Possible BAPCA-UKAHPP ethical arrangements
Please see also Derek’s ‘Principles’ document.
Board members have made various comments so far, which include seeing an arrangement
for AHPP to provide ethical cover for BAPCA members as a first step for future cooperation
between humanistic organisations, caution about the ethical liability & amount of future work
for AHPP Ethics Committee, & questions about benefits & costs for AHPP. In future cases, I
think it would be best to have a project proposal at an early stage as a basis for a clear Board
decision, and as a starting point for new Board members & others becoming involved further
along the line.
In what follows, I am sketching out some practical possibilities, i.e. trying to find out how
such an arrangement might work, not considering the benefits to UKAHPP of doing so or the
principle. Three possibilities are outlined later.
Background
BAPCA has an ‘accountability policy’ which states that “Every BAPCA member who is also
practising as a counsellor, psychotherapist or psychologist is required to be a member of an
organisation with an enforceable code of ethics. The following links are to some of the
organisations which have such codes:-“ [links to BACP, UKCP, IPN, BPS, COSCA – not
UKAHPP]
The simplest way for BAPCA members to meet the BAPCA ‘accountability policy’ would be
for them to join AHPP as Associate members; that would provide ethical cover & the other
benefits of membership, and meet some of our aims (increase our membership & income).
Currently many BAPCA members join BACP – but the BAPCA executive and some of its
members do not feel an affinity with BACP, and the BAPCA executive wants to be able to
offer its members a way of meeting the accountability requirement without having to join as
members of another organisation.
On the BAPCA website http://bapca.co.uk the ‘accountability policy’ is followed by this:
“BAPCA has also been in discussion with BACP about the possibility of BAPCA members
being embraced by the BACP Ethical Framework if BAPCA joined BACP as an
organisational member. We received a reply from BACP (April 2011):
Dear Annie,
Thank you for contacting us at BACP, to ask if there is a way in which it would be possible for
BAPCA to adopt BACP’s Ethical Framework, to include the Professional Conduct Procedure, so that it
would be available to your organisation and membership.
I have consulted with colleagues in the Membership and Professional Conduct departments. Currently,
BACP only requires a Member Organisation to abide by the Ethical Framework, and does not hold the
organisation’s employees or volunteers accountable to BACP. Thus this membership category of itself
would not allow BAPCA to regulate its members using BACP’s Ethical Framework and procedures.
However, I have been advised by the Membership Manager that BACP is looking to change its
organisational membership structure and criteria to ensure it is fit for purpose and to eradicate some of
the problems we currently experience with it. This project is still very much in the idea stage and will
evolve as the regulation of our profession evolves later this year, but I will get back to you just as soon
as we have made progress.
At present, the only way that BAPCA could have access to our Ethical code underpinned by the PCP,
is by making sure that all your members join as individual members. I know that many of them are
already, but I hope we can find a more elegant solution to this issue in future.
Kind regards,
Nancy
Nancy Rowland
Director of Research, Policy and Professional Practice”
BAPCA is discussing this possibility with IPN as well as UKAHPP and BACP. One of the
difficulties (identified by BACP’s letter) is that BAPCA are asking for individual
accountability by means of an organisational arrangement (contract). This is inherently
complicated – see the first alternative below.
A. BAPCA-AHPP organisational arrangement
The only way that I can devise, within the current Articles of Association & Byelaws (i.e.
without having to await the next AGM to make any changes to the Byelaws), is for the Board
to create Organisational Membership (Byelaw 3.7 states that the Board may develop
additional classes of membership), and then setting terms & conditions applicable to
individual BAPCA members. I’ve put these terms & conditions in the form of a draft
agreement between AHPP and BACPA:Draft agreement between BAPCA & UKAHPP (explanations in blue italics; Sylvy’s
changes from the working group teleconference in 27 June in red; these were
comments & suggestions rather than final decisions.)
BAPCA becomes an Organisational Member of UKAHPP, on the following terms:
1.1 Organisational Membership of UKAHPP is defined as enabling individual
members of the Organisation to voluntarily accept accountability under the UKAHPP
ethical codes & procedures and for this purpose to be deemed ‘UKAHPP members’
(this being the scope of application of the UKAHPP ethical codes & procedures).
1.2 This accountability includes (or excludes? - to be decided by the Board following
discussion by the Ethics Committee on the 16th July 2011l) the benefits of mediation
and ethical review as detailed in the UKAHPP ethical codes & procedures, and
informal ethical enquiry; see also 3 below.
2. BAPCA can offer its individual members this option of accountability under the
UKAHPP ethical codes & procedures, by initially circulating to them a UKAHPP
document outlining the individual terms & conditions:
2.1- BAPCA members subscribe to the UKAHPP ethical codes & procedures on a
voluntary & individual basis under the organisational membership agreement
between UKAHPP and BAPCA
2.2- in doing this the individual BAPCA member is deemed to be a ‘UKAHPP member’
for the purposes of the UKAHPP ethical codes & procedures
2.3- each BAPCA member wishing to do so will apply to the UKAHPP Ethics
Committee (note: not the Membership Committee) stating:
i- that s/he has read and understood the UKAHPP ethical codes & procedures
ii- his/her agreement to abide by them
iii- awareness of the 5-year rule (CP 3.1.4) and non-resignation rule (CP 3.1.3
& 6.2) which shall apply to BAPCA members accepted as ‘UKAHPP members’
under this scheme
iv- any complaints against him/her upheld by another professional body at
any time, or currently in process, with further disclosure of any allegations or
grievance that s/he is aware of that may result in a complaint (in such cases
the BAPCA member will not necessarily be refused entry into accountability
under the UKAHPP ethical codes & procedures) (similarly, insurers ask for
disclosure of anything you know of that may result in a claim)
v- details of any membership withheld or terminated by another professional
organisation, at any time (in such cases the BAPCA member will not
necessarily be refused entry into accountability under the UKAHPP ethical
codes & procedures)
vi- his/her agreement to maintain adequate professional liability insurance
(adequate defined as cover of minimum £1million) and provision of a valid
current insurance certificate at the time of applying.
vii- his/her agreement to inform all clients and to include in any written
client-contract that s/he is accountable under the UKAHPP ethical codes &
procedures, and the UKAHPP website address (either this or BAPCA members
have to be listed on the AHPP website so clients know how to complain &
where send complaints. But listing BAPCA members on the AHPP website
would give them extra benefits & BAPCA would probably object to their
members being listed on our website).
2.4 - the UKAHPP Ethics Committee decides whether to accept individual
applications; it may seek further information; its decision is final.(to omit 2.4 and to
leave the screening to BAPCA, less work for Ethics and greater autonomy for BAPCA)
2.5 - BAPCA agrees to inform the UKAHPP Ethics Committee whether each BAPCA
member is in ‘good ethical standing’ at the time of his/her applying to become
accountable under the UKAHPP ethical codes & procedures, and to inform the
UKAHPP Ethics Committee if any information comes to its notice at a future date
affecting the ethical standing of a BAPCA member accountable under the UKAHPP
ethical codes & procedures.
3.1 Under BAPCA’s Organisational Membership, upon receipt of a complaint or
other ethical communication concerning or from a BAPCA member accountable
under this scheme UKAHPP will follow its ethical procedures up to & including para
4.11 of the adjudication section and up to & including para 6.14 of the protocols
section of the Complaints Procedure. Recommendations of the UKAHPP
Adjudication Panel are made to the BAPCA Executive for implementation, and
responsibility for their implementation rests with the BAPCA Executive.
3.2 Where the complainant or the BAPCA member complained against wishes to
appeal, they may use the appeal procedure via the UKAHPP External Moderator (CP
para 5); the UKAHPP External Moderator currently charges £400 per day, plus any
travel etc.
3.3 If a BAPCA member engaged in the CP refuses to comply with any of its
provisions or acts obstructively (CP 6.1.3), the UKAHPP Ethics Committee may
consult with the UKAHPP Board of Directors which will have the discretion to
terminate the agreement in the individual case or in general.
3.4 BAPCA members may join the UKAHPP Ethics Committee at UKAHPP’s
discretion.
4.1 When the first BAPCA member applies to UKAHPP to join this accountability
scheme and is accepted, BAPCA will pay UKAHPP a fee of £1,000 which will cover the
first 10 BAPCA members joining. Thereafter BAPCA will pay UKAHPP a fee of £100
per member joining; there will be no annually-recurring fees for membership of this
scheme. (It’s not worth doing this if only a few BAPCA members join. A one-off fee
will be easier to administer than annual fees with BAPCA members joining at
different times. For comparison, joining BACP to get ethical cover costs £142 per
year (tho there are other benefits also); UKCP will cost £195per year this year &
estimates an extra £70 per year for the Central Complaints Procedure.
BAPCA membership costs £60 per year – I think BAPCA is a similar type of
organisation to AHPB (non-accrediting, no practitioner ethics) – AHPB membership is
£39 per year.)
