Thursday Actions
First used Thursday 1st March
Ministerial: ministers@dwp.gsi.gov.uk (FAO Maria Miller)
Here’s our template that you can use if you wish (I would)
(copy & paste into email or write your own)
Maria Miller MP,
I am writing to you in your capacity as Disabilities Minister within the Department of Work And Pensions. I wish to express my growing concern over the restructuring of the assessment criteria for those with disabilities seeking to obtain State Benefit. My concern is exacerbated by the new alterations to the benefit system that will directly impact upon those with disabilities.
I wish to raise concerns relating to the consequence of the transition from Incapacity Benefit to Employment Support Allowance.
I am concerned about the findings reported in the Employment and Support Allowance: Outcomes of Work Capability Assessments, Great Britain – new claims Department for Work and Pensions: Quarterly official statistics bulletin Jan 2012.
Of people who have made an ESA claim, only 48% of claimants have received a decision on their claim. A staggering 38% of claims were closed down before a face-to-face assessment had taken place. The DWP has stated that current data does not allow anything conclusive to be said about the destinations of people where their claim was closed.
Whilst I accept that in some cases the person may have recovered and either returned to work or claimed a different benefit, I have grave concerns that in many cases people may have dropped out of the system altogether as poor health will have prevented them from engaging successfully.
I also have concerns in relation to claimants where a decision was made, especially as only 43% of claimants were successful and deemed to qualify for the benefit. 57 per cent of claimants were assessed as Fit for Work and no longer eligible for ESA. I note that there is a 40% chance of successfully overturning this decision at appeal which suggests that the initial assessments are unduly harsh and/or poorly run.
• 21 per cent of claimants were placed in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG)
• 22 per cent of claimants were placed in the Support Group (SG)
Unlike Incapacity Benefit, ESA places disabled people into two separate categories; those assessed as ‘disabled enough’ are put into the Support Group where they as individuals can decide to work if they wish; and those who are deemed by DWP to have varying capacities to work are placed within Work Related Activity Group.
I have serious concerns that this is far too simplistic an approach to understanding the complexities of living with long-term illness or disability and is not responsive to changes or fluctuations in health.
As the Disabilities Minister I urge you to speak directly to the people (not necessarily Disability Organisations) personally affected through this simplistic, yet complex-to-navigate approach to assessing fitness for work. Do you believe that you understand how the system impacts upon a given individual's general quality of life?
Would you, within your professional capacity, not agree that making such a simplistic division undermines the large variant of complex individual needs of the 6.9 million people within our population that have disabilities? The Government frequently talks about us all taking a rights and responsibilities approach, but at present I feel that it does not approach its own responsibilities correctly and puts an undue burden on sick and disabled people.
I feel that this approach has promoted a culture where disabled people can feel punished for showing signs of recovery and wanting to move towards work. People in the activity group express feelings that if they try to engage they will be pushed into mandatory work programmes; be moved over to Jobseekers Allowance or risk losing entitlement to benefit altogether. People within the Support Group are scared to lead as full and active lives as they may wish simply out of fear of facing reassessment and losing that status.
This to me seems wholly counterproductive. Have you ever heard such an opinion expressed by someone within the Support Group?
If so, what actions do you intend to take to rectify this situation?
If not then I put it to you that you need to start engaging more with those within the population whom you are employed to serve.
Signed
*delete and sign here*
The template can be downloaded here as a word.doc
Next up is an open letter from us to ERSA (Employment Related Services Association). These are the guys that are meant to regulating everyone that’s involved in various government work programmes, we don’t think they’re doing a very good job of it!!
Send this email to: kirsty.mchugh@ersa.org.uk and use the heading ‘An Open Letter To Kirsty McHugh CEO’
(extra long copy and paste)
An open letter to all members of Employment Related Services Association (ERSA),
I am a member of a group campaigning against the government's ‘Workfare’ styled programmes that include aspects of mandating, compulsion and the threat of sanctions and loss of benefit entitlement. I do not, in principle, oppose supportive and beneficial approaches in helping people move into or towards the workplace if they are able to.
I believe that the current ‘workfare’ programmes, including Mandatory Work Activity, The Work Programme Sector-based Work Academy Places and the planned Community Action Programme are wholly unfair, do not treat people with respect or dignity. The entire system is vulnerable to abuse by service providers, including the use of both coercive and misleading practices. My views are based on informed, evidence-based opinion and internationally available research, some of which is summarised in the 2008 DWP report A comparative review of workfare programmes in the United States, Canada, and Australia.
I have growing concern in relation to:-
1. Allegations of coercive practices by providers highlighted in the press
I ask that ERSA urgently investigate these allegations, as they discredit the work of responsible providers. I call for ERSA to establish a recording mechanism, including the provision of ‘third party reporting’ of such coercive practices.
2. Fraudulent Practices by contracted providers. In response to publicity surrounding a number of fraud investigations into A4E, Kirsty McHugh, Chief Executive of the Employment Related Services Association (ERSA), said: "Incidents of this nature remain exceptional across the industry and we have confidence in the internal and external audit systems in place amongst providers, whether prime contractors or subcontractors”.
I ask that ERSA clarify what the internal and external audit systems are and what standards you expect from your members in relation to these. I particularly want to know about the external audits as I can have little faith in the internal audit system due to the revelations that have been made public.
3. On 21 February, in response to the publication of official Work Programme statistics by the DWP, Kirsty McHugh said: “Referrals were significantly higher than those previously predicted,” and “The much higher than expected number of referrals has presented a significant challenge to welfare to work providers and it is a credit to the industry that it has been able to accommodate these so flexibly.”
