We’ve updated and added additional questions to these FAQs following the publication of the next iteration of the draft SCoPEd framework on 14 July 2020.

What’s different in this draft iteration?

We’ve listened to all your feedback gained through the 2019 consultation, emails and meeting members at Making Connections events, and taken the time to ensure that we’ve incorporated it into this draft iteration. The main differences in this version are: 

  • titles have been removed
    - so that the focus at this stage is on the evidence rather than titles
    - it demonstrates that all therapists are respected, qualified roles

  • gateways have been added
    - this means the principle of recognising post qualifying training and experience is embedded in the framework
    - it recognises that members can move from one column to another

  • terminology and language has been updated
    - the terminology has become more inclusive of all modalities
    - the language is more consistent

  • methodology document has been updated
    - it reflects the additional stages of the project

How have you addressed concerns around titles and hierarchy?

The mapping shows differentiation between three categories of therapists based on training and practice standards represented by columns A, B and C but this differentiation is not clearly linked to title. This version of the framework, doesn’t include any titles at this stage in order to keep the focus on the evidence of the mapping which suggests that currently those defining themselves as counsellors or psychotherapists could fit into any of the columns.

The further mapping makes it clearer that it is the combination of competences, practice requirements, length and level of training and experience that together indicate differentiation between therapists. It’s not any one factor alone and differentiation isn’t clearly associated with titles currently used by the participating bodies.

What are the implications on therapists practising competences outside of the column they sit in?

The framework columns illustrate what is in the training competences and practice standards at the point of entry to the level, but it doesn’t mean that therapists may never develop skills to practise other competences. We recognise that everyone’s experiences are different, and that experience will grow through professional practice and continuing professional development (CPD). All members are valued and trusted, and are expected to work within their limits of competence according to the Ethical Framework – SCoPEd is no different in that way.

How have you addressed concerns that further training and experience hasn’t been included?

In response to your feedback that the framework didn’t take into account post-qualifying training and experience, the Tech Group completed a wider and more detailed mapping of training and practice requirements to include the requirements not just at entry point (on completion of initial training), but also at other existing transition points, for example:

  • gateways associated with membership category requirements
  • registration requirements
  • individual and course accreditation requirements

This means that the framework allows for post-qualifying training and experience to be recognised.

At this stage, the framework is still in draft form and only maps existing mechanisms (such as Accreditation) for demonstrating how post-qualifying training and experience meet the competences and practice requirements of each column. If the framework were to be adopted, new mechanisms would have to be developed to ensure that each individuals post-qualifying training and experience can be taken into account.

Every member’s situation is unique. However, we’ve created a few case studies to show how our members, their individual qualifications, post-qualifying training and experience could sit within this draft iteration of the framework. We hope that they’ll help you visualise how you might sit on the framework and how you could move between the gateways should you wish to.

You can view the case studies here

What are entry points and gateways?

Entry points are where the competences and practice standards can be achieved upon graduation from a course that meets the criteria for the column.

Gateways refers to progression points when further post-qualifying training and experience enable a member to progress from one column to another.

A course may meet the competences for a certain column but not include the full number of client hours or supervision required for that level of practice. These could subsequently be gained through ongoing experience, thereby allowing a gateway from one column to another.

The mapped gateways and entry points in this draft framework reflect existing accreditation schemes, registration points and membership categories but in the future, there could be other mechanisms for recognising post-qualifying training and experience that meet the competences and practice standards.

What does ‘mental health familiarisation’ mean?

We understand that it’s hard to define what mental health familiarisation means, in relation to the framework.

The intention is to offer people the opportunity to gain the knowledge, understanding and insight that equips them to work within or alongside other mental health services, with clients who have extraordinary needs and with family members of mental health service users.

This includes a knowledge and understanding of:

  • a working awareness of presentation, diagnosis and treatment in the context of UK mental health care services
  • a range of appropriate models of assessment which include (but are not be limited to) learning about how the medical model understands mental wellbeing and mental illness
  • the influence of socio-economics, class, gender, disability, age, culture, religion, race and sexuality on the incidence, definition, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and mental health
  • the impact of intersectionality (where a person belongs to more than one marginalised group)
  • the wider contexts of mental health provision in order to develop sensitive practice appropriate to the needs of people who experience greater mental and emotional distress

In relation the wider mental health system it would also include an understanding and appreciation of:

  • the impact on clients and their families of mental health presentations, diagnosis, stigma and social attitudes
  • the different professional and personal roles in mental health care
  • how the role of the therapist sits within the wider system
  • recognising the therapist’s role in provision of non-discriminatory services for people with exceptional needs; preventing additional mental health distress caused by normative social expectations and exclusion
  • relevant ethical and legal considerations, including appropriate familiarity with the Mental Health Act 2007 and the Equality Act 2010

There is no one way of meeting these standards. Training organisations may choose how to fulfil these standards which may be via lectures, videos, a formal placement. Some practitioners may gain this knowledge through first-hand experience in an appropriate setting.

