Your opinions of co-location of IAPT staff in Jobcentres
- Thread starter Contrarian
- Start date
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
You're right.
I'd missed the bit about cycling on the pavement. It all makes much more sense to me now.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
PhobosandDeimos on this forum it is not acceptable in any circumstance to use 'learning difficulties ' as an insult. Do it again and you will be reported to the mod team.
Also if you use the reply function it will do the quoting for you.
I cannot follow what you are claiming in your posts at all. Can you clearly say in one sentence what you mean? Is it wholesale data theft? Identity theft? Breach of confidentiality?
Also if you use the reply function it will do the quoting for you.
I cannot follow what you are claiming in your posts at all. Can you clearly say in one sentence what you mean? Is it wholesale data theft? Identity theft? Breach of confidentiality?
Contrarian
Member
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.
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.
Libertad
Sparking up a rollie in the Reichstag
Cheers for that Contrarian .
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
With such a tide of opposition - the medical establishment, all of the main therapy organisations, etc - it would be an act of monumental hubris for the Government to press ahead with this crazy scheme.
So I imagine it will commence on schedule.
So I imagine it will commence on schedule.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I do hope that PhobosandDeimos is able to come back to this thread with a bit more detail about his/her own experiences. It does sound very much as if they have had exactly the kind of problems we're worrying will occur in the future, but are perhaps trying to paint it on a bigger canvas than it warrants just yet.
PhobosandDeimos, do come back and tell us what your experiences were. Just leave all the legal references and stuff out of it for now: there's time for all that later.
PhobosandDeimos, do come back and tell us what your experiences were. Just leave all the legal references and stuff out of it for now: there's time for all that later.
Contrarian
Member
The psychological manipulation of Jobseekers - http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/21823
Is the JobCentre an appropriate setting for psychological assessment and treatment? Is therapy entered into under any form of coercion, real or perceived, likely to be legitimate or ethical? These are the questions we need to ask as the government puts therapists into JobCentres, and asks claimants to undergo online Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.
Any talk of coercion will no doubt be dismissed as 'scaremongering' by the government. This now seems to be the standard response to concerns raised, particularly when they involve disadvantaged groups. But the Conservative Party manifesto itself gave rise to this concern, when it stated, “People who might benefit from treatment should get the medical help they need so they can return to work. If they refuse a recommended treatment, we will review whether their benefits should be reduced.”
This alarmed many professionals, including Peter Kinderman, Head of the Institute of Psychology, Health and Society He wrote,"This suggestion undermines a fundamental principle of medical and psychological healthcare, namely that of informed consent: a person who is capable of giving their consent has the right to refuse to receive care or services.
"It is wholly inappropriate to threaten the withdrawal of benefits in order to influence that decision. This is particularly true in mental health care, where there is considerable controversy about the overall benefits of many available treatments, including psychiatric medications, and where therapy based on coercion simply will not work."
Whilst the DWP has stated that claimants' participation in the therapy provided under these new arrangements will be entirely voluntary, it is alleged that the dubious use of psychology has been an integral part of welfare reform from the outset.
Earlier this month Dr. Felicity Callard of the University of Durham wrote,
"Psychological coercion and manipulation are part of the day-to-day experience of claiming benefits. It is time the profession took a stand against them."
She continued, "assessing 'employability' and enforcing activities said to increase it is now a central function of workfare, stimulating the growth of a state-sanctioned, state-contracted industry heavily influenced by – and reliant upon – psychological 'magic'" .
An important paper by Lynne Friedli and Robert Stear, published in the British Medical Journal, "considers the role of psychology in formulating, gaining consent for and delivering neoliberal welfare reform, and the ethical and political issues this raises. It focuses on the coercive uses of psychology in UK government workfare programmes: as an explanation for unemployment (people are unemployed because they have the wrong attitude or outlook) and as a means to achieve employability or ‘job readiness’ (possessing work-appropriate attitudes and beliefs). The discourse of psychological deficit has become an established feature of the UK policy literature on unemployment and social security and informs the growth of ‘psychological conditionality’—the requirement to demonstrate certain attitudes or attributes in order to receive benefits or other support, notably food."
