Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Oakley Sanctions Report – DWP, all we need is better “communication”.

with 14 comments

Benefit sanctions hit most vulnerable people the hardest, report says

(This came out earlier this week.)

Claimants not told about hardship system and sanctions imposed when they were not at fault, DWP study finds.

 

Systematic problems in the way the government administers and imposes benefit sanctions, including disproportionate burdens on the most vulnerable, are revealed in a report commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions.

The report found the way in which the DWP communicated with claimants was legalistic, unclear and confusing. The most vulnerable claimants were often left at a loss as to why benefits were stopped and frequently not informed by the DWP about hardship payments to which they were entitled, it said.

It also revealed serious flaws in how sanctions were imposed, with Work Programme providers required to send participants for sanctions when they knew they had done nothing wrong, leaving “claimants … sent from pillar to post”.

The independent report was written for the DWP by Matthew Oakley, a respected welfare expert who has worked as an economic adviser for the Treasury and for the centre-right thinktank Policy Exchange.

He is widely acknowledged as one of the leading thinkers on welfare on the centre right and as a result his criticisms, couched in careful language, are all the more damaging for a government that has consistently said the sanction regime is fair.

The DWP responded to the report by saying it would be updating the way it talked to benefit claimants, setting up a specialist team to look at all communications, including claimant letters, and working more closely with local authorities and advice centres to simplify the system.

The government will also streamline “the robust checks and and balances that are already in place that give claimants the opportunity to provide evidence why they have not complied with the rules”.

It will also clarify the guidance on how claimants can access hardship payments, as well as co-operate more closely with Work Programme providers so there is more integration about what a claimant is permitted to do without facing the threat of a benefit sanction.

Oakley’s report said: “No matter what system of social security is in place, if it is communicated poorly, if claimants do not understand the system and their responsibilities and if they are not empowered to challenge decisions they believe to be incorrect and seek redress, then it will not fulfil its purpose. It will be neither fair nor effective.”

Although Oakley said the regime was not fundamentally broken, he made 17 recommendations for reform.

His terms of reference confined him to the way in which sanctions are administered on mandatory back-to-work schemes, which cover a third of those claimants at risk of being sanctioned, but he said his proposed reforms were relevant to the entire benefits system.

The report said “letters were, on the whole, found to be complex and difficult to understand. Partly as a result of the legal requirements the department has to fulfil when it writes to claimants, regular concerns were that letters:

• Were overly long and legalistic in their tone and content;

• Lacked personalised explanations of the reason for sanction referrals;

• Were not always clear around the possibility of and process surrounding appeals or application for hardship payments; and

• Were particularly difficult forthe most vulnerable claimants to understand – meaning that the people potentially most in need of the hardship system were the least likely to be able to access it.”

The report added: “Actual and sample letters that the review team saw were hard to understand (even for those working in the area), unclear as to why someone was being sanctioned and confusingly laid out.”

The review found that many people “expressed concerns that the first that claimants knew of adverse decisions was when they tried to get their benefit payment out of a cash point but could not”.

The report also said jobcentre advisers had highlighted the damage sanctions imposed on the most vulnerable. It stated: “Many advisers also highlighted the difficulties of communicating with particular groups of claimants. In particular, many advisers identified a ‘vulnerable’ group who tended to be sanctioned more than the others because they struggled to navigate the system. This concern for the vulnerable claimants was consistent throughout the visits.

“For these groups, particular difficulties were highlighted around the length of time it could take to ensure some claimants fully understood what was required of them and in conveying that a ‘sanction’ could entail the loss of benefit for a prolonged period of time.”

The report also criticised the failure of the jobcentre to highlight hardship payments. It said: “A more specific concern surrounding the hardship system was that only those claimants that asked about help in Jobcentre Plus were told about the hardship system. Advisers, decision makers and advocate groups argued that this means that groups with poorer understanding of the system are less likely to gain access.