How have you addressed concerns about the language used in the framework?

We’ve worked on making the terminology more inclusive in recognition that all approaches are represented in all three areas of competence. For example, the terms ‘conscious’ and ‘unconscious’ have been used alongside the terms ‘in awareness’ and ‘out of awareness’ to ensure the widest possible understanding of these terms from different theoretical perspectives

We’ve made sure the language is more consistent across the framework, without changing any meanings.

What’s in the new methodology document?

We’ve produced a supplement to the original methodology setting out the steps we’ve taken since the previous iteration was published. This document explains the process of the formal member consultation and a summary of analysis of themes that arose from the consultation as areas that needed additional consideration.

The updated methodology shows how we’ve ensured that every item of feedback was included and how each area of feedback was systematically considered by the Tech Group and Expert Reference Group (ERG) in order to further develop the framework in light of the feedback, while also remaining faithful to the available evidence. The new methodology document also includes details of ethical considerations and methodological limitations.

Details were added about the small group clarity check process by critical readers which was undertaken to gain preliminary feedback about whether the revised framework successfully addressed concerns and member feedback, and whether the information has been presented in the clearest possible way.

What did the clarity check involve?

As an additional quality check and to ensure that consultation feedback had been rigorously incorporated, a small group were asked to comment on whether the work done on the revised framework reflected the member feedback and whether it has been presented in the clearest possible way.

The three partner organisations in the collaboration each selected people for the additional quality check. The group included internal divisions and committees, certain members of staff (of each partner organisation), members of each of the Boards of Governors and external contacts such as training providers and academic researchers.

The role of this small group was to compare the previous version of the framework with the latest iteration and to comment on whether the feedback in the consultation had been incorporated. Their involvement was to support the rigour of the work that had been undertaken by the Tech Group and the ERG. To ensure this, the group were given a series of questions asking:

  • whether the revisions in the document faithfully captured the concerns and feedback raised in response to the last iteration of the framework
  • specific comment about whether feedback had been incorporated had also been sought in all the areas identified within the consultation as needing addressing:
    - titles and hierarchy
    - modality and language
    - complexity
    - practice standards
    - gaps and omissions

Finally, the group were asked whether the narrative and presentation of the new documents were sufficiently clear to avoid confusion.

Each organisation collated the feedback from its own members of the group. Every item of feedback was considered by the Tech Group and any resulting recommendations for changes in presentation of the framework, or that consultation feedback hadn’t been sufficiently incorporated, was presented to the ERG and Steering Group.

How have you been able to change the wording of some competences and even move them to different columns?

Thanks to your feedback further areas of evidence were identified, analysed, and considered for inclusion into the framework. In some cases, this meant that several different sources were blended to evidence specific competences or their position in the framework. When this happened, the relevant competence was reviewed and where appropriate the Tech Group proposed changes to the ERG, presenting the evidence to support the suggested change.

In some instances, a review of the evidence and consideration of new evidence resulted in competences being changed from one column to another.

How have you been able to change competences if the first draft was evidence-based?

You helped us uncover additional sources of evidence, which we’ve consulted. Existing evidence has also been revisited to address feedback about content and gaps including assessment and diagnosis; ethical competences; difference and diversity; suicide and self-harm and medical model language.

In more general terms the ERG has reviewed and agreed changes to the language to make it more inclusive of a wider range of approaches without changing the underlying meaning.

How’s this draft iteration an inclusive framework?

One of the clear aspirations of the SCoPEd framework is that it recognises and values the vocational entry point, which currently offers greater inclusivity and greater diversity and is an important feature of the current training landscape for counselling and psychotherapy. This is very different from other professions who have chosen to offer a single-entry point at degree level. Doing this narrows opportunity (and reduces diversity) by reducing access for trainees from minority and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Ensuring fair access to the profession is critically important for trainees and clients.

The SCoPEd framework is intended to be an enabling framework that values different entry points but also offers opportunities for progression via clear pathways. The challenge is to develop and support pathways that are affordable and realistic opportunities for progression.

In time, this will help to significantly change the demographic of therapists at those levels which are currently very unrepresentative and difficult to enter unless you do the ‘right’ training. We hope the SCoPEd framework will help and encourage, this change.

What’s the next step?

It’s important to us that we continue to work with you and understand your views in relation to the SCoPEd project. Therefore, all members of BACP, BPC and UKCP will be invited to complete a questionnaire in relation to this draft iteration of the framework, during week commencing 20 July 2020. Within the questionnaire, you’ll be able to indicate whether you’d like to be part of an online bulletin board in the autumn, which is a form of focus group. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic we’re unable to conduct this face to face as we’d have liked but welcome the opportunity for a group of members (across all three partner organisations) to feedback to us in more detail. 

How are you ensuring that the data received in the questionnaire is reliable?

The questionnaire that launched following the publication of the latest draft of the SCoPEd framework was designed and hosted by Critical Research, an independent research agency who BACP have worked with previously, most notably on the first round of feedback for the SCoPEd framework in 2019. They will be undertaking some analysis of the questionnaire and this will feed into our planning and reporting on SCoPEd, but a primary objective of the questionnaire (and hence the specific questions included) was to recruit for a follow up “Bulletin Board”.

The “Bulletin Board” will be an in-depth qualitative piece of work running over a week to enable members to discuss some of the key themes arising out of the feedback that has been received through this questionnaire as well as through the SCoPEd inbox and social media, and reflecting upon the changes made since member feedback was received for the previous draft framework.

It is regrettable that a member questionnaire has been shared with non-members to complete and that some respondents are reporting that they have completed the questionnaire more than once. We are concerned that members feel troubled about the impact or relevance of this practice for the project.

Please be assured that Critical Research are a leading research agency (having been in existence for over 25 years) who have quality assurance processes for checking the returned data for duplicates, ballot stuffing and ineligible respondents. You may recall that when social media posts about the security and robustness of the questionnaire first appeared in July that both BACP and Critical Research’s Research Director advised there were systems in place to deal with this. We are unable to give a full and detailed explanation of these systems as unfortunately that would serve as assistance to those inclined to undermine and contravene such processes.

The recruitment for the Bulletin Board will aim to ensure a representative coverage of both demographic factors as well as a varied level of support for the support for the SCoPEd project. We will of course be cross-checking membership details for anyone who has expressed interest in participating in the Bulletin Board event before issuing invitations so that only members of BACP, BPC and UKCP are participating. This process will go hand in hand with Critical Research’s approach.

When we come to discuss any of the statistics that arise from the current questionnaire, we will provide our members with an indication of the reliability of the data through measures such as sample size and confidence intervals. It’s also important to note that whilst this quantitative data is important, it’s also the qualitative feedback such as the Bulletin Board and the comments we receive via this questionnaire and other mediums that enable BACP to understand the whys and what nexts.

Given the concerns members have raised, and the distraction of the practice of encouraging non-members to respond and respond more than once has served from the overall conversation, we plan to review the use of open links in future. We originally chose this option for privacy reasons (the survey was built and hosted externally and as such, the use of individual links would have required a membership list to be shared with a third party) and also in the hope of ensuring as great a response as possible (surveys sent as individual links can often default to junk or spam folders).

What’s the bulletin board?

The bulletin board will work like an online forum and will be monitored and mediated by Critical Research, an independent external market research company, on behalf of the partners. It’s an online way of generating the kind of data normally collected via focus groups. The aim of the bulletin board is to generate discussion around key areas of this draft iteration and provide an opportunity for you to express your thoughts in a neutral environment.

Once we’ve received interests of participation in the online bulletin board, Critical Research will select a broad range of participants to take part in the process based on a number of requirements i.e. geographical location, career stage and varied level of support for the project. These requirements will be in place to ensure that all areas of membership across the three partners are represented.

How are you getting feedback from stakeholders?

We’ve invited all the PSA Register organisations for counselling and psychotherapy to a roundtable event, which’ll also be attended by a representative from each of the three partner organisations. The aim of the roundtable is to bring a Professional Standards representative from each organisation together to discuss key themes and concerns around this draft iteration of the framework.