It continues, "deficits in attitude and motivation can and do trigger sanctions. Psycho-coercion of this kind is directly contributing to the escalation of the number of sanctions being applied, forcing people off benefits and plunging growing numbers into poverty: eligibility for both out-of-work and in-work benefits is contingent not only on certain behaviours but also on possession of positive affect; conditionality is linked to the ‘employability’ mindset. For example, one of the criteria for being sent on Community Work Placements (unpaid work for 30 hours per week, for 26 weeks) is 'lack of motivation', although this is never defined."
The paper draws on the experience of claimants;"I duly attended the offices of A4e and (along with six other 'customers”' was treated to INSPIRE. This turned out to be a session on Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) run by an outside company claiming to be 'Master Practitioners in NLP'. I was 'mandated' to attend under threat of loss of benefits and was effectively unable to leave the session because of the same ever present threat."
Neuro Linguistic Programming was invented in California in the 1970s and is "a method of influencing brain behaviour... through the use of language ... and other types of communication to enable a person to 'recode' the way the brain responds to stimuli and manifest new and better behaviours. Neuro-Linguistic Programming often incorporates hypnosis and self-hypnosis to help achieve the change (or 'programming') that is wanted."
Anyone can become an NLP practitioner by taking an eight day course.
Much emphasis is placed on a claimant's attitude. If they are deemed to be negative, pessimistic, introverted, or anything else which an employer may find undesirable, they can be deemed to have an attitude problem, which must be fixed. The fact that they may be living in poverty and have any number of real, practical problems to cope with, and which may be the natural, understandable cause of their 'attitude', is an inconvenient truth. Their attitude must be corrected.
"My ‘advisor’ said I needed to see a psychologist because I was tearful and anxious after having my JSA cut for 4 weeks despite having a young child to look after by myself. When I said I did not trust anyone who finds it acceptable to starve others as a punishment, he told me that I was paranoid and again, needed to see a psychologist."
There is growing alarm amongst psychologists that their discipline is being used in this way, and increasing resistance.
On Friday 26 June, there will be a march to Streatham Jobcentre, the first of 10 pilot sites to bring CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) into Jobcentres. Details of the march are here.
And let's be clear, this is about poverty and class. Nobody with enough money to survive would need to tolerate this. It is becoming the case that only people who have no other means of survival claim Jobseeker's Allowance or Employment Support Allowance. The experience of claiming can be so stressful and degrading, that anyone who can afford to survive without claiming benefits will do so.
Some people may think that this is as it should be – claiming benefits should be a last resort. But it means that those who do need to claim are by definition the most disadvantaged people in society. To treat them in a way that no financially secure person would tolerate looks like bullying.
We have reached the stage that if you are prosperous, you can be quirky, sensitive, introverted, pessimistic, or anything else you feel like being. But if you are claiming out of work benefits, these characteristics are seen as undesirable and must be eliminated, on pain of hunger or further humiliation.
At a time when mental health services are at breaking point, and people cannot get the help and support they need when they seek it, to link mental health treatment with benefits for the most disadvantaged is rather cynical. Mental health treatment belongs in a healthcare setting, with no real or perceived pressure to co-operate, and no financial penalty for 'failure'.
And perhaps finally, we should ask, what is the justification for all this – the constant assertion that the welfare budget has "spiralled out of control"? But look at this graph. As a percentage of GDP, out of work benefits have risen during recessions and then fallen again. We have not got a problem with soaring out of work benefits. Or look at this graph, which shows how much more is spent on tax credits than on Jobseeker's Allowance. An aging population, low pay and a dysfunctional housing market are the main drivers of welfare spending. There is no ethical justification for the psychological manipulation of benefit claimants, and no economic one either.
-----
Is the JobCentre an appropriate setting for psychological assessment and treatment? Is therapy entered into under any form of coercion, real or perceived, likely to be legitimate or ethical? These are the questions we need to ask as the government puts therapists into JobCentres, and asks claimants to undergo online Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.
Any talk of coercion will no doubt be dismissed as 'scaremongering' by the government. This now seems to be the standard response to concerns raised, particularly when they involve disadvantaged groups. But the Conservative Party manifesto itself gave rise to this concern, when it stated, “People who might benefit from treatment should get the medical help they need so they can return to work. If they refuse a recommended treatment, we will review whether their benefits should be reduced.”
This alarmed many professionals, including Peter Kinderman, Head of the Institute of Psychology, Health and Society He wrote,"This suggestion undermines a fundamental principle of medical and psychological healthcare, namely that of informed consent: a person who is capable of giving their consent has the right to refuse to receive care or services.
"It is wholly inappropriate to threaten the withdrawal of benefits in order to influence that decision. This is particularly true in mental health care, where there is considerable controversy about the overall benefits of many available treatments, including psychiatric medications, and where therapy based on coercion simply will not work."
Whilst the DWP has stated that claimants' participation in the therapy provided under these new arrangements will be entirely voluntary, it is alleged that the dubious use of psychology has been an integral part of welfare reform from the outset.
Earlier this month Dr. Felicity Callard of the University of Durham wrote,
"Psychological coercion and manipulation are part of the day-to-day experience of claiming benefits. It is time the profession took a stand against them."
She continued, "assessing 'employability' and enforcing activities said to increase it is now a central function of workfare, stimulating the growth of a state-sanctioned, state-contracted industry heavily influenced by – and reliant upon – psychological 'magic'" .
An important paper by Lynne Friedli and Robert Stear, published in the British Medical Journal, "considers the role of psychology in formulating, gaining consent for and delivering neoliberal welfare reform, and the ethical and political issues this raises. It focuses on the coercive uses of psychology in UK government workfare programmes: as an explanation for unemployment (people are unemployed because they have the wrong attitude or outlook) and as a means to achieve employability or ‘job readiness’ (possessing work-appropriate attitudes and beliefs). The discourse of psychological deficit has become an established feature of the UK policy literature on unemployment and social security and informs the growth of ‘psychological conditionality’—the requirement to demonstrate certain attitudes or attributes in order to receive benefits or other support, notably food."
It continues, "deficits in attitude and motivation can and do trigger sanctions. Psycho-coercion of this kind is directly contributing to the escalation of the number of sanctions being applied, forcing people off benefits and plunging growing numbers into poverty: eligibility for both out-of-work and in-work benefits is contingent not only on certain behaviours but also on possession of positive affect; conditionality is linked to the ‘employability’ mindset. For example, one of the criteria for being sent on Community Work Placements (unpaid work for 30 hours per week, for 26 weeks) is 'lack of motivation', although this is never defined."
The paper draws on the experience of claimants;"I duly attended the offices of A4e and (along with six other 'customers”' was treated to INSPIRE. This turned out to be a session on Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) run by an outside company claiming to be 'Master Practitioners in NLP'. I was 'mandated' to attend under threat of loss of benefits and was effectively unable to leave the session because of the same ever present threat."
Neuro Linguistic Programming was invented in California in the 1970s and is "a method of influencing brain behaviour... through the use of language ... and other types of communication to enable a person to 'recode' the way the brain responds to stimuli and manifest new and better behaviours. Neuro-Linguistic Programming often incorporates hypnosis and self-hypnosis to help achieve the change (or 'programming') that is wanted."
Anyone can become an NLP practitioner by taking an eight day course.
Much emphasis is placed on a claimant's attitude. If they are deemed to be negative, pessimistic, introverted, or anything else which an employer may find undesirable, they can be deemed to have an attitude problem, which must be fixed. The fact that they may be living in poverty and have any number of real, practical problems to cope with, and which may be the natural, understandable cause of their 'attitude', is an inconvenient truth. Their attitude must be corrected.
"My ‘advisor’ said I needed to see a psychologist because I was tearful and anxious after having my JSA cut for 4 weeks despite having a young child to look after by myself. When I said I did not trust anyone who finds it acceptable to starve others as a punishment, he told me that I was paranoid and again, needed to see a psychologist."
