At the moment, anyone can claim to be a counsellor or psychotherapist in the UK. The titles are not a protected ones, like ‘doctor’. There are, of course, professional bodies that reputable practitioners will belong to. The major professional bodies (the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, for example) are careful to distinguish between membership (on the basis of some training) and accredited membership (on the basis of substantial training and extended supervised practice), but such niceties are usually not appreciated or enquired about by clients. And, at the moment, anyone can claim to be a counsellor or psychotherapist.
There is good news, and bad news.
The good news is that the Health Professions Council (HPC) is moving to regulate the titles used in counselling and psychotherapy. Hopefully, sometime in 2011, the titles will become protected and it will be illegal for anyone who is not qualified to use them. The bad news is that the HPC’s draft proposals, currently up for consultation, if implemented, would devalue the work of tens of thousands of practitioners.
The crux of the problem is this: the terms ‘counsellor’ and ‘pychotherapist’ have emerged out of history without any clear or real differentiation, and the HPC now wishes to impose an arbitrary differentiation and create a two-tier profession.
As a rule of thumb, if required to differentiate between ‘counselling’ and ‘psychotherapy’ by clients who asked, practitioners often talk about ‘depth’. Counselling is seen as helping people deal with more surface issues, and psychotherapy is seen with helping people understand hidden roots and patterns beneath the surface issues. Someone may present with anxiety, and the therapist may help the clients plan ways of dealing with that, but at some point, he or she is likely to work with the client to help them understand and overcome the deeper reasons behind the anxiety (lack of self-esteem, for example). The problem is nobody has been able to define when counselling (if it exists separately) becomes psychotherapy (if it exists separately). It could be argued that they are on a continuum, and nobody knows the cut-off point between the two.
In its current proposals the HPC has decided to differentiate between the two, and to create two separate types of practitioner, in two ways: first by the level of training, second by the level of expertise.
It has been proposed that entry to the statutory register for counsellors would be level 5 (equivalent to Higher Education Diploma level) and that for psychotherapists would be level 7 (equivalent to Higher Education Masters level). It has also proposed some criteria to mark higher level work for psychotherapists.
I have several problems with these proposals.
First, the criteria for distinguishing between the two seem arbitrary rather than evidence based. In the standards of proficiency there are 49 standards which apply to both counsellors and psychotherapists, and only three which are unique to psychotherapy, and two which are unique to counselling. This must surely demonstrate the virtual meaninglessness of trying to differentiate between the two.
Secondly many counsellors now train at Masters level. A recent mapping exercise conducted by the BACP on training for counselling and psychotherapy within the UK found that there were similar numbers of training courses at Masters level for both titles. It is meaningless to try to differentiate between the two in this way. Many of these counsellors would be able to meet the advanced criteria for psychotherapy, and some psychotherapists may not be able to do so, regardless of level of qualification.
Thirdly, if the proposals go ahead, many thousands of counselling practitioners who have trained at Masters level will effectively have a second class, devalued title, regardless of how they practice.
Fourthly, regardless of title, most practitioners will go on responding to the needs of their clients, working at an appropriate depth in a therapeutic way - with that way determined by the client, not by any arbitrary criteria or title.
There may well be a case for recognising greater seniority and experience in the profession and for having a level of senior practitioner. If one of the two proposed titles are dropped, there could be ‘Senior Counsellors’ OR ‘Senior Psychotherapists’ but NOT two fundamentally different types of practitioner requiring falsely delineated titles.
Perhaps it is getting a little late in the day for my brain to follow this but I don’t understand some of it.
Why would this devalue psychotherapists, if they are expected to train at level 7?
I think in view of what you have said here, surely we should have just have one title, one standard that all could train towards.
I have heard of this legislation and was going to mention it. I welcome such a move which would give clarity and authority to your profession.
It is easy to call one’s self a counsellor and have great differences in experience and training. I can’t understand the retinence of such legislation by yourself.
How are you going to be de-valued, those of you who have been trained at Masters level?
What would you like to see in its place?
onethoughtfulwoman
I think the central issue is that because entry to the counselling register will be at Diploma level (and not Masters level), all counsellors will be regarded as inferior to psychotherapists, regardless of their level of training and level of expertise.
Yes, I can see what you mean now, thanks. I think it would be still good to have one training, one title if possible.