The roundtable will be hosted by an independent facilitator whose role will be to ensure the smooth running of the event and enable all participants to have their voice heard. We envisage that the roundtable will be a place for valuable discussion around the SCoPEd framework between important stakeholders within the profession.

We’ll continue to engage with other stakeholders including employers, commissioners, services and trainers to gain their views on the framework.

Why weren’t other professional bodies asked to join earlier on?

The existing collaboration between BACP, BPC and UKCP is a starting point as we continue to build relationships. Other stakeholders, including organisations with PSA accredited registers, were invited to comment throughout the first SCoPEd consultation processes.

During the literature research stage, the published standards and competences from other professional bodies were analysed and included where appropriate. These documents are detailed in the methodology document (appendix iv).

It’s always been the intention of the collaboration to freely share the outcomes of this work.

Is this the final version of the framework?

No, we still see this as a work in progress. We’ll continue to engage with you and other stakeholders to gather your feedback on this iteration of the framework.

Which courses meet the competences for each column?

The competences have been drawn from across the field of counselling and psychotherapy. Some of these are amalgamated from different sources. This means that currently there may not be a course that meets all the specific criteria. It’s envisaged that in future, training courses will seek to include all the competences within a column or to provide clear progression opportunities to move from one column to another without having to start again, which sometimes happens now.

Individual courses haven’t been mapped to the framework as part of this work, therefore we can’t identify specific courses that meet each of the levels.

What if the course I graduated from didn’t cover all the competences of the framework?

We understand that some of you, who’ve already qualified within existing membership categories, may have undertaken a course that didn’t meet all the competences detailed in the relevant column of the framework. As a minimum, all existing BACP registered members will meet the standards in column A and may have additional training and experience to meet the standards in column B or C.

We’ll be engaging with members and stakeholders further, if the framework is adopted, on how to capture additional competences and associated practice standards needed to move through identified ‘gateways’ or to benchmark the additional training and experience that some members already have.

Is accreditation the only route into column B?

Currently individual accreditation is the main mechanism for demonstrating that a member has met the competences and practice standards in column B. If the framework were adopted we’d need to agree ways in which existing members - who have chosen not to apply for accreditation - could demonstrate that their post-qualifying training and experience meet the requirements in column B. The same goes for members who meet the standards for column C. 

These mechanisms don’t exist yet and we would need to engage with you and other stakeholders further to begin to envision what these may look like.

We’d expect future training to take account of the framework when planning courses for new trainees and for offering top-up and progression courses.

However, each column represents a stage of professional qualification and training which should be recognised and should offer access to paid employment. We’ve put together some examples of how members would fit within the framework if it’s adopted.

You can view the case studies here

What’s the impact on employment if you’re in column A rather than column B or C?

We believe there are employment opportunities for therapists in all three columns, as is already the case. Often a therapist in column A will be more suited to the work needed by employers for their client group than someone in column B or C. This mapping of members’ knowledge and skills will make it easier for employers to see which kinds of therapists would be most appropriate for their service. Some services will want to employ therapists from all three columns, as is already the case.

We believe that being able to articulate the knowledge and skills of our members within a clear framework will make it easier to campaign for paid roles for all members which meet client needs.

The same applies to those working in private practice whose ethical commitment is to work within their limits of competence according to where they see themselves in the framework.

How will this work affect employment opportunities?

We believe, if there’s agreement to take this forward, it’d allow us to clearly articulate to multiple audiences the huge range of skills our members have. One of the key aims of this project is to create more paid employment opportunities for you. We believe this could be possible by enhancing the understanding of what our members offer to a wider range of audiences who may not fully understand the field. We want to enhance work opportunities for all our members and raise awareness of the significant contribution that counsellors and psychotherapists make to changing lives. We want to recognise the value that you bring at every level.

Other related professions have raised the entry level to level 6 or higher education only. We’re doing the opposite because we know the value that counsellors and psychotherapists bring from a range of different entry points - including greater diversity which offers more choice for clients.

We believe SCoPEd will also have a positive impact on the commissioning of therapy because it will empower us to talk about the skills and knowledge of all our members to those who find it difficult to navigate the complexities of the current landscape.

How will a shared framework help clients?

