Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Anything that does not fit into the above categories, but is related to psychology, including discussion of public and media perceptions of psychology, satire related to psychology, etc.
Contrarian
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:13 pm

Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by Contrarian » Sun May 31, 2015 12:57 am

From http://base-uk.org/members/news/budget- ... -announced
More support for people with mental health conditions
These were announced in the March budget statement and include early access to supported Online Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and the co-location of IAPT (Increased Access to Psychological Therapy) staff in Jobcentres. This will begin
with Streatham Jobcentre Plus. For more information on these and other measures announced, go to Budget 2015 on gov.uk.


I am wondering what people on this forum think of each of the points discussed below. I have had a look at a local community forum and it seems that there are people on different sides of the debate (I've included some direct quotes from them).

Pros
- Mental health problems and poverty are linked and can be targeted together: Lambeth is one of the poorest boroughs and has one of the highest incidence of mental health issues. Reaching out to and supporting people with mental health problems will help them back into work and this will improve recovery rates.

- Any spending on mental health is positive: When reorganised in 2010, Mental Health Services in Lambeth had an immediate 50% funding cut with an extra 5% cut each year for the next 5 years with the emphasis on spending on IAPT. SLaM pre-2012 had 4 floors of a wing in St Thomas' Hospital an by mid-2012 it was half the basement of the same wing. Any spending on mental health in the borough is welcome.

Cons
- Job centres often now have many security staff. People with mental health problems may be put off from engaging and/or claiming benefits by the atmosphere generated by this.
"To anyone more paranoid than me going for CBT or any other treatment in Brixton Job Centre would be not much different from going to Brixton Police Station."

- This has been instated without community consultation which often has applied to issues surrounding planning, regeneration, libraries, local environmental improvements.
"Why can't we be consulted about our views on mental health services?"

- There is a potential conflict of interest for DWP to fund CBT practitioners in job centres: it will impact on confidentality with information likely to be shared with other government departments that may not have clients best interests at heart.

- A pre-requisite for psychotherapy and building a therapeutic alliance is that clients feel they than talk openly in an environment that is not judgemental or based on a goal set from outside (aligned with interests of DWP).
"I would not want to go to the job centre. The staff at the job centres treat you like you have done something wrong, they are useless when it comes to helping you find work and are just there to process you through their systems. Crossing mental health services with the job centre seems to be more about getting more people back to work than helping the recovery of those with mental health issues."

- CBT is a form of therapy which locates problems in the individual rather than systemically. In a context of Austerity measures and zero-hour job contracts, does this lead to a re-framing of ideas around the self and responsibility around stoically (passively?) responding to what may be very unjust social and working practices?
"Do politicians really care about mental health anyway?
CBT is ideal therapy from a politicians point of view:
1. It can easily be time limited (12 weekly sessions or some such)
2. It is measurable - as the treatment involves repeated filling in of a Beck Inventory or variant.
3. It is in effect a form of brain-washing designed to change a negative attitude into a positive one.
Obvious fit for a Job Centre I would have thought."


- Is CBT in job centres going to be offered solely to people on benefits or will it also be provided to people not claiming benefits? Ian Duncan Smith has talked a lot about helping to get people off benefit by cutting it off. It is unknown whether CBT will therefore be an exercise in acting coercively towards people identified with having mental health problems but unwilling to engage in CBT (e.g. avoiding completing homework). Also, it is unsure whether improvements in outcomes may be conflated with being healthy enough to engage in work (with the possible threat of having benefits cut off). This threat of coercive influence appears to go against the BPS code of ethics.
"I would have thought that doing therapy in the Job Centre would be very threatening to people on benefit, but otherwise not so much. But I very much doubt they would be offering therapy to non-claimants in the job centres."

- St Thomas' Hospital is one of the few places alternatives to CBT is offered (e.g. CAT and other forms of psychotherapy). Provision of this is decided during the initial discussion one has with one of the therapists there. This appears more ethically sound as it takes clients' opinions into consideration & offers choice vs solely offering CBT with its encroachment into Job Centres.