There is growing alarm amongst psychologists that their discipline is being used in this way, and increasing resistance.
On Friday 26 June, there will be a march to Streatham Jobcentre, the first of 10 pilot sites to bring CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) into Jobcentres. Details of the march are here.
And let's be clear, this is about poverty and class. Nobody with enough money to survive would need to tolerate this. It is becoming the case that only people who have no other means of survival claim Jobseeker's Allowance or Employment Support Allowance. The experience of claiming can be so stressful and degrading, that anyone who can afford to survive without claiming benefits will do so.
Some people may think that this is as it should be – claiming benefits should be a last resort. But it means that those who do need to claim are by definition the most disadvantaged people in society. To treat them in a way that no financially secure person would tolerate looks like bullying.
We have reached the stage that if you are prosperous, you can be quirky, sensitive, introverted, pessimistic, or anything else you feel like being. But if you are claiming out of work benefits, these characteristics are seen as undesirable and must be eliminated, on pain of hunger or further humiliation.
At a time when mental health services are at breaking point, and people cannot get the help and support they need when they seek it, to link mental health treatment with benefits for the most disadvantaged is rather cynical. Mental health treatment belongs in a healthcare setting, with no real or perceived pressure to co-operate, and no financial penalty for 'failure'.
And perhaps finally, we should ask, what is the justification for all this – the constant assertion that the welfare budget has "spiralled out of control"? But look at this graph. As a percentage of GDP, out of work benefits have risen during recessions and then fallen again. We have not got a problem with soaring out of work benefits. Or look at this graph, which shows how much more is spent on tax credits than on Jobseeker's Allowance. An aging population, low pay and a dysfunctional housing market are the main drivers of welfare spending. There is no ethical justification for the psychological manipulation of benefit claimants, and no economic one either.
-----
Libertad
Sparking up a rollie in the Reichstag
Thanks for your research here Contrarian , very much appreciated.
Contrarian
Member
http://www.babcp.com/About/Press/Coerci ... Board.aspx
'COERCIVE' THERAPY PROPOSALS FOR JOBCENTRES - STATEMENT FROM BABCP BOARD
We note recent suggestions in various articles that the proposal to site 350 IAPT therapists in job centres might lead to a coercive approach to unemployed claimants and an attempt to attribute joblessness to the individual attitudes of claimants. It is also noted that claimants will be offered online CBT to increase their ‘employability’. Subsequent communications on Twitter have asked what BABCP’s view of these issues might be.
BABCP is not aware of the specifics of how CBT is to be offered in these settings. However, the position of BABCP’s Board of Trustees is that BABCP is against any offer of any treatment (including CBT) based on coercion or associated with unfair or disproportionate inducements. This applies to whether CBT interventions are offered as part of therapy, research, or in any other context (for example, corporate training/development). Coercion is defined by BABCP as the threat of punishment, and unfair and disproportionate inducements are defined by us as rewards for participation which are such that an individual is pressurised by the extent or form of the inducement to accept an offer which they would otherwise refuse.
BABCP does not have a blanket policy on the offer of CBT in any particular setting, including Job Centres, nor with any reasonable aim, such as increasing people’s fitness for work or any other activity. However, it is BABCP’s view that such an offer must be made in response to an identified need for intervention where the person involved freely expresses a desire for such intervention.
BABCP recognises that individuals may have personal needs which will hinder them in finding jobs and for which CBT may be useful. Naturally, BABCP expects such interventions to be evidence based and offered by a delivery method which is likewise supported by evidence of success. Such interventions should be based on the needs of the individual. BABCP supports the rights of people to have adequate access to effective interventions which will help them live all aspects of their lives, including employment. Similarly, people have the right to adequate and appropriate assessment of their personal needs in helping them find work, including psychological assessment. Results of any assessment, including psychological assessment and assessment for suitability for CBT should not be used coercively. BABCP does not recognise the validity or applicability of generalised psychological explanations of social issues such as joblessness.