The draft framework in its current form is not designed as a public facing document but the information it contains offers the possibility of making things clearer for the public. If the public understand what you can offer, we believe they’ll more easily be able to get the help they need. We’d like to use this work to showcase the profession. If we can help signpost how therapists can help clients with their concern, we can more easily get them the support they need. 

What about personal therapy? The mapping shows differences.

Personal therapy is not straightforward because some trainings put more emphasis on personal therapy than others. This is more to do with the theoretical approach than competences and practice standards. It’s therefore not been possible to map a common standard for personal therapy as a requirement. It’s possible that this will continue to be an area of difference.

Who do I contact if I have any further questions?

You can email the team at SCoPEd@bacp.co.uk. We may not be able to respond to every individual enquiry but we’ll use your feedback to make sure that our FAQs are as up-to-date and informative as possible.

FAQs: background to the project

What’s the Scope of Practice and Education for the counselling and psychotherapy professions (SCoPEd) all about?

SCoPEd is a collaborative project between the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP), the British Psychoanalytic Council (BPC) and the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). The aim of SCoPEd is to agree a shared, evidence-based competence framework to inform the core training requirements, competences and practice standards for counsellors and psychotherapists who work with adults.

Our vision for this project is to find a shared way of representing the therapeutic work of counsellors and psychotherapists - which we know profoundly changes people’s lives. The current landscape is rich in different traditions, practices, and associated titles, but it’s also confusing for employers, commissioners, clients and trainees.
If we can agree a shared framework which respects our different traditions, practices, and training routes but which upholds common standards, we’re in a stronger position to talk to external stakeholders about opportunities for all our members. In this way we hope to increase access to counselling and psychotherapy for clients in recognition that they have diverse needs and access therapy in many different settings.

We’re confident in this frameworks’ potential to maximise paid employment opportunities for our members. It’s more important than ever to offer clarity and support for our clients and employers following the recent outbreak of the coronavirus and its aftermath, when counselling and psychotherapy will be crucial in helping the nation to heal.

As collectively BACP, BPC and UKCP represent more than 65,000 counsellors and psychotherapists, we felt it important to start to address the ambiguity within the current landscape. As such the three professional bodies agreed to collaborate and take a leading role in researching and mapping the evidence for standards within the counselling and psychotherapy professions. The fact professional bodies are working together to agree shared standards increases confidence and credibility in our members.

What’s a competence framework?

Competence is usually defined as the integration of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Competence frameworks identify and bring together all the relevant knowledge, skills and attitudes that are key to working effectively in a specified area.

By mapping existing competences and associated practice standards, the SCoPEd framework identifies the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are relevant to counselling and psychotherapy. The project mapped existing competences across the field to ensure the most comprehensive results.

Competence frameworks are a starting point and we recognise they don’t capture the full complexity of what happens in therapeutic work. However, they give us the language to promote the knowledge and skills of our members to external audiences; including employers and commissioners.

What are practice standards?

Practice standards include client hours, supervision, personal therapy, and placement requirements.

Due to the complexity of the work and the focus on the three participating bodies, it was decided to limit the mapping of practice standards to the three participating organisations. This could, of course, be extended at a later date.

Who’s undertaking the work?

There are three key groups:

  • a Technical Group (Tech Group), consisting of representatives of the three organisations who have drafted this framework. The Tech Group conducted the main mapping of competences. The group consists of three counsellors (BACP), two psychotherapists (UKCP and BPC) and one psychotherapeutic counsellor (UKCP). Each member of the Tech Group has a range of teaching experience within counselling and psychotherapy training, from level four diploma to MA or MSc programmes.

  • an Expert Reference Group (ERG), comprising academic experts in the field of counselling and psychotherapy, with experience of both Higher Education and Further Education, drawn from the three organisations. This group scrutinised and oversaw the work of the Technical Group, the methodology utilised and the iterative development of the framework. The ERG has and continues to be overseen by an independent chair and was supported in its research by an independent information analyst. Individually the ERG represents a range of different counselling approaches to ensure inclusivity.

  • a Steering Group, which includes the chief executives of the three organisations and oversees the framework development process.

Why can’t BACP promote its members as things currently are?

We actively promote you using the current membership categories.
Beyond our own membership the difficulty is that there’s no common framework for training and standards across professional bodies. Terms such as ‘accredited’ and ‘registered’ mean different things in different organisations. Having a shared framework will actively help us when campaigning for roles and opportunities. Experience shows us the current differences in training and standards is confusing and does cause difficulty when talking about our field to those outside our own memberships.