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
Contrarian
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:13 pm

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by Contrarian » Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:08 pm

I have posted this question on a UK Forum and have got quite a few responses.
Here's the link if you are interested in reading more - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/y ... es.335403/

FerryGlide
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 10:50 am

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by FerryGlide » Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:35 pm

This looks relevant:
"This attempt to co-opt medical professionals as state enforcers is what led to the first protest by psychologists. However, while campaigns such as Psychologists Against Austerity have focused on the psychological impact of welfare reform, there has been little mention of psychology’s central role in disciplining and punishing people claiming benefits, or of the ethics of psychological conditionality."

http://theconversation.com/facing-psych ... 20benefits

Contrarian
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:13 pm

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by Contrarian » Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:29 pm

Ministers treating unemployment as mental problem - report

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33060794

Unemployment is being "rebranded" by the government as a psychological disorder, a new study claims.
Those that do not exhibit a "positive" outlook must undergo "reprogramming" or face having their benefits cut, says the Wellcome Trust-backed report http://mh.bmj.com/content/41/1/40.full

This can be "humiliating" for job seekers and does not help them find suitable work, the researchers say.
But the Department for Work and Pensions said there was no evidence to back up the "highly misleading" claims.
The paper, published in the Medical Humanities journal, says benefit claimants are being forced to take part in positive thinking courses in an effort to change their personalities.
They are bombarded with motivational text messages - such as "success is the only option", "we're getting there" and "smile at life" - and have to take part in "pointless" team-building exercises such as building towers out of paper clips, it adds.

New benefit claimants are interviewed to find out whether they have a "psychological resistance" to work, with those deemed "less mentally fit" given more intensive coaching. And unpaid work placements are increasingly judged on psychological results, such as improved motivation and confidence, rather than whether they have led to a job. The report's co-author, social scientist Lynne Friedli, described such programmes as "Orwellian". "Claimants' 'attitude to work' is becoming a basis for deciding who is entitled to social security - it is no longer what you must do to get a job, but how you have to think and feel.

Contrarian
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:13 pm

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by Contrarian » Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:21 pm

A freedom of information act request was made regarding this issue:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... y.pdf.html


1) Pilot areas are still being considered for co-location with IAPT services, and will be
announced when they are confirmed.

No areas are yet confirmed for early access to supported online CBT.

2) IAPT services co-located in Jobcentres will be administered by the NHS or those
contracted to work on behalf of the NHS.

The procurement process for providers of supported online CBT is still at an early stage.
Providers will be named when that process has been completed. The contract will be
administered by the Department for Work and Pensions.

3) IAPT therapists are trained to provide NICE approved and evidence based
psychological therapies to treat people with depression and anxiety disorders. The
training is based around competency frameworks produced by the programme. All IAPT
training courses are accredited by the relevant professional body. The following
qualifications are required to practice within IAPT services:
 Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner (PWP) (Step 2 practitioner): IAPT PWP training
course accredited by British Psychological Society (BPS).
 High Intensity Therapist (HIT) (Step 3 practitioner) will be qualified in at least one of
the following:
- CBT HIT training accredited by BABCP
- Counselling for Depression accredited by BACP
- Brief Dynamic Interpersonal Therapy (DIT) accredited by British
Psychoanalytic Council
- Interpersonal Psychotherapy accredited by IPTUK
- Couples Therapy for Depression accredited by British Society of Couple
Psychotherapists and Counsellors
Information about the entry qualifications and training required for therapists in IAPT
services is available at http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by ... hological-
therapies/careers-in-psychological-therapies/high-intensity-therapist/; and
http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by ... areers-in-
psychological-therapies/psychological-wellbeing-practitioner/

4) Given that confidential space to deliver therapy is available in Jobcentre Plus premises,
IAPT services will be conducting assessments and face-to-face therapy sessions in
Jobcentres, in the same way that they are provided in other community settings.

Supported online CBT will be conducted through computers via instant messaging and
video communication tools, and via telephone.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number
above.
Yours sincerely,


DWP Strategy FoI Team

bluegoat
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 10:07 am

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by bluegoat » Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:09 am

I came across this last night. I am wondering if others will follow...

http://www.bpc.org.uk/news/forcing-peop ... -unethical

Contrarian
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:13 pm

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by Contrarian » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:04 pm

The British Psychoanalytic Council (BPC) have also now released a statement about therapy in job centres:

Forcing people to have therapy is highly unethical
"Recent weeks have seen a growing chorus of concern and disapproval over a government proposal to locate psychological therapy services in job centres.

At the heart of this concern, lies a belief that the government is effectively rebranding unemployment as a psychological disorder and a fear that unemployed people will be forced to have therapy.

An open letter by the Mental Health Resistance Network states that Streatham Job Centre will shortly host the first pilot of a DWP scheme to provide psychological therapies at Job Centres for people suspected of having mental health problems.

From the point of view of the British Psychoanalytic Council, patient autonomy is one of the fundamental cornerstones of treatment and mandating people to have psychotherapy and counselling is unethical.

The last time we heard similar concerns being raised – July last year – we wrote to then Care Minister Norman Lamb MP. He wrote back, reassuring us that patients would never receive mandated therapy.