4.2 In the event of a complaint against a BAPCA member subscribing to this scheme
being received by UKAHPP, BAPCA will pay UKAHPP an initial fee of £500 and pay
further costs on an incremental basis at the mediation, investigation & adjudication
stages (Costs are higher than one might guess – recently a half-day mediation cost
£460; We don’t have spare cash or volunteer time, & this will take time to arrange,
administer & then implement in individual cases. The EC will have to be expanded &
possibly extra training – there’s a time & cost to this. BAPCA seems to have about
100 practising members.)
4.3 UKAHPP will not incur external legal costs without BAPCA agreement; if BAPCA
does not agree to bear the costs of external legal services that UKAHPP considers
necessary,
4.4 UKAHPP reserves the right to disqualify any individual from the scheme, and to
review, amend or terminate the scheme.
………………………………………………………………………….
This would be a contract, of one company taking ethical responsibility for another company’s
members – unusual! I can see some factors which the Board should take into account:
- Ethics Committee workload: assessing BAPCA members’ applications will create new
admin for the EC (BAPCA to be responsible for assessing own members), as will any
complaints that come in against BAPCA members in addition to BAPCA members; the EC
currently has the capacity to handle one complaint per year; increasing the size and efficiency
of the EC will cost time as well as money.
- Board workload: I think that managing & monitoring this arrangement will be an ongoing
task for the Board; complaints against BAPCA members are more likely to need Board input
than other complaints. (need to clarify why)
- so, do we have the time & capacity to take on this arrangement? Also, these are
‘opportunity-costs’ – is there anything else more productive that we could spend this time on?
- sensible to check with our insurers before finalising, & check if there will be an increased
premium to take into account.
- a trial period to pilot this scheme seems attractive, but in fact adds complication & may be
unworkable. Once someone has been under the UKAHPP ethical codes, UKAHPP has a
liability for 5 years (CP 3.1.4).
- if UKAHPP enters into the UKCP Central Complaints Procedure, or is obliged to enter into
it, that will complicate and possibly invalidate this arrangement. The CPP may start in 2013.
- if we create Organisational Membership, this would then be open to other Organisations - &
could quickly become too much for our EC to handle. Have to state the terms of OM are
decided on a case by case basis. Agreed this would be up to UKAHPP to decide on a case by
case basis and according to the resources within UKAHPP
Instead of creating Organisational Membership, the Board could change the ethical codes &
procedures to refer to “UKAHPP members and others who subscribe to the UKAHPP ethical
codes & procedures” - but I think this is too loose & would open UKAHPP to practitioners
who have just decided for themselves, or told clients, that they subscribe… - without ever
contacting UKAHPP or being accepted as members. Also, for the Board to make this change
would break with the convention that the membership decides upon changes to the UKAHPP
ethical codes & procedures at AGMs – possibly leading to objections from some members &
loosening the UKAHPP ethos that the codes are 100% binding because approved by the
membership as ‘sovereign body’. For individual BAPCA members to “subscribe” and be
accountable under the AHPP ethical codes, the same contractual arrangements as outlined
above (paras 2 to 5) would have to be made with BAPCA.
B. Create a new class of individual membership for BAPCA members.
This is not what BAPCA seem to want. But by creating an individual membership called, say
‘Affiliated BAPCA member’, we could try to reassure the BAPCA executive that we are not
stealing their members, and could let them decide if these BAPCA members enjoy the other
benefits of AHPP membership (website listing, workshop advertising & discounts, etc).
But the same contractual arrangements as outlined above (paras 2 to 5) would have to be
made with BAPCA, with the same factors or consequences for AHPP as noted above after
Alternative A.
C. Consultancy
This would involve ‘giving’ BAPCA our ethical codes & procedures, & then giving our
experience in a short-term consultancy to develop a BAPCA ethics committee capacity, for a
fee. This would take Board and EC time but for a time-limited period & paid-for, and be
more boundaried. It would be the simplest & ‘safest’ arrangement but BAPCA don’t want it.
Finally, if the Board is reluctant to offer anything more than the consultancy alternative it
could explain why to BAPCA (so they understand the difficulties involved) and ask them for
a specific & detailed counter-proposal so that we don’t continue doing all the work.
(I start off in favour of this idea, then see all the practical difficulties & end up wondering
what AHPP is getting out of this. It’s clear what BAPCA’s getting. As for future
collaboration, BAPCA seem to be making it clear they want to keep us at a distance in case
their members migrate to AHPP…)
What happens next? – the Board’s working group on BAPCA (Sylvy, Derek, Guy, Henry,
Seamus) consider this at a teleconference on Monday 27 June, then the Board (16 July).
& I think David Turner’s lawyerly advice should be sought asap.
ID 21june2011