We also know that title alone does not indicate whether somebody is more highly trained or more experienced. The advantage of a shared framework is that it provides a shared benchmark against which these differences can be mapped and explained.

Are all modalities being taken into consideration with this work?

The aspiration of the SCoPEd project is to agree a generic, shared core framework of competences and associated practice standards for working with adults. The framework is intended to be inclusive and represent all members regardless of their modality and theoretical orientation across all three columns identified in the framework.

The vision is that individual training organisations and professional groups that choose to use the framework will see the competences as a starting point and find appropriate ways of detailing content and associated training which reflects their own theoretical background, philosophy and approach.

The Tech Group and ERG have worked on the language of the competences to ensure it’s as inclusive as possible. Two new members were recruited to the ERG to help with this specific task (August 2019).

How does the SCoPEd work align with BACP’s previous stance that there is no evidence that counselling and psychotherapy are different?

There’s clear evidence in the draft framework that there are different entry points and progression points within the profession in terms of competences and practice standards.

The levels aren’t saying that one therapist is more important than another, but that different therapists have different training experiences and expertise when they enter the profession and as their career progresses; like any other professional group.

There was a lot of debate in 2009 about the difference between competences at entry point and the practice of individual therapists over time. While the Professional Liaison Group (PLG) was constantly reminded that the work was meant to be about entry level, the debates, including our own at the time, were always about practice - where there continues to be an overlap.

The objective of SCoPEd was to see if we could map what the evidence showed. This more inclusive evidence-based approach is one reason why the debate has progressed from the areas identified during the 2009 PLG discussions.

How did you choose the methodology for the SCoPed work?

The process of BACP competence development, which the collaboration agreed to use, has historically aligned with Roth and Pilling (2008) Methodology and this was the starting point for the project. However, when reviewing the available research literature, it became apparent that this methodology was not broad enough to capture all relevant information about training and practice standards.

For example, instead of searching only training manuals, other information was looked at such as practice standards, job descriptions, learning outcomes from training curricula and qualifications at all levels, as well as ethical codes of practice. Direct client outcomes-based evidence was excluded from the research inclusion criteria as this doesn’t relate to competences acquired at the point of completing training and entering the profession. A full list of sources can be found in the methodology document which has been updated

Download the SCoPEd methodology June 2020(pdf)

How’s the SCoPed work funded?

Each organisation is funding SCoPEd work from within their existing operational budgets and aren’t receiving any external funding for this work.

How are members being asked to share their views?

Members were consulted after the first mapping phase in January 2019. We’ll continue to engage with you as we progress the work. There’ll be new opportunities to engage with the project during the next phase.

If BACP was to adopt the framework, how would it affect me as an existing member?

While we're consulting on the framework, existing membership, registration or accreditation will not be affected. The framework is still a work in progress.

At this stage no decisions have been made about adoption of the framework and will not be made without further member engagement. However, we can reassure you that if the framework were adopted, we would have to find acceptable ways to capture the vast knowledge and skills you’ve acquired since first qualifying. This would be a critical part of any proposed plan. In future we’d expect both core trainings and progression trainings to take account of the framework so that it’s clearer, less expensive and easier to progress if members wish to.

What’s the impact if we work in private practice?

The framework doesn’t look specifically at any particular setting rather it is intended to be inclusive of all settings. The framework encompasses all members including those in private practice.

Does the framework include vocational training routes, particularly those at level 4?

The framework explicitly values and recognises vocational qualifications, such as level 4, as an entry to the framework. This is one of the defining features of the framework unlike other professions where a degree is the entry point. The SCoPEd framework will enable us to represent the skills of those in column A better and more strongly than ever before, as well as offering clearer progression routes or ‘gateways’ for those who want to do further training.

Are there plans to merge the professional bodies?

The SCoPEd project is a collaboration, not a merger, and all three professional bodies view SCoPEd in this way.

Is this work about moving towards statutory regulation?

There are no current plans for statutory regulation. It’s not within BACP’s remit to seek statutory regulation nor is there any direct relationship between the SCoPEd work and the likelihood of statutory regulation.

If the government considered some form of statutory regulation in the future, the outcome of SCoPEd, and the collaborative nature of SCoPEd, would put us in a better position to contribute to the clarification of the field and the setting of standards.