“Since, on the whole, more vulnerable claimants are those with the poorest understanding of the system, this suggests that some of those most in need are also those least able to access hardship.”

The report also found that providers of mandatory work schemes were unable to make legal decisions regarding good reasons for missing appointments and so had to impose sanctions.

“This means that they have to refer all claimants who fail to attend a mandatory interview to a decision maker even if the claimant has provided them with what would ordinarily count as good reason in Jobcentre Plus. This situation results in confusion as the claimant does not understand why they are being referred for a sanction.

“A very high proportion of referrals for sanctions from mandatory back-to-work schemes are subsequently cancelled or judged to be non-adverse.”

A lack of coordination between the jobcentre and Work Programme can “result in a situation where claimants are passed from pillar to post, without either Jobcentre Plus or providers taking responsibility for explaining the claimant’s situation. More commonly, we heard that Jobcentre Plus advisers had to spend large amounts of time dealing with claimants’ queries about sanctions from mandatory schemes.”

Poor understanding of the good reason process mean claimants subsequently appeal a sanction and often win, at cost to the DWP and taxpayer.

A key reason the report found for the confusion was that, because different organisations use different IT systems, neither providers nor Jobcentre Plus hold all the information needed about a claimant’s current experience and potential sanctions.

The report (available here)  begins by asserting that sanctions are a “vital backstop”  of the welfare system,part of the arrangement of “mutual obligation”which means claimants are “held accountable” for doing all they can to “,move back into work”.

What are the limits of the “obligation”  for “doing all they can to take on that support ” and find employment are is never laid out.

Or to put it more clearly, what are the limits to  the rights the DWP and private “provider” Nosey Parkers  claim over claimants.

It might be interesting to discover how claimants enforce the “mutual” obligation that DWP or the Work Programme “providers” have to get work for people.

Or what obligations the exploiters of workfare have to anybody but themselves?

Or what obligations we can force on the whole rotting system known as the Work Programme?

How do we apply sanctions to them?

And stuff about ‘communication’, ‘more information’ – that’s the typical gasp of management when something is not working.

But I digress.

For all of the above the report  contains one clear recommendation:

That the department should provide an “accessible guide to benefit sanctions”, in hard-copy and on-line.

This is the upshot of all this, as the DWP has announced (here),

The government is set to update the way it talks to benefit claimants, setting up a specialist team to look at all communications – including claimant letters – and working more closely with local authorities and advice centres to simplify the system.

Independent expert(1)  Matthew Oakley has conducted a review of how Jobcentre Plus and back to work scheme providers communicate with claimants who have their benefits stopped – called a sanction – for not keeping up their end of the bargain.

Acknowledging that sanctions have a vital role to play, Mr Oakley has today made a series of recommendations that will help encourage more claimants to do the right thing – and help save taxpayers’ money – which the government has accepted.

Employment Minister Esther McVey said:

Every day Jobcentre Plus advisers up and down the country are helping people get the skills they need to get a job and turn their lives around, and only this week we saw employment match the highest level on record.

Our welfare reforms are helping to transform people’s lives, and we are committed to continuous reform of the sanctions system to ensure it remains fair to taxpayers and to claimants.

By sticking to the government’s long-term economic plan and making further reforms, it will mean even more people can help build a better future for themselves and their families.

Matthew Oakley, author of the review, said:

The sanctions system plays a vital role in the modern day welfare system. While the majority of those sanctioned do understand what is expected of them, more needs to be done to help the most vulnerable. The recommendations in my review will ensure that all claimants know when and why a sanction will be applied and give them the information they need to challenge that decision and claim the financial help that they might need.

It is encouraging to see the department already making great strides to improve the system and I hope my proposals are taken forward to ensure that many more people are helped into long-term and rewarding jobs.

(1) ‘Independent’  right-winger as the Guardian already notes.

So what do we have?