However, the Centre for Social and Economic Inclusion has highlighted the evidence that the average rate at which people come off benefits with no intervention is almost exactly the same. This p suggests that work experience has had “no additional impact on the speed at which young people leave benefit, and may have actually led to them spending longer on benefit”.
I believe that many of the statistics used by the DWP and service providers are a misrepresentation, particularly in relation to outcomes as these are not always clear; do not mean people went into sustainable employment; or that participation in the programme produced any notable benefits as many participants would have come off of benefit naturally without involvement in the Work Programme.
Currently providers can receive outcome payments whether directly involved in sourcing these for customers or not. In many cases, participants have stated that their own actions (often at personal financial cost) led to them gaining employment, and in these cases they feel abused and aggrieved to see providers being paid substantial sums of money for recording an outcome.
I ask that, in order to show commitment towards their customers and the general public, ERSA members renegotiate contracts with the governement so that providers will never accept payment in instances where their customers set up their own training and/or find work from their own independent actions.
4. ERSA have released a press statement calling for urgent action on Work Capability Assessments carried out on behalf of the DWP by ATOS healthcare. You said that the number of assessments being processed is falling significantly below projected figures causing a delay in the number of referrals to the Work Programme for individuals who most need intensive employment support.
In your response to Professor Harrington’s Second Call for Evidence on the Work Capability Assessment your members said that they were concerned about a “revolving door” situation where people are referred to the Work Programme only to appeal and then leave following a successful appeals against WCA decisions – currently around 40%. You also recognised that ex-IB customers referred to the Work Programme will have complex needs, least of all because of their longevity outside of the labour market. For many this will be the first instance where they have had to look for a job in a very long time. Combined with the impact of benefit changes this could make for a distressing situation for some customers.
I too have concerns about this ‘revolving door’ situation.
I ask that ERSA urgently seeks to address this situation by providing a mechanism for referring people back to the DWP where there is evidence that due to illness or disability the person should not be engaging with mandatory work activities.
Furthermore, ERSA stated that they wanted to see a stop to Work Programme provision for individuals who are appealing their WCA decision. I would echo this call and request ERSA members to seek an urgent meeting with the government to push this case. In the meantime, please make a public statement that providers will not engage with individuals who are appealing their WCA decision.
If ERSA seeks to retain wider confidence and carry out its remit to ‘Act as the premier voice of the welfare to work industry to government, media and the general public’ then I request that the concerns raised within this letter are addressed in a rigorous manner and that evidence of this, along with any policy changes that may consequentially occur, be provided publicly.
Signed
*delete and sign here*
This open letter can be downloaded here as a word.doc
Next email is heading out to those squeaky clean providers of wonderful training and work placements A4e. Yes THAT A4e!! If you could wing this over to Mr Dutton CEO, we’d be very grateful..It’s all praise of course! (as ever if you’d like to write your own please do)
Heading: FAO Andrew Dutton
Email: krobinson@a4e.co.uk
(Copy and paste or write your own)
Mr Dutton
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen regarding the Government ‘Workfare’ scheme.
I should be grateful if you would provide me with answers to the following concerns;
• Please give details of your involvement with Workfare and related schemes?
• What assurances can you give that the schemes you are providing are motivational, educational, and useful to individuals sent on them. Please advise what value you believe you are adding for the taxpayer?
• If a person you intend to send on a work placement expresses interest OR has experience in a specific area (e.g. Admin or IT), what value is there in sending them to perform menial tasks in a retail environment? It has been widely reported that people with years of experience in the workplace are being sent to stack shelves, for example.
• When jobseekers are sent to you from Jobcentre Plus, they are told that the provider will help with CV’s, identify additional training they would benefit from, and help them gain a permanent job. Based on recent press reporting, it seems that individuals are being sent on work placements, why?
• Is it true that the Department for Work and Pensions has given you the freedom to make anything you want mandatory?
• Why have A4e paid dividends to shareholders when you were underperforming on targets?
I have always thought dividends were based on success not failure.
It is my belief that the programmes you are providing are exploitative and not in any way productive to solving the current unemployment issues within the UK. As the scheme offers no assured permanent job as a result of participation, I believe that it is open to abuse, by A4e, other providers and corporate companies. This has been highlighted in the past by current fraud investigations and Media reports, alleging that programmes are being utilised by large private companies as a means to replace potential paid working hours with a cheap labour force.
I am not in any way opposed to people being supported and encouraged to take up work experience and voluntary opportunities, but I feel that using large private companies and profit orientated agencies to facilitate the employment schemes, will always pose a risk of conflict of interests. I would point out the current investigations into the alleged fraud within A4e as an example of this.
I look forward to your reply.
Signed
*delete and insert name here*
This letter can be downloaded here as a word.doc
A night spent down at Argos who are still very much involved with 'workfare Click Here
‘This half-hearted attempt is just NOT good enough! Either pay Workfare employees at least minimum wage OR leave the Workfare Scheme altogether.’
‘I note that your competitors are leaving the Workfare Scheme altogether and we would urge you to do the same.
We will be boycotting your stores unless you pay at least minimum wage OR leave the scheme.’
A night tweeting those naughty people at A4e
@A4ecommunity no Stop #compulsion #sanctions and coercive practice in the #WorkProgramme #workfare
@OfficialA4e Stop #compulsion #sanctions and coercive practice in the #WorkProgramme #workfare
@A4ePress Stop #compulsion #sanctions and coercive practice in the #WorkProgramme #workfare
And if you haven't heard of them before a tweet to Employment Related Services Association who represent the majority of 'workdare' providers
@ersa_news Stop #compulsion #sanctions and coercive practice in the #WorkProgramme #workfare
