DWP “unfit for purpose and should be axed” Demos “Provocation Paper.”

Unfit for Purpose? 

Is the DWP capable of moulding itself to a radical new agenda?

That's the bold question asked by @PollardTom who recently spent 18 months in the department. Read his new paper for @demos where he sets out a new vision for welfare provision: https://t.co/MKGK2YpohC pic.twitter.com/RcnOWm8bKW

— Demos (@Demos) January 22, 2019

This Blog is, with good reason, suspicious of Demos.

Here are some reasons,

In the run-up to the 1997 general election it was seen as being close to the  Labour Party in particular its then leader Tony Blair defines itself, however, as independent of any political party. Geoff Mulgan went on to work inside  Downing Street in 1997. At that time Demos was seen as central to New Labour’s  vision for Britain.

But the excellent Welfare Weekly sumarises some of this paper in a way which makes it sound attractive.

In a new report, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Demos says welfare reforms first introduced by the Tory-Libdem coalition and then continued by the Tory government have “caused more harm than good”, and demonstrate a “lack of compassion” that has become synonymous with the DWP and the welfare system.

The thinktank states: “The Conservative government and its predecessors promised transformation, yet their changes have amounted to little more than palliative tweaks.

“Universal credit and the replacement of incapacity benefit with ESA caused more harm than good.

…….

a punitive regime of benefit conditionality has regularly left many people destitute.”

The report’s author Tom Pollard, formerly of the mental health charity Mind, has spent 18 months with the DWP and warns that staff have become afflicted by a “benefits lens”, where they see benefits as a tool for punishing people rather than helping them into work.

Sanctioning claimants for minor infringements, such as arriving late to meetings, has “created a confrontational dynamic of power asymmetries” – “benefits are the carrot, sanctions are the stick”.

This approach means claimants now see the DWP and Jobcentre staff as the enemy, rather than a friend that exists to help them in their hour of need.

“There’s such a rift between the DWP and hard to help groups that I don’t know how you could get back to engaging on meaningful terms – there’s too much baggage”, says Pollard.

The DWP’s narrow-minded focus on “weeding out instances of fraud and error” has been harmful to the Department’s relationship with benefit claimants, says.

This is what Demos itself says:

Is the DWP capable of moulding itself to a radical new agenda?

In a provocation paper that marked the start of Demos’ research examining the Department of Work and Pensions, Tom Pollard, formerly of the mental health charity Mind and fresh from an 18 months secondment to the DWP, depicts a bureaucracy blighted by historic dynamics and averse to radical thinking.

Pollard’s paper identifies three problems with the DWP. First, the department is afflicted by a “benefits lens”, where case handlers perceive employment support as a condition for receiving benefits, rather than a means of enabling claimants to pursue fulfilling work. Where benefits are the carrot, sanctions are the stick. Sanctioning claimants for misdemeanours such as arriving late to meetings creates a confrontational dynamic of power asymmetries.

Second, Pollard argues the department is impoverished in ambition. DWP staff are often promoted from frontline roles working in job centres. While such expertise is valuable, he argues that staff often seem “incapable of thinking about radical solutions”, and repeat the mistakes of the past, gravitating towards systems of conditionality and sanctions.

These factors contribute to the DWP’s injured reputation among frontline users. Productive engagement between case handlers and claimants is dependent on trust. “There’s such a rift between the DWP and hard to help groups that I don’t know how you could get back to engaging on meaningful terms – there’s too much baggage”, Pollard describes.

A question hangs over Pollard’s paper: Is the DWP capable of moulding itself to a radical new agenda? To find an answer and identify potential solutions, Demos recently hosted a roundtable discussion with industry experts and senior parliamentarians.

Participants described the DWP’s lack of compassion, which is exacerbated by the department’s focus on weeding out instances of fraud and error. Unlike many organisations that deal with vulnerable customers, the DWP has no special provisions for claimants with accessibility needs, they added.

Moreover, a culture of suspicion means the department often fails to serve the public. One expert noted that while the DWP has a child maintenance exemption for people suffering domestic abuse, staff “don’t tell claimants this up front”, and are guided instead by an institutional culture that pushes people outside of the system, rather than supporting claimants within it.

Where Universal Credit was supposed to update welfare for the 21st century, one expert said the policy was “exactly the same as the old days”, and only provided “small switches”. Instead of tweaks or fixes, they advocated for a broader change – making people “believe” in the welfare system again.

The practical recommendations barely scratch the surface of Universal Credit.

While the press releases do not make this clear the thrust of the report is directed only to one – important – side of UC problems.

Or as Disability Rights puts it, “DWP incapable of delivering a pathway from poverty for ill and disabled people.”

That is in the Demos language, the ‘harder to help’ groups, not in-work UC claimants, or the unemployed who were/are on JSA.

From the  report: Pathways from Poverty.

These are the three areas Tom Pollard suggests change in:

• We need to look afresh at the challenge of supporting ‘harder-to-help’ groups into employment. In doing so, we must question the default assumption that the DWP should lead this work. The factors driving this assumption are the very ones which fundamentally undermine the department’s ability to effectively support these groups – the ‘benefits lens’ through which employment support is seen; and the presence of the existing infrastructure, staff, processes and approach, which I believe are not ‘fit for purpose’.
• we must transfer responsibility for helping ‘harder-to-help’ groups away from the DWP. The responsibility (or opportunity) to provide support to
  these groups could instead be assumed to sit with a range of organisations who, working together, may be better placed to foster the type of
  engagement that the DWP is unable to. As this project evolves we will explore a variety of options, for example:
  • Greater onus could be placed on the Department for Health and Social Care, working with NHS England, to support people with healthrelated barriers to employment. This would also provide moreopportunity to the devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland and
  Northern Ireland to try different approaches.
  • Those who have substantial skills-related barriers to employment could be supported to access training and qualifications by the Department
  for Education, which holds responsibility for education and skills funding. • We could devolve more responsibility and funding for these groups to sub-national government, whether local or combined authorities. This would allow a place-based approach with collaboration across a
  range of local public services.
• Note this: (third sector covering the usual chancers, worthy and respected by still charities  –Polland worked for Mind – and no doubt ‘social enterprises, profit making companies with a fancy name) With the right environment and contracting/payment arrangements, specialist third sector organisations could play a greater role in supporting these groups, making use of the expertise, trust and rapport they already hold in relation to their clients.

• Thirdly, whoever leads or contributes to these new approaches should make use of modern design methodologies, including meaningful co-production with those they are looking to support, in order to ensure that systems and services reflect the reality of people’s lives, needs and aspirations. Although it is vital to take account of existing evidence on what works, imagination, creativity and bravery are also required to move on from the current orthodoxies and develop radical approaches that are commensurate with the challenge.

Waffle and more chancer designer’ opportunities….

Our suspicions prove rapidly justified.

Here is a pretty weighty objection:

Welcoming the new Demos paper, DR UK’s Welfare Rights and Policy Officer Ken Butler said:

“Disabled people will readily agree about the problems with the DWP Pollard identifies. Especially its focus on work conditionality and the threat of benefit sanctions. Many we also support his conclusion that the DWP is incapable of the radical reform and innovation that’s needed to take disabled people out of poverty.

And his proposed solutions are innovative and very worthy of discussion. Although those with experience of claiming tax credits will have grave doubts about benefit and pension payments responsibilities being moved to HMRC.”

Disability Rights. UK