 A  fog of words:

Actions agreed include:

  • setting up a specialist team to audit all communications including claimant letters, texts and emails and transform how claimants on all benefits are provided with information about their responsibilities and the support on offer – this team will take on board the latest academic research and innovations in private sector communications
  • streamlining the robust checks and balances that are already in place that give claimants the opportunity to provide evidence of why they haven’t complied with the rules
  • clarifying guidance and updating the process in which claimants can access hardship payments once they have been sanctioned
  • working more closely with local authorities to coordinate their approach to deliver Housing Benefit for claimants who have been sanctioned for not doing the right thing
  • ensuring the contract that claimants sign up to in exchange for their benefits – the Claimant Commitment – in which they agree what they will do to get a job, can be shared with their provider throughout their time on a back to work scheme
  • working with providers, stakeholders and advocates for groups to continuously explore alternative formats for all types of communications with claimants.

There are justified protests at the whole system of ‘sanctions”, and frankly waffle about ‘communication’ is not going to change that.

But, as the Void points out, all too many bodies are implicated in the system in the first place.

Advertisements

Written by Andrew Coates

July 26, 2014 at 3:09 pm

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. its not a mistake its deliberate policy if the victim dosn’t know then the ‘advisors’ or whatever this weeks title is is not allowed to inform them about hardship payments etc.

    growls

    July 26, 2014 at 11:53 pm

    • Its funny you say that as when I worked for the tax office back in the old old days the policy when dealing with the public was “don’t tell them anything they don’t already know”.

      I suppose after this report sanction letters will read “we are sanctioning you because we can. it may be wrong but who cares as its not like we will get in any trouble, we are immortal, just look at the way IDS lies his ass off and the dumb public lap it up. We are not concerned by local MPs as we will offer them a small child in exchange for their silence while we tell the ombudsman the fu*k what we want because we’re paying their salary.

      Hope you have a nice day.

      Yours sincerely not
      We hate you

      gaia

      July 27, 2014 at 6:07 am

      • I too worked at the tax office. Then the old DHSS. The policy was the Need To Know. The ”Customers Did NOT need to know

        Need To Know

        July 28, 2014 at 8:52 am

  2. Why the fuck aren’t Labour screaming about this?

    Landless Peasant

    July 27, 2014 at 12:37 pm

  3. Oh, I forgot, it was Labour who introduced Benefit Sanctions to begin with! VOTE GREEN.

    Landless Peasant

    July 27, 2014 at 12:37 pm

  4. Oxfam response: http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/Oxfam-response-to-sanction-review-Jan-14.pdf

    Final remarks
    Oxfam believes there are significant issues with the way that Jobcentre Plus is run, and how they
    deal with claimants. We consider this to be a cultural issue within Jobcentre Plus centres, and that
    these cultural issues are not uniform across all Jobcentre Plus centres. Some are far worse than
    others. We think that the changes in welfare reform which have brought about a change in the way
    that Jobcentre Plus staff operate has contributed to this culture. We believe that in some Jobcentre
    Plus centres, staff are struggling to effectively implement the policy reforms.
    Many of the issues identified in our response such as lack of effective communication, lack of
    detailed understanding of the claimant’s circumstances, lack of advice and support provided to
    claimants, inconsistency in how claimants are dealt with, inappropriately applying sanctions,
    providing contrary and illogical requirements (such as to attend Jobcentre Plus appointments rather
    than job interviews), and lack of tailoring information, support and advice to an individual all
    indicate a lack of training, support and capacity in Jobcentre Plus staff to deliver in their roles. As a
    result vulnerable people are experiencing extreme distress and hardship and don’t know where to
    turn for support.
    At worst, at times it seems like Jobcentre Plus staff are not helping people into long term sustained
    work at all, but are actively undermining their chances of doing so, by preventing people from
    attending training that would help them get a job, requiring them to go for jobs that are too far
    away for claimants, preventing them from attending job interviews and then sanctioning claimants
    for any innovation on the claimant’s part which may not meet what the Jobcentre Plus considers
    “actively job seeking”. This seems counterintuitive, costly to the taxpayer and perverse to the
    claimant. There is a real opportunity for the government to investigate this, provide clear and
    appropriate guidance, support and training, and create efficiencies through improving this process.
    Whilst our partners help many people in similar situations to the examples provided in our response,
    they shouldn’t need to as this advice and signposting should be provided by Jobcentre Plus and Back
    to Work schemes. Many small community, voluntary and charity groups are facing severe funding
    cut backs and may have to close, thus to rely on them to provide ongoing and continuous advice,
    support and signposting isn’t sustainable. It is more sustainable for them to be provided by
    statutory services such as Jobcentre Plus. Alternatively the government could fund the third sector,
    to increase sustainability and stability, and in recognition of the state’s requirement to provide such
    support. Oxfam.