Unfortunately, the evidence so far gathered by the Department of Health in partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions published in An Evaluation of the ‘IPS in IAPT’ Psychological Wellbeing and Work Feasibility pilot clearly indicates that much more work in the form of a larger pilot is required before the programme is rolled out. Furthermore, there is currently insufficient evidence to indicate whether it is effective and such evidence as there is indicates significant problems with the structure and implementation of the programme.
'COERCIVE' THERAPY PROPOSALS FOR JOBCENTRES - STATEMENT FROM BABCP BOARD
We note recent suggestions in various articles that the proposal to site 350 IAPT therapists in job centres might lead to a coercive approach to unemployed claimants and an attempt to attribute joblessness to the individual attitudes of claimants. It is also noted that claimants will be offered online CBT to increase their ‘employability’. Subsequent communications on Twitter have asked what BABCP’s view of these issues might be.
BABCP is not aware of the specifics of how CBT is to be offered in these settings. However, the position of BABCP’s Board of Trustees is that BABCP is against any offer of any treatment (including CBT) based on coercion or associated with unfair or disproportionate inducements. This applies to whether CBT interventions are offered as part of therapy, research, or in any other context (for example, corporate training/development). Coercion is defined by BABCP as the threat of punishment, and unfair and disproportionate inducements are defined by us as rewards for participation which are such that an individual is pressurised by the extent or form of the inducement to accept an offer which they would otherwise refuse.
BABCP does not have a blanket policy on the offer of CBT in any particular setting, including Job Centres, nor with any reasonable aim, such as increasing people’s fitness for work or any other activity. However, it is BABCP’s view that such an offer must be made in response to an identified need for intervention where the person involved freely expresses a desire for such intervention.
BABCP recognises that individuals may have personal needs which will hinder them in finding jobs and for which CBT may be useful. Naturally, BABCP expects such interventions to be evidence based and offered by a delivery method which is likewise supported by evidence of success. Such interventions should be based on the needs of the individual. BABCP supports the rights of people to have adequate access to effective interventions which will help them live all aspects of their lives, including employment. Similarly, people have the right to adequate and appropriate assessment of their personal needs in helping them find work, including psychological assessment. Results of any assessment, including psychological assessment and assessment for suitability for CBT should not be used coercively. BABCP does not recognise the validity or applicability of generalised psychological explanations of social issues such as joblessness.
Unfortunately, the evidence so far gathered by the Department of Health in partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions published in An Evaluation of the ‘IPS in IAPT’ Psychological Wellbeing and Work Feasibility pilot clearly indicates that much more work in the form of a larger pilot is required before the programme is rolled out. Furthermore, there is currently insufficient evidence to indicate whether it is effective and such evidence as there is indicates significant problems with the structure and implementation of the programme.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Now this is significant, because if there is a professional body the IAPT types (who are most likely to end up delivering this stuff) are likely to be members of, it's BABCP...
Doctor Carrot
Marxist Henchman
Really, really fucking shit idea. Is this the part where unemployment gets reclassified as a mental illness? I'm surprised it's taken this long tbh.
Libertad
Sparking up a rollie in the Reichstag
Yes, it's that part.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
It's taken this long because the degree of loonspuddery necessary to think this is a good idea takes a lot of preparatory groundwork. I reckon it's taken around 10 years to move the status in the public mind of an unemployed person from "lazy dole bludger, sponging on my taxes" to "fucking hell, there must be something wrong with someone who WANTS to stay on benefits". Much work has been done, and many sacrifices made, but finally we are at the point where, by maintaining the stigma towards mental illness, and "othering" benefits claimants continually via a supine media, we have found ourselves able to present the idea of unemployment as evidence of lunacy to the general public, at least, and get only the most muted outrage in response.
Yes, and step up New Labour to the podium for your role in making all this possible.
yes, I often wondered when the regime would step up a gear and act like the old soviet bloc, re-educating the citizens into the accepted way of thinking, lets see what Liberty and the other civil liberty groups do about this, probably be ring fenced.
Maybe, but legal aid has been massively cut now and it will be difficult to launch challenges against this, though they must.
Contrarian
Member
This 'story' now been picked up by the Guardian. Protest will be starting at 1.30pm to coincide 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/launc...h-living-well-network-hub-tickets-16785258159. The 'party' ends at 4pm.
Guardian Story -
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/26/mental-health-protest-clinic-jobcentre-streatham
Mental health workers and their clients are marching on a jobcentre in south-west London in protest at a scheme they say frames unemployment as a psychological disorder.
The Department for Work and Pensions announced in March that Streatham’s jobcentre would be the first to have therapists giving mental health support to help unemployed people back into work.
The DWP has now said that announcement was a mistake. But by coincidence, next week Lambeth council will open a £1.9m mental health clinic in the same building.
Mental health workers and service users, furious at what they see as an attempt to embed psychological treatment in a back-to-work agenda, were to go ahead with their demonstration anyway.
They said they regarded Lambeth’s decision to locate the borough’s main community mental health centre in the same building as the jobcentre as being in the spirit of the plan to give psychological treatment to the unemployed.
Anger has been growing since the March budget announced a scheme to bring counsellors into jobcentres to offer “integrated employment and mental health support to claimants with common mental health conditions”.
Under the plan, therapists from the NHS’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme would support jobcentre staff to assess and treat claimants, who may be referred to online cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) courses.
According to a recent DWP reply to a Freedom of Information request, the therapists would provide “Nice [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence]-approved and evidence-based psychological therapies to treat people with depression and anxiety disorders”.
The letter from the DWP went on: “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.”
Advocates point to the correlation between poverty and mental health problems and say helping people back to work could aid their recoveries. Offering therapy to people on benefits could help them deal with the worst psychological effects of joblessness, they say.
But critics say existing back-to-work policies, such as workfare, which forces people to work for their benefits, place people under psychological pressure, making jobcentres inappropriate venues for mental health treatment. Moreover, they are concerned that in an environment where there are few good jobs, individuals’ unemployment will be blamed on their own attitude.
The DWP has said claimants would not be sanctioned for refusing psychological treatment. But the Tory manifesto threatened benefit cuts for ill people who refused medical treatment that could help them back to work. In a hustings, Mark Harper, the minister for disabled people, suggested people with mental health conditions could be included.
Psychologist groups, including the British Psychological Society and the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies, have expressed concern that claimants will be forced into accepting interventions.
In a statement published on Thursday, the BABCP, which runs CBT training in the UK, said it was “against any offer of any treatment (including CBT) based on coercion or associated with unfair or disproportionate inducements”.
This month Prof Jamie Hacker Hughes, president of the BPS, pointed out recent research which presented evidence that claimants had been forced to accept psychological treatment. Researchers from Hubbub and Birkbeck, University of London, found unemployment was being rebranded as a psychological disorder in many advanced economies, with interventions being introduced to promote a positive outlook or leave claimants of welfare to face sanctions.
Dave Harper, a reader in clinical psychology at the University of East London, told the Guardian he believed there was an ideological agenda driving the government’s proposals.
“We are in a recession,” Harper said. “There are not many jobs out there and this is implying that unemployed people are to blame for their situation. It’s shifting the focus away from economic policy and on to the individual.”
Paul Atkinson, a psychotherapist based in Brighton, was sceptical about the DWP’s claims that mental health treatment would not be linked to sanctions. “It’s part of the same project of encouraging people back to work, which has got the whole sanctions culture wrapped around it,” he said.
Not all mental health specialists oppose the scheme. Janet Weisz, chair of the UK Council of Psychotherapists, gave it a cautious approval. “In principle it’s good,” she said. “What we have concerns about is: what does this mean? Does something that’s an option become something more mandatory?”
Weisz said she was writing to the DWP for clarification on how the scheme would work. But she added: “The fact that we are writing to the DWP about how to deliver counselling and psychological services, that’s a concern. What I’m hoping is they will respond and have a dialogue with us.”
Critics said the government’s own pilot study of IAPT in jobcentres showed it was ineffective. The research by the Work Foundation found that of 413 people referred to the pilot scheme in four unnamed locations, 173 refused to take part. Many more dropped out. In the end, just 15 got jobs.
The DWP originally announced in a stakeholder bulletin that IAPT would be rolled out in jobcentres from this summer, beginning in Streatham. A DWP spokeswoman initially denied this, saying websites that had reported it had got it wrong. After being shown news of the scheme’s introduction on websites and online publications by DWP partners, a spokesman told the Guardian the announcement had been made in error.
An NHS spokeswoman said the Lambeth Living Well Hub, the new “front door” to a range of mental health services for patients from the borough, was not linked to the DWP scheme to install therapists in jobcentres.
“The jobcentre building was chosen as the location for the hub as there was free available office space and there was an opportunity to train jobcentre staff to help them work better with people with mental health issues,” a statement said.
Denise McKenna, an activist with the Mental Health Resistance network, one of the groups that called Friday’s demonstration, said she was horrified about effectively having to go to the jobcentre to access mental health treatment.
Cuts to mental health services had resulted in many people with quite serious mental health problems being discharged from their local mental health trusts and left in the care of their GPs, she said. These were the people likely to use the new centre.
“Can you imagine having to go to the jobcentre and talk about very intimate, personal things then having to leave through the office in floods of tears?” she asked.
Responding to the wider plans to embed mental health treatment in jobcentres, she added: “I can see someone at the jobcentre ending up very seriously injured by someone with mental health problems. God forbid it should ever happen, but it’s on the cards.”
Guardian Story -
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/26/mental-health-protest-clinic-jobcentre-streatham
Mental health workers and their clients are marching on a jobcentre in south-west London in protest at a scheme they say frames unemployment as a psychological disorder.
The Department for Work and Pensions announced in March that Streatham’s jobcentre would be the first to have therapists giving mental health support to help unemployed people back into work.
The DWP has now said that announcement was a mistake. But by coincidence, next week Lambeth council will open a £1.9m mental health clinic in the same building.
Mental health workers and service users, furious at what they see as an attempt to embed psychological treatment in a back-to-work agenda, were to go ahead with their demonstration anyway.
They said they regarded Lambeth’s decision to locate the borough’s main community mental health centre in the same building as the jobcentre as being in the spirit of the plan to give psychological treatment to the unemployed.
Anger has been growing since the March budget announced a scheme to bring counsellors into jobcentres to offer “integrated employment and mental health support to claimants with common mental health conditions”.
Under the plan, therapists from the NHS’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme would support jobcentre staff to assess and treat claimants, who may be referred to online cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) courses.
According to a recent DWP reply to a Freedom of Information request, the therapists would provide “Nice [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence]-approved and evidence-based psychological therapies to treat people with depression and anxiety disorders”.
The letter from the DWP went on: “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.”
Advocates point to the correlation between poverty and mental health problems and say helping people back to work could aid their recoveries. Offering therapy to people on benefits could help them deal with the worst psychological effects of joblessness, they say.
But critics say existing back-to-work policies, such as workfare, which forces people to work for their benefits, place people under psychological pressure, making jobcentres inappropriate venues for mental health treatment. Moreover, they are concerned that in an environment where there are few good jobs, individuals’ unemployment will be blamed on their own attitude.
The DWP has said claimants would not be sanctioned for refusing psychological treatment. But the Tory manifesto threatened benefit cuts for ill people who refused medical treatment that could help them back to work. In a hustings, Mark Harper, the minister for disabled people, suggested people with mental health conditions could be included.
Psychologist groups, including the British Psychological Society and the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies, have expressed concern that claimants will be forced into accepting interventions.
In a statement published on Thursday, the BABCP, which runs CBT training in the UK, said it was “against any offer of any treatment (including CBT) based on coercion or associated with unfair or disproportionate inducements”.
This month Prof Jamie Hacker Hughes, president of the BPS, pointed out recent research which presented evidence that claimants had been forced to accept psychological treatment. Researchers from Hubbub and Birkbeck, University of London, found unemployment was being rebranded as a psychological disorder in many advanced economies, with interventions being introduced to promote a positive outlook or leave claimants of welfare to face sanctions.
Dave Harper, a reader in clinical psychology at the University of East London, told the Guardian he believed there was an ideological agenda driving the government’s proposals.
