No general requirement for counsellors to have accreditation,qualification????

Hi Sacral

Some interesting points in your post which are applicable to most things, not just counselling, as I am not a councillor I can only give you a response from my own field of expertise. 🙂

Helping clients to believe in themselves and to have a sense of self worth is an important factor in most counselling. Yet most forms of accreditation are based on the idea that you are only any good if the accrediting organisation says you are. A counsellor who needs such an accreditation may have difficulty in supporting their clients' self belief.

To my understanding, the real question here is not, will someone who chooses to learn and develop their skill-set to the point that they are competent enough to have their understanding and skill-set tested, be able to support their clients to believe in themselves in a meaningful way, but will someone without the understanding or the required skill-set to back it up, be able to deliver a meaningful solution?

Power is an important issue in counselling. Clients come to counsellors relatively dependent and powerless. An essential part of a counsellor's work is to help their clients reclaim their own power to take charge of their own lives. Accreditation procedures push counsellors to give up some of their power, conform to requirements and procedures and submit to someone else's judgement of their capabilities. This will encourage the counsellors to behave similarly to their clients.

This is the same in most things, if we learn a skill and wish to practice it within an organisation, then we will have to work within the framework of the organisation that employs us to perform the task, in the way that they specify that it should be done.

If we wish to do things our own way, then we need to set up our own practice and define the way that we choose to apply our understanding and skill-set.

Accreditations are not meaningful. Some forms of accreditation are based on completing an approved training course. Others have requirement for lengths of training and hours of practice. There is no evidence that length of training, or possibly any training, leads to good practice. Indeed the reverse may often be true. Some accreditation is based on written submissions and the accreditors never meet the people they are accrediting.

I understand that the receiving of formal training and the application of that formal training is two different things, but making a statement that there is no evidence that training leads to good practice and that people without any formal training are often better suited to deliver the skills and understanding is IMO misleading.

Yes there are individuals who can self develop and over time will gain an understanding that will help them to establish a framework to start building a practice upon, but to advocate that no training is often better than well structured formal training is nonsense.

Accreditation is a misrepresentation. A counsellor's accreditation will be seen by employers or clients as a guarantee of their fitness to practice but, as outlined above, it provides no such guarantee.

An accreditation is a bit like an MOT, it is in reality only valid upon the day that it is issued. 😉

I wonder what everyone else thinks on this argument and if the statements are true? My own training and qualifications might have been one big expense:032:

I think that the question that you need to ask yourself is not, was my training and qualification one big avoidable expense, but would I be running a practice without it?

Hi

I'm not sure where this website got its information from but imo it uses the word accreditation in the wrong context. True the industry is not regulated meaning anyone can say they are a counsellor and see clients. The BACP (and others) exist to help people go to counsellors who are qualified and who have had sufficient training. you become accredited when you reach a certain level of experience consisting of years practicing and client hours. Therefore you can be qualified but not accredited. Not being accredited doesn't mean you are not suitable to see clients. Its more like being a counsellor and a senior counsellor. There are also other requirements such as regularly having supervision and personal therapy to ensure you are fit to practice and a certain amount of CPD hours like other health professionals.

The labour government were looking to regulate the industry and have protected titles so that only qualified people could call themselves counsellors or psychotherapists and it would be regulated by the HPC but the coalition has stopped it.

so I would say any qualification you have is well worth it rather then being a quack offering a service you have no clue about.

jade

Hi Jadegirl

Totally understand your view, I am not sure if you have noticed what the site stated were the arguments against

According to the website as Quoted "There are strong arguments against accreditation:

• Helping clients to believe in themselves and to have a sense of self worth is an important factor in most counselling. Yet most forms of accreditation are based on the idea that you are only any good if the accrediting organisation says you are. A counsellor who needs such an accreditation may have difficulty in supporting their clients' self belief.
• Power is an important issue in counselling. Clients come to counsellors relatively dependent and powerless. An essential part of a counsellor's work is to help their clients reclaim their own power to take charge of their own lives. Accreditation procedures push counsellors to give up some of their power, conform to requirements and procedures and submit to someone else's judgement of their capabilities. This will encourage the counsellors to behave similarly to their clients.
• Accreditations are not meaningful. Some forms of accreditation are based on completing an approved training course. Others have requirement for lengths of training and hours of practice. There is no evidence that length of training, or possibly any training, leads to good practice. Indeed the reverse may often be true. Some accreditation is based on written submissions and the accreditors never meet the people they are accrediting.
• Accreditation is a misrepresentation. A counsellor's accreditation will be seen by employers or clients as a guarantee of their fitness to practice but, as outlined above, it provides no such guarantee."

Quote "The whole field of counselling accreditation seems to be characterised by struggles for power and control amongst the accrediting organisations."

Some of the quotes can be considered above as debateable especially if taking online training :confused:. I can somewhat agree with the website as quoted below in view of a general stability within oneself usually taught at introductory level-

"

"The essential requirements for someone to be a good counsellor are:

• Self confidence: you need to believe in yourself and be in charge of your own life - and know that you don't have to be perfect in either of these or anything else.
• Self-awareness: you need to be open to your own developing awareness of your qualities, your strengths and abilities, your weaknesses and your feelings.
• Emotional competence: you need to feel OK with your own emotions, be able to express your own grief, anger, fear, love and joy and to be relaxed with your clients expressing their emotions.
• And you need to be able to listen giving your full attention to the client and not intervene unless it really would be helpful to the client."

Sacrel

I have had over the past few years had an increased interest in the mind and how the mind works so to speak .

Many spirit visitors had have been psychiatrists and it is no accident that I am drawn to help individuals become / see a little clearer regarding their own life troubles .

Of course I am bordering into the realms of spiritual counselling rather than the normal counselling but when someone tries to help another unravel their own troubled mind one cannot help but connect with the spirit of the individual in some shape or form .

I only briefly looked online over the xmas break to see how one can become a counsellor and there were organisations that did home courses over a year or two down to suggesting bachelors / master degrees .. which can take up to 6 years if my memory serves me correctly ..

I am glad if it is true that no actual qualifications are needed in my case but I suppose no matter how long one spends learning from textbooks that perhaps illustrates what Jung or freud wrote about years ago for it doesn't stand up to one's own life experiences and how one has related and understood them .

The qualifications lie within one's life experiences not from a text book .

x dazzle x

Interesting discussion, great points on both sides of the argument.
I chose to jump through accreditation hoops to become a UKCP registered psychotherapist a few years ago - so am I now a better therapist because of that? I certainly have gained loads of additional knowledge and experience, which give me a wider range of options in helping clients, but that does not necessarily make someone a good counsellor or therapist.

In the course of my work I happen to meet quite a lot of psychologists, psychotherapists, counsellors - and their level of qualification/accreditation and years of experience do not necessarily correlate with my (thoroughly biased of course) evaluation of them as a therapist. In fact the most hideously scary therapist I came across probably had probably 30+ years of experience and in charge of a large psychotherapy service! If anyone close to me (or indeed a complete stranger asking me for a recommendation) needed any counselling help myself I would not touch that person with a barge pole!

On the other hand there are a number of total beginners in the therapy field who, for example come to my Level 1 EFT workshops, not having worked with people before - and they exude such warmth, compassion and natural, deep wisdom, that regardless of the lack of theoretical knowledge or shortage of experience, I would feel quite safe in their hands myself.

In my opinion, accreditation does provide a sort of benchmark but by no means it guarantees the quality of therapeutic relationship or results you would get with a particular counsellor. Much of the evidence shows that it is the relationship, the connection that does most of the healing.

Masha

There have been many moments when I have experienced by putting the qualifications aside and just sitting before another as a human being openly exploring and listening brought much more progress and emotional healing with another.

Training has been valuable to make assesments in certain disorders, but once assesment was made the one to one genuine connection seems to make a great difference.

Experincing both sides of training and gaining accreditation with just 'being with another' both have their rightful and useful place. But there is something about real genuine connection without any coloring of formalities.

Interesting discussion. certainly between accreditation and alternative healing and talking methods. 🙂

Sacrel

Hi Sacrel

What seems to becoming apparent to me in this discussion, is the difference between the boundaries that people are taught to put up in a therapy enviroment and the total lack of boundaries that comes through becoming one with someone in order to create healing. 🙂

Hi Paul

Yes certainly. Picking up on Masha B
quote “Much of the evidence shows that it is the relationship, the connection that does most of the healing.”

And Nice_1
quote “The qualifications lie within one's life experiences not from a text book”. Connecting genuinely with another begins to change the environment and atmosphere compared to textbook directions.

In my opinion the skill is to use both within acceptable boundaries used according to the client’s problem.

In both approaches boundaries are important and can have an effect on the counselling relationship depending on what boundaries are set. In a typical counselling session, boundaries as taught within training are set and decided what is made aware to the client. Depending on initial assessment.

Life’s experiences can also certainly have an advantage in letting someone know that they have been through the same thing, however some argue this is crossing the boundary moving into disclosure beyond the counsel figure. The client then loses the picture and role the counsellor holds before them. Yet someone without certain life experiences may find difficulty in connecting with another. Empathy is an important factor in both cases.

Once someone has worked through their own life’s experiences and partly through training, develops towards becoming an effective counsellor can then the ease of being genuine, honest and unconditional be given with the skill of empathy throughout.
Masha B commented on the relationship, this I agree that it is the relationship that heals, but the counsellor has not created the heal but allowed the client to find the space themselves..

It is interesting the website states “There is no evidence that length of training, or possibly any training, leads to good practice.”

Maybe they are referring to the essential requirements as stated “ self confidence, self awareness, emotional competence and listening.” Which life experiences may play a part and self development in one self. 🙂

It is true that looked at objectively there ARE strong arguments against accreditation of counsellors (which usually means being accredited by the BACP).

However, BACP are excellent at marketing their organisation. Pick up any book on counselling and you will find BACP listed. Read any advert for a full-time counselling job and you will find BACP mentioned.

There are strong arguments against accreditation, but you have to weigh those arguments up against the alternative.

Work alone and you can get by without accreditation, but if you ever want to get salaried employment as a counsellor in the UK you would probably not even get short-listed if you were not accredited.

I was turned down for a university counselling job because I didn't have the right qualifications, and am pretty sure that I was a lot better counsellor that the bloke who got it (he later left his wife for a marriage guidance counsellor and departed, which cheered me up).. On the other hand, I have worked with some terrible unqualified dominators who should never have been let near people, and the lack of official qualification never bothered them as they made money and major mess. Better safe than sorry, in my view.

It is true that looked at objectively there ARE strong arguments against accreditation of counsellors (which usually means being accredited by the BACP).

However, BACP are excellent at marketing their organisation. Pick up any book on counselling and you will find BACP listed. Read any advert for a full-time counselling job and you will find BACP mentioned.

There are strong arguments against accreditation, but you have to weigh those arguments up against the alternative.

Work alone and you can get by without accreditation, but if you ever want to get salaried employment as a counsellor in the UK you would probably not even get short-listed if you were not accredited.

I got my accreditation precisely for the reasons described above. Incidentally, that's also why I qualified. I don't agree with the view that accreditation makes you a worse counsellor - it merely means that you have had a lot of experience and are committed to self-improvement and supervision.
Yes, there are qualified counsellors who I wouldn't send a cat to (no offence, catophiles). Also unqualified counsellors who are really good at what they do, as I was, and are working for cruze, other voluntary organisations, and are in training. But to get your accreditation with any organisation requires knowledge, experience and persistence, and that's what it's for.

My own guidelines: how much therapy has the therapist had? Who is their supervisor and how often do they have supervision? And do they meditate regularly? Ask those questions, look on their websites. As with any professional or tradesman, it pays to ask a few questions first.