A recently qualified person-centred counsellor, I work mainly in the third sector. It is now the third week of April and I am in limbo. I have been in a kind of limbo since January: not sure whether to recruit more volunteers or take on more trainees to meet current demand; concerned not to raise the expectations of any prospective clients; wondering whether I need to overrule the principles of person-centred counselling and initiate bringing my current clients’ sessions to closure. All this because, once again, our funding is in question. This has happened every year since 2005 when I was asked to expand the counselling service begun in 2003 to serve the needs of those aged 49 plus in the city where I live.

Last year I put things on hold and it took six months to catch back the momentum lost.  This year, expecting a decision in December, I decided to continue with the recruiting and client assessments and explain that funding is only assured until 31 March 2009, but we are actively pursuing funding opportunities and are hopeful monies for next year will be forthcoming. The exit strategy was ready to implement if necessary once a decision was received. As a result, the waiting list is now at 10 clients (more than in the history of the service); three trainee counsellors are excited at the prospect of taking on their first clients and… we are still awaiting news of whether we are to receive funding from 1 April 2009.

I am responsible for managing this. Self-employed, my job title is Counsellor/Coordinator and officially I work two and a half days a week. I currently have a personal caseload of five clients and manage a service that includes a team of nine counsellors and an administrator (who worked for the service for 1.25 days a week). When I say ‘manage’, I mean I submit a budget and ensure it is kept to; publicity, its concept and strategy are my responsibility; I write all the reports – from monthly activity ones for the funders to 50 and 100 hour ones for the trainees on placement and all reports in between; I have developed the systems, policies and procedures and ensure they are reviewed regularly by the team; I have found, risk assessed and assure liaison with five counselling venues across the city; I recruit and induct new staff and support trainees and counsellors in their work; I take referrals, assess clients and set up initial sessions for client and counsellor; I manage the waiting list; I deal with compliments and complaints; I plan and attend training sessions; I chair an administrative team meeting every month and arrange for and attend group supervision for the second part of these two and a half hours, and the list goes on…

The two things I do not do are make payments from the grant funding and actively look for funding. It’s not always been so: our Big Lottery funding bid, to the writing of which I made a substantial contribution, made it to the last hurdle, but was scuppered in the end, we suspect, by the Government’s announcement of funding for the IAPT project (November 2007) and/or the shift to funding the London Olympics. Luckily, our usual funding source came up trumps for another year… the search for funding by others in the organisation has continued… and here we are again…

More than 100 clients have brought their concerns to counselling sessions within this service since it began. Client-led, open-ended and free, the sessions are person-centred in approach and counsellors encourage clients to explore any issue they may bring to the sessions. And it’s very clearly working! Targets are being met, feedback is good, questionnaires show we are having a positive impact on older people’s ability to live independently for longer and the visual analogue evaluation tool shows very clearly that clients’ feelings of wellbeing increase over the time they are working with a counsellor to a point where they feel able to reengage with their lives without that support.

Where are we going wrong? Apart from possible ‘bad timing’, it appears the problem may be that our project is no longer ‘new’. In this line of work, it feels to me that not being new brings some distinct advantages. Working with vulnerable older people and trainees, I strongly believe my role is primarily one of ‘keeping everyone involved as safe as possible’. With this in mind, over the last four years I have worked hard to build a strong foundation for the service, being aware it has been crucial to manage demand.  The team has now reached the envisaged size and balance, procedures are in place to assure ‘best practice’, referrers are aware of the quality of our service and ready to recommend us to their clients and our publicity materials are in place to begin to increase awareness of the service amongst members of the public, community workers and health professionals. In short, we are well placed to begin to maximise the resources given to us over this developmental period. And now it looks extremely likely that funding is to be withdrawn… Is this cost effective?

What makes all this harder to deal with is that I suspect in two years time or so someone will come up with a bright ‘new’ idea to meet a dire need: a counselling service for those 49+.  What a great thing to fund! And the whole thing will start over again. What a waste of resources, energy and expertise!

I’m not decrying the need for new and innovative projects, just asking for some recognition that the tried and true is of value and as such it should not be cut down just as it’s ready to blossom. I also make a plea that consideration be given to extending funding periods from annual to three-yearly to encompass developmental stages, aid momentum and channel energies more efficiently.

After all, surely, the 10 new clients ‘on hold’ on the waiting list since February and three student counsellors poised to begin their training placement with us now their CRB checks have finally come through should not be forced to wait another few years until the next counselling service for those 49+ is up and running. Should they?

Heather Lovelady MBACP