There has, of course, been an election since then and July last year seems like a very long time ago. We also note that the 2015 Conservative manifesto stated that claimants who “refuse a recommended treatment” could have their benefits reduced.

We will therefore be writing to the new government immediately to seek clarity and reassurance on these matters and will report back once we have received a reply."

Helen Morgan, Chair Elect of the British Psychoanalytic Council & Gary Fereday, Chief Executive of the British Psychoanalytic Council.

Date:
Saturday, 20 June, 2015 - 17:24

astra
Posts: 2381
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:02 pm

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by astra » Mon Jun 22, 2015 12:26 pm

There's been a fair bit of comment on twitter from BPS and BACP on this too. Given that mandating therapy in any way or coercing people to undergo therapy contravenes the professional ethics of the majority of qualified therapists who are governed by any sort of professional body, surely this must be a non-starter?? I hope that people think very carefully about their professional ethics before taking up any such role. I despair of this Government!
From the point of view of mindfulness, as long as you're breathing there's more right with you than wrong with you. Jon Kabat-Zinn

Contrarian
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:13 pm

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by Contrarian » Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:18 pm

The UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) have also now released a statement about therapy in job centres:
http://www.ukcp.org.uk/news/people-must ... to-therapy

People must not be forced into therapy
UKCP is concerned about recent reports in the media on the use of psychological therapies in job centres.

Entering counselling or psychotherapy because you fear your benefits will be cut is not what therapy is about. To link either being unemployed, poor or disabled with a psychological deficit is inappropriate, unethical and deeply concerning to our profession. Therapists involved in such work may wish to bear the ethical dimensions in mind.

Should people who are depressed or have other mental health issues be offered the chance of therapy? Of course they should – and as wide a range of approaches as possible. Should they be coerced into therapy in order to cut the welfare bill? No, they should not.

People seek therapy to help them resolve emotional and relational difficulties not because they are being forced into it because they are on benefits.

We understand that some people may benefit from being offered therapy whether they are employed or out of work. But imposing it in this way is a badly thought out approach. UKCP urges the government to rethink.

Contrarian
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:13 pm

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by Contrarian » Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:20 pm


Contrarian
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:13 pm

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by Contrarian » Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:49 am

An important paper by Dr Lynne Friedli and Robert Stearn has also recently been published which explores the role of coercion and psychology in welfare-to-work and workfare schemes, you can read it at: http://mh.bmj.com/content/41/1/40.full

Positive affect as coercive strategy: conditionality, activation and the role of psychology in UK government workfare programmes

Eligibility for social security benefits in many advanced economies is dependent on unemployed and underemployed people carrying out an expanding range of job search, training and work preparation activities, as well as mandatory unpaid labour (workfare). Increasingly, these activities include interventions intended to modify attitudes, beliefs and personality, notably through the imposition of positive affect. Labour on the self in order to achieve characteristics said to increase employability is now widely promoted. This work and the discourse on it are central to the experience of many claimants and contribute to the view that unemployment is evidence of both personal failure and psychological deficit. The use of psychology in the delivery of workfare functions to erase the experience and effects of social and economic inequalities, to construct a psychological ideal that links unemployment to psychological deficit, and so to authorise the extension of state—and state-contracted—surveillance to psychological characteristics. This paper describes the coercive and punitive nature of many psycho-policy interventions and considers the implications of psycho-policy for the disadvantaged and excluded populations who are its primary targets. We draw on personal testimonies of people experiencing workfare, policy analysis and social media records of campaigns opposed to workfare in order to explore the extent of psycho-compulsion in workfare. This is an area that has received little attention in the academic literature but that raises issues of ethics and professional accountability and challenges the field of medical humanities to reflect more critically on its relationship to psychology.

Contrarian
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:13 pm

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by Contrarian » Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:57 pm

Last edited by miriam on Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: to remove full text of article due to copyright

Contrarian
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:13 pm

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by Contrarian » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:54 pm

Compulsory well-being: An interview with Will Davies
http://mindhacks.com/2015/06/23/compuls ... ll-davies/
Last edited by miriam on Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: to remove full text of article due to copyright

Contrarian
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:13 pm

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by Contrarian » Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:46 pm

This 'story' now been picked up by the press. The protest coincides with the party at the Launch Party of the North and South Living Well Network Hub - https://twitter.com/LiveWellLambeth - http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/launch-pa ... 6785258159. The party ends at 4pm.

Guardian Story -
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... -streatham
Last edited by miriam on Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: to remove full text of article due to copyright

Contrarian
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:13 pm

Re: Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres

Post by Contrarian » Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:12 pm

Green Party Work & Pensions spokesperson Jonathan Bartley speaking at the protest today

https://vimeo.com/131890530

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest