.

It is gratifying that HEE has listened to this opinion and that the previous long period of uncertainty is now at an end.

Moreover HEE is presently discussing with DClinPsy courses the prospect of substantial expansion of training places following the NHS Long Term Plan (England) implementation proposals arising from the HEE/NHSE/NHS-I PPN group.

Best wishes,

Mike Wang

Chair ACP-UK

I see that the above summary misses a major justification for continued salaried support for DClinPsy trainees (although this may well have been part of the discussion). Cutting salaried support would be a catastrophe for the issue of diversity in this profession and would move us several steps back in solving this multi-faceted issue, when awareness of the importance of having psychologists that represent diverse backgrounds is constantly growing.

My interpretation of the diversity statistics has always been that direct discrimination at the stage of shortlisting and interviewing only accounts for, at most, a small percentage of the diversity gap in the profession, with socioeconomic differences and other aspects of systemic disadvantages being the primary explanatory driving force behind the problem (and therefore making the problem much more difficult to solve). With this in mind, cutting the funding so that access to the profession at the stage of doctoral training would mean that it would be limited to only the socioeconomically privileged, more so than currently. Essentially, we would expect those without significant hereditary wealth to somehow survive at least ten years on honorary contracts, insufficient stipends, and salaries that grossly underpay those occupying professional roles. All this would be expected of a generation who have other priorities, such as one day hoping to make it onto the housing ladder and the prospect of a retirement age of 75.

[miriam]

That's what they mean by "widening access".

[PinkFreud19]

That's what they mean by "widening access".

Ah, my mistake, sorry.

[miriam]

No worries