“We are in a recession,” Harper said. “There are not many jobs out there and this is implying that unemployed people are to blame for their situation. It’s shifting the focus away from economic policy and on to the individual.”
Paul Atkinson, a psychotherapist based in Brighton, was sceptical about the DWP’s claims that mental health treatment would not be linked to sanctions. “It’s part of the same project of encouraging people back to work, which has got the whole sanctions culture wrapped around it,” he said.
Not all mental health specialists oppose the scheme. Janet Weisz, chair of the UK Council of Psychotherapists, gave it a cautious approval. “In principle it’s good,” she said. “What we have concerns about is: what does this mean? Does something that’s an option become something more mandatory?”
Weisz said she was writing to the DWP for clarification on how the scheme would work. But she added: “The fact that we are writing to the DWP about how to deliver counselling and psychological services, that’s a concern. What I’m hoping is they will respond and have a dialogue with us.”
Critics said the government’s own pilot study of IAPT in jobcentres showed it was ineffective. The research by the Work Foundation found that of 413 people referred to the pilot scheme in four unnamed locations, 173 refused to take part. Many more dropped out. In the end, just 15 got jobs.
The DWP originally announced in a stakeholder bulletin that IAPT would be rolled out in jobcentres from this summer, beginning in Streatham. A DWP spokeswoman initially denied this, saying websites that had reported it had got it wrong. After being shown news of the scheme’s introduction on websites and online publications by DWP partners, a spokesman told the Guardian the announcement had been made in error.
An NHS spokeswoman said the Lambeth Living Well Hub, the new “front door” to a range of mental health services for patients from the borough, was not linked to the DWP scheme to install therapists in jobcentres.
“The jobcentre building was chosen as the location for the hub as there was free available office space and there was an opportunity to train jobcentre staff to help them work better with people with mental health issues,” a statement said.
Denise McKenna, an activist with the Mental Health Resistance network, one of the groups that called Friday’s demonstration, said she was horrified about effectively having to go to the jobcentre to access mental health treatment.
Cuts to mental health services had resulted in many people with quite serious mental health problems being discharged from their local mental health trusts and left in the care of their GPs, she said. These were the people likely to use the new centre.
“Can you imagine having to go to the jobcentre and talk about very intimate, personal things then having to leave through the office in floods of tears?” she asked.
Responding to the wider plans to embed mental health treatment in jobcentres, she added: “I can see someone at the jobcentre ending up very seriously injured by someone with mental health problems. God forbid it should ever happen, but it’s on the cards.”
Last edited:
When the Northern Powerhouse was being discussed, just before the election, I recall the Red Tory, Philip Blond, asserting that mental health care in the region would get a great boost as it would facilitate councils bringing in more 'welfare to work schemes' which would help people with issues back to work, the Tories see work as the answer to mental health issues.
Contrarian
Member
Published in today's SLP by the Jim Dickson - Cabinet member for health and wellbeing, Lambeth council (in favour of the Living Well Hub).
I wonder if the DWP will also bring in quack therapies like Emotional Freedom Technique, there are plenty of 'practitioners' who would take up the work.
I wonder if the DWP will also bring in quack therapies like Emotional Freedom Technique, there are plenty of 'practitioners' who would take up the work.
As someone who has recognised (and worked out how to use) the value of quotes, could you do so this important thread is more manageable, thanks.
Libertad
Sparking up a rollie in the Reichstag
Wut?
That paper by a very good group of academics at Durham led by Felicity Collard shows that this is not new and that the now privatised Govt Behavioural Insights (Nudge) team has trained over 20,000 DWP staff in their dubious methods.
what a surprise, the DWP back tracking, till it all subsides.
Last edited:
superfly101
Well-Known Member
ThamesReach 15 June 2015
http://www.thamesreach.org.uk/news-and-views/lambeths-19million-mental-health-service-boost/
http://www.thamesreach.org.uk/news-and-views/lambeths-19million-mental-health-service-boost/
Contrarian
Member
Question of the day for MH workers:
Similar threads
