free psychotherapy for people on low incomes and benefits
For all NICE and IAPT’s insistence on an “evidence base” for policy and funding, there is no real evidence that work is in any general sense good for people with mental health difficulties, and especially those with more severe and enduring conditions. Waddell and Burton’s report is, in fact, extremely ambivalent about the efficacy of employment for people suffering mental health of difficulties:
The current review shows that work is not harmful to the psychiatric condition or mental health of people with severe mental illness although, conversely, it has no direct beneficial impact on their mental condition either. However, the balance of the indirect evidence is that it is beneficial for their overall well-being.
There is limited evidence about the impact of (return to) work on (people with) mild/moderate mental health problems, despite their epidemiological and social importance. However, there is much more evidence on ‘stress’, which may be the best modern exemplar of common mental health problems.
There are no objective or agreed criteria for the definition or measurement of stressors or stress responses, or for the diagnosis of any clinical syndrome of ‘stress’. These conceptual and methodological problems create considerable uncertainty about psychosocial hazards, about psychosocial harms, and about the relationship between them .
Nor is there good evidence that “as many as 90% of workless people who use mental health services wish to work”. Again the sources of this assertion are based on biased interpretations of evidence. Apart from anything else, it seems impossible to take at face value, apart from anything else, that if asked whether they want to work or not someone on benefits would not tend to say ‘yes’ given the general prejudice against benefit claimants, and the punitive culture of the current welfare system.
There is evidence, however, that welfare to work programmes simply do not work. In 2015, despite government claims to the contrary, it was clear that the coalition’s Work Programme designed to get 45% of ESA claimants into work had failed. It is being replaced by a much less ambitious Work and Health Programme from 2017. Attempts to introduce intensive Individual Placement and Support into the IAPT has had little success, and likewise ‘employment support’ for depression and anxiety within the IAPT programme.
And is it not extraordinary, in the era of the “bullshit jobs” of the neoliberal labour market with zero-hour and part-time contracts, low wages, lack of trade unions and workers’ rights, and the relentless pace and repetitive monotony of most low-paid jobs, that such massive pressure is being brought to bear by the state on people who are the least likely to be able to sustain themselves in the mad house of modern working environments. Neoliberal labour markets are far more likely to be detrimental to all workers’ mental health than they are benefitial for those already suffering from psychological distress. A survey conducted by The Hoxby Collective has found that 33% of workers said they’d suffered from mental health issues as a direct result of working rigid hours. Studies have also shown that moving from unemployment to bad employment is certainly not good for your mental health. As we have seen, IAPT workers are themselves experiencing versions of David Graeber’s “bullshit”.
 Secker et al (2001) state:
‘Those users who were not already in paid employment (n=149) were asked if they were interested in work of any kind, including voluntary or supported work. They had the opportunity to respond positively (yes), more tentatively (maybe in the future), or negatively (no). Around half (47%) responded positively, and almost the same proportion (43%) had a tentative interest.’ (p. 397).
In fact, the same study found that only a quarter of the people who expressed a positive or tentative interest listed full time work as a long term goal. To add “more tentative” to “positive” about any kind of work as 90% wish to work is very misleading, especially when Secker and other authors go on to describe the kind of obstacles to work that concern service users. As Blank, Harries and Reynolds point out:
As in previous studies (Hatfield et al 1992, Secker et al 2001) when asked for
a yes or no response nearly everyone said they wanted to work. However this
was frequently followed by the expression of substantial doubts and these
initial firm assurances may to some extent reflect the social desirability of
work. These initial statements about wanting to work could be described as
public accounts (Pope and Mays 1995), behind which a set of rather more
complex and contradictory private accounts emerged on a more detailed
 Clinton’s welfare to work reforms – http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/poverty/welfare-to-work.aspx