    Andrew Coates

    July 28, 2014 at 9:06 am

  5. Considering they couldn’t get their various schemes and or UC right, are DWP seriously the correct people to be looking at this.

    Do we allow the criminal fraudster to judge themselves ?

    gaia

    July 28, 2014 at 9:21 am

  6. Here’s something very interesting I’ve just dug up on the What Do They Know website.

    From: Operations FOI Requests
    Department for Work and Pensions

    11 June 2014.

    Annex 1 for 2537 WDTK Travis.pdf

    The Jobseekers Agreement
    Introduction.

    3.

    Achievable – any agreed actions must be actually achievable.
    Activities that are clearly beyond the claimants capabilities or that are
    simply unreasonable should not be agreed.

    Realistic – job aims and job seeking activity must be realistic, taking
    into account the claimants skills, experience, capabilities, etc and the
    local labour market. For example, it is pointless agreeing a job goal
    where the jobs in question are not available within the areas in which
    the claimant is willing to work.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/215684/response/528167/attach/html/4/Annex%201%20for%202537%20WDTK%20Travis.pdf.html

    So the next time you make a Jobseekers Agreement out, make sure the adviser is aware of these rules.

    In other words don’t agree to do something silly like 20 jobs apps per week.

    Obi Wan Kenobi

    July 28, 2014 at 12:27 pm

  7. Current UJ Toolkit as of 15/4/14.

    92. We cannot specify to a JSA claimant how they provide us with records of
    their jobsearch activity and Universal Jobmatch will not change this – it is
    not therefore possible to require JSA claimants to give DWP access to
    their Universal Jobmatch account.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/201552/response/504427/attach/html/3/1138%20Response.pdf.html

    No Change.

    Obi Wan Kenobi

    July 28, 2014 at 12:55 pm

  8. ALLPORT’S LADDER

    Here is an extract from an interesting article about ESA and the sick:

    “Negative labelling, marginalising and stigmatising the vulnerable via propaganda in the media, using despiteful and malicious terms such as “workshy” and “feckless” is a major part of the Government’s malevolent “justification” to the public for removing the lifeline of support from the sick and disabled. We are climbing Allport’s Ladder. That gives us a clear view of the Nazi realm. I have often suspected that Iain Duncan Smith is channelling the spirit of Goebbels”.

    Full article here:

    http://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/the-esa-revolving-door-process-and-its-correlation-with-a-hugely-significant-increase-in-deaths/

    Tobanem

    July 29, 2014 at 7:59 am

  9. Benefit Claimants Next?

    For those of you who’ve forgotten about a suggestion made some time ago to charge benefit claimants a fee for making an appeal, here is a story to cheer you up:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709011/As-workers-pay-1-200-fee-discrimination-cases-plunge-75.html

    Tobanem

    July 29, 2014 at 8:54 am

  10. […] Nowhere is the mounting collateral damage more visible than the disgusting sanctions. The staff of the job centres are now expected to sanction each other – the atmosphere is now fucking poisonous: https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/tag/part-time-workers/ The staff doling out the sanctions have some of my sympathy. But its been proven that the sanctions regime has nothing to do with fairness: https://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/oakley-sanctions-report-dwp-all-we-need-is-better-… […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: