tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29402673126368925722024-03-05T04:14:38.938+00:00UK Welfare Benefits Truth-SeekingAlthough I'm now employed, I used to be Jobcentre "stock". The experience was sometimes so unpleasant, I became radicalised. However, I acknowledge that some of the staff are wonderful. In this blog, I pick up on apparent malpractice and try to find evidence either way. <br><br>One technique is to ask the DWP to send me guidance designed to prevent the malpractice and also any research they’ve done to detect it. Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-3072600425044647162016-07-26T22:46:00.002+01:002017-01-13T18:33:26.317+00:00No evidence to support daily trips to the JobcentreThe Jobcentre has a tactic I've looked at <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/daily-work-search-reviews.html" target="_blank">before </a>whereby a claimant is required to go in <b>every day</b> to have their job seeking activities checked over. The official line is that it is to support claimants into work. Others suggest it's intended to make claiming so difficult and unpleasant that a claimant will sign off. Or that it sets people up for a sanction.<br />
<br />
So I <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/effectiveness_of_daily_work_sear" target="_blank">asked DWP what evidence they had that such a regime made it more likely that claimants receiving this particular support will get and sustain employment </a>. After the usual delay, referral to the Information Commissioner and an inadequate response it turns out that <b>"no evaluation of the Daily Work Search Review has been carried out as yet"</b>.<br />
<br />
The only alternative evidence they offer is about "Supervised Jobsearch Pilots" but they won't publish the results of these citing Section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act. That scheme which involve claimants spending 35 hours a week being supervised at a "provider" is too different to stand much chance of providing useful evidence about the benefit of having to pop into the Jobcentre every day.<br />
<br />
<i>So this "daily trips to the Jobcentre" regime is not backed up by any
evidence before it was introduced or since it was started in April 2014.</i><br />
<br />
It <b>may </b>therefore be unreasonable (in the legal sense of the word) for Jobcentres to impose this regime on claimants<i>.</i> Failing or refusing to comply with it <b>may </b>not legally attract sanctions<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">I'm asking people with more knowledge of Welfare law for their opinion - do <b>not </b>act on this yet!</span>Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-15474756698675835622016-04-28T18:18:00.002+01:002016-04-28T18:18:44.911+01:00After the Community Work PlacementsFrom the 1st April 2016, Jobcentres will no longer refer claimants to the controversial workfare scheme <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_work_placements" target="_blank">Community Work Placements</a> and no one should remain on the scheme after 28 October 2016.<br />
<br />
I wondered what would happen to claimants who completed the Work Programme and would previously been liable to this element of "Help to Work"? The <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/325546/response/804765/attach/html/3/1187%20Current%20HtW%20Guidance%20Notes.pdf.html" target="_blank">answer </a>is that they can still be referred to the peculiar and arguably punitive <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/daily-work-search-reviews.html" target="_blank">Daily Work Search Reviews</a> and the Mandatory Intervention Regime. What's new is they can also be put on the "JCP 2016/17 standard offer"<br />
<br />
So, did CWP get extra people into jobs? We'll try to find out in the coming months.Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-74193199523161534862016-03-31T13:00:00.000+01:002016-03-31T13:14:32.007+01:00Yet again, DWP have no idea if workfare costs jobs<i>(Original 15/09/15)</i><br />
<br />
The Jobcentre has several schemes whereby claimants are obliged to "work for their benefits". Typically these schemes require 30 hours work for a weekly benefit payment of £73.10 (less if you're under 25). This is just under £2.44/hour. It's alleged that this tempts employers to get work done under this scheme rather than pay an ordinary worker the National Minimum Wage of £6.70/hour.<br />
<br />
So does "workfare" cost jobs in this way? The DWP doesn't know - I've asked them 3 times for information on how they check this isn't happening and they still <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2015/02/dwp-still-have-no-idea-if-workfare.html">say they don't know</a><br />
<br />
Words literally fail me.<br />
<br />
<b>Update 31/03/16: They still don't know, <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mwa_cwp_should_not_replace_jobs_3" target="_blank">see here</a> however, new referrals to the schemes end today.</b>Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-56925228273123102752015-11-13T03:58:00.000+00:002015-11-13T04:03:18.946+00:00The Joys of Regulation 23The Jobcentre's powers to compel claimants to do things (useless or not) have limits but they have a nice little trick to get around the regulations.<br />
<br />
Let's say you want to put on an information session for 50 jobseekers. Maybe you believe it's a good and useful session and compelling attendance your chosen group of claimants is the right thing to do. Or, more cynically, you know it's a great way to frustrate and inconvenience them into closing their claim. No problem - it works either way!<br />
<br />
There's no official way to compel attendance at a Group Information Session - the guidances says:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">5. There is no mandatory requirement for claimants to attend a Group<br />Information Session and as such DMA action does not apply. If a claimant<br />does not attend their Group Information Session their claim <b>must not</b> be<br />closed. </span>(<a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/123502/response/300482/attach/html/4/3b%20Group%20Information%20Sessions.pdf.html" target="_blank">Source</a>)<br />
<br />
So what a lot of Jobcentres are doing is to issue a letter <i>inviting </i>claimants to the session <b>but which goes on to say that afterwards they'll have an interview with an advisor</b> and threatens that failure to attend the <b>interview </b>could result in loss of JSA. This is "correct" because the <i>The Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations</i> say:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">23. A claimant shall participate in an interview in such manner, time and place <br />as an employment officer may specify by a notification which is given or sent to the<br />claimant and which may be in writing, by telephone or by electronic means </span><br />
<br />
What many jobseekers have found (me included) is that <u>there is in fact no interview</u> - just the session which may or may not be useful - and certainly wasn't in my case. <br />
<br />
It's time it stopped<br />
<br />Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-64379598631594545002015-11-08T21:24:00.000+00:002015-11-08T21:24:18.828+00:00Derbyshire Mandatory Youth Activity Programme: What the DWP didn't learnThis local scheme involved 8 weeks of 24<span style="font-size: small;"> (some sources imply 30)</span> hours/week unpaid work by claimants plus some supported jobsearch. It was mandatory and very like some of the other DWP "Workfare" schemes. <br />
<br />
On the face of it however, there was a crucial difference. According to the <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/147764/response/370940/attach/3/DMYAP%20Guidance%20V3%205.pdf">guidance </a><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">4. DMYAP is aimed to test whether a period of activity at the 26 week claim<br />point, will have a positive impact on sustainable job outcomes</span><br />
<br />
Now, if we for a moment forget that this was a nasty untested mandatory scheme, there's actually something very exciting here - an intention to see if the scheme <b>works</b>!<br />
<br />
So I asked for the results. After a tussle, the DWP sent me their evaluation reports. The main one is <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/293283/response/729548/attach/4/REDACTED%20Aug2014%20Evaluation%20of%20Derbyshire%20Mandatory%20Youth%20Activity%20Programme%20v1.0.pdf">here</a> and disappointingly reports "It has not been possible at this time to look at the employment impacts of DMYAP.". That's unfortunate especially since finding out about "sustainable job outcomes" was the avowed purpose. I look forward to a further report that covers this vital point!<br />
<br />
The report is not without interest as a look at what they investigated hints at what the real priorities of the DWP were: <br />
<ul>
<li>It showed a modest drop in claims. This is unsurprising - you do something unpleasant to claimants and they go away.</li>
<li>There is a <b>lot </b>of data on how much money the scheme saved.</li>
<li>It claims to have improved the performance of staff by giving them more time to work with those that were not randomly selected to go on DMYAP.</li>
</ul>
I'll keep prompting the DWP on the job outcomes issue. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-50402002503578200702015-10-12T23:33:00.000+01:002015-10-13T21:42:57.276+01:00Shirebrook (Mansfield Station Road) Jobcentre and Sports DirectReaders may remember <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-mystery-of-mansfield-station-road.html">my post a few months ago</a> about how this Jobcentre had a much higher sanction rate than any other in the country. The DWP explained: <span style="color: #073763;">"The main reason for the high proportion of sanctions recorded in Shirebrook is the high number of locally advertised, suitable job vacancies which are not applied for.''<span style="color: black;"> Put another way, there are loads of jobs in the area but the local claimants can't be bothered to apply for them and are rightly sanctioned.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;">I said at the time that it might be true and I've come across a possibly related related story. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;">This other story concerns "Sports Direct" whose largest depot is less than a mile from this Jobcentre. It is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11915815/Sports-Direct-needs-to-move-beyond-Dickensian-age.html">alleged in the Daily Telegraph</a> (!) that they are bad employers:</span></span><br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><br />
"Or what about the allegations of sharp work practices at Sports Direct’s
biggest depot in Shirebrook, near Mansfield?<br />
<br />
In April, a Channel 4 Dispatches investigation <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11563435/How-fair-does-Sports-Direct-play.html" target="_blank">claimed to have exposed some shocking working conditions</a>. <br />
<br />
Among the policies the programme claimed to have uncovered included the public
shaming, through tannoy announcements, of employees who bosses think are not
working hard enough, and a "six strikes" rule where someone can be
sacked for committing too many minor infringements. <br />
<br />
The list of a 36 potential "strikes" included talking, spending
too long in the lavatory, taking time off sick and even failing to have a
clipboard and pen on hand at all times, Dispatches claimed. <br />
<br />
Workers told the documentary that they live in fear of being fired at any
moment and that security is so tight they are frisked at the end of every
shift"<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
So it <u><i><b>might </b></i></u>be that the reason people are refusing to apply for <span style="color: #073763;">"the high number of locally advertised, suitable job vacancies"<span style="color: black;"> lies in the reputation of this employer.</span> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: #cc0000;">DISCLAIMER: This is <i><b><u>speculation</u></b></i>. I could be entirely wrong linking these issues - but I might not be. Further work is needed to get to the truth. <span style="color: black;"><a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/shirebrook_sanctions_and_suitabl">This FOI request</a> may help resolve the issue</span></span></span></span>Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-63665675664725793062015-08-18T13:38:00.000+01:002015-08-18T13:38:11.384+01:00Excellent truth-seeking by Welfare WeeklyThe headline is "Exclusive: DWP Admits Using Fake Claimant’s Comments In Benefit Sanctions Leaflet" and the <a href="http://www.welfareweekly.com/exclusive-comments-used-in-official-benefit-sanctions-leaflet-were-made-up-dwp-admits/">full story</a> shows how they used the Freedom of Information Act to unearth the evidence.Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-71649136540565975132015-07-21T08:30:00.000+01:002015-07-21T08:30:01.634+01:00The efficacy of neuro-linguistic programming by the DWPNice bit of work here by Frank Zola, a veritable thorn in the side of the DWP.<br />
<br />
The DWP looked to be embracing "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming">neuro-linguistic programming</a>" and forcing it on welfare claimants. It's controversial but does NLP work - or more to the point, does the DWP have evidence that it works?<br />
<br />
The answer according to the results of <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_efficacy_of_neuro_linguistic">Mr. Zola's FOI request</a> is "DWP does not hold any recorded information in relation to your requests around Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)"<br />
<br />
I.E. the DWP doesn't know. A nice example of <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/proving-that-information-does-not-exist.html">this </a>techniqueTruth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-30541133138962796592015-06-23T22:03:00.000+01:002015-10-15T02:09:48.241+01:00The Mystery of Mansfield Station Road JobcentreThe suggestion that Jobcentre staff have targets to find ways to stop payment of benefits to claimants ("sanctions") is still very much alive and there's been a curious related development.<br />
<br />
It started off with an FOI request <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/monthly_figures_for_jsa_claimant">to find out how many JSA claimants there were at each Jobcentre </a>so it would be possible to calculate sanctions per claimant at each office. This got slightly complicated because the names of the offices were not consistent across both sets of data. It's a problem we had ourselves <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/analysis-of-million-sanction-decisions_11.html">when we attempted a similar exercise last year</a><br />
<br />
After some persistence, Anna Smith succeeded in getting consistent office names and data - a good result!<br />
<br />
When Anna looked at the data, she noticed something strange:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">``At Mansfield Station Road, the sanctions rate (calculated as [total
number of sanctions] / [total number of claimants]) is 23% over the two
years. The average rate at all Jobcentres is 5.5%. This would make the
rate at Mansfield Station Road twice that of any other Jobcentre.''</span><br />
<br />
She submitted a review request and the answer was not the data error I expected - it was <b>much </b>more interesting than that:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">``We can confirm that the figures we supplied for Mansfield Station Road Jobcentre in Shirebrook are correct.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><br />Shirebrook has a very active and buoyant job market, offering a variety of vacancies including; warehouse, catering, cleaning, administration and driving. These job vacancies are easily commutable for the residents of Shirebrook and offer a variety of shift patterns. The buoyancy of the local labour market is reflected in the Jobseeker’s Allowance register at Shirebrook greatly decreasing.<br /> </span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">Work Coaches are there to support jobseekers into employment. This involves completing quality interventions with our jobseekers to ensure their Claimant Commitments are robust and they continue to satisfy the conditions to receive benefit. The main reason for the high proportion of sanctions recorded in Shirebrook is the high number of locally advertised, suitable job vacancies which are not applied for. ''</span><br />
<br />
In short, there's loads of jobs in Shirebrook but the local unemployed can't be bothered to apply for them and the Jobcentre is dealing with this robustly by sanctioning them.<br />
<br />
Now, this <b>could </b>be true and it appears to be evidence of the system working correctly. It's still surprising that Mansfield Station Road Jobcentre should be <b>so </b>far ahead of the field. It's possible that staff have changed their approach to adapt to their local factors.<br />
<br />
Another possibility is that the available vacancies don't look attractive/feasible for many of the unemployed in this former mining area. I'm inclined to reject that possibility because claimants could still <b>apply </b>for these jobs even if they believed they stood no chance of getting an offer. I would also expect similar communities to have somewhat similar statistics.<br />
<br />
<b>I'm pretty sure Mansfield Station Road Jobcentre are doing something different but I can't tell if it's justified or not.</b><br />
<br />
<br />Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-39660234988493698412015-03-24T20:47:00.001+00:002015-03-24T20:47:53.314+00:00A Good Source of EvidenceThe House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee report <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmworpen/814/814.pdf">"Benefit sanctions policy beyond the Oakley Review"</a> is out today and has links in to lots of <b>evidence </b>- including our FoI request about Benefit Related Deaths - <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2015/02/benefit-related-deaths.html">blog post here</a>Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-13665088615761050962015-03-23T23:11:00.000+00:002015-03-23T23:11:12.773+00:00Sanctions help jobseekers into work of some sort<span style="font-family: inherit;">This may be the final post in this series that started <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/sanctions-help-jobseekers-into-work.html">here</a>. You will recall that Esther McVey said there was evidence that the <b>imposition </b>of benefit sanctions helps claimants into work. Along the way we've seen mainly old, non-UK data used to support this. <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_that_being_sanctioned_h_2">I asked the DWP if they had anything based on UK and/or recent data.</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">While waiting for that, I dug up a <a href="http://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/oxfam/bitstream/10546/337096/4/rr-how-effective-benefit-sanctions-121214-en.pdf">paper </a>based on recent UK data that says that "sanctions are an ineffective tool for improving labour market performance." Along the way also I discovered another <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2015/03/sanctions-help-jobseekers-into-poor.html">paper </a>that says that "Benefit sanctions not only reduce unemployment durations but also reduce post-unemployment employment duration and earnings."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Today I got the response from DWP. No, they haven't got anything based on more recent UK data. So I've thanked them and sent them details of what <b>I </b>found.</span><br />
<br />
<br />Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-49334831993142621362015-03-18T20:13:00.000+00:002015-03-23T23:12:40.093+00:00Sanctions help jobseekers into poor quality work?Some of the papers the DWP and I have been reading <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/sanctions-help-jobseekers-into-work.html">suggest that (imposed) sanctions help people into jobs</a> while <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/sanctions-help-jobseekers-into-work_15.html">others say the contrary</a>. I've found <a href="http://www.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/papers/viewAbstract?dp_id=4509">more work based on Swiss data</a> that says "Benefitt sanctions not only reduce unemployment durations <b>but also reduce post-unemployment employment duration and earnings</b>."<br />
<br />
This is quite logical. For a start, the data is from 1998-2003 when the Swiss unemployment rate was around 1.5-4.5% (See <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/unemployment-rate">http://www.tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/unemployment-rate</a>) so there <u>may</u> have been "scroungers" refusing to take available jobs. However, sanctioning them has pushed them into lower quality jobs. This is understandable too - jobseekers will have taken just about any job to alleviate the crisis but the sanctions actually harmed longer term prospects. In more detail:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">"The clear persistence of negative sanction effects on earnings up to two years after unemployment exit may be explained by lock-in into the accepted job or by faster return to unemployment. Once the individual has accepted a lower-quality-job, it may be difficult for him/her to catch up with the non-sanctioned people by quickly changing to a better job. Moreover, individuals who accept a worse paid job are more likely to leave this job and return to unemployment. Both lines of reasoning explain why sanctions lead to a reduction in post unemployment earnings.</span>"<br />
<br />
When you study the DWP literature, it is all about getting people into work as soon as possible. The idea that being a more selective jobseeker could be a better long-term approach doesn't seem to have occurred to them.<br />
<br />
Related posts <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/sanctions-help-jobseekers-into-work.html">here </a>and <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/sanctions-help-jobseekers-into-work_15.html">here</a> and now <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2015/03/sanctions-help-jobseekers-into-work-of.html">here</a>Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-12739128140081031302015-03-15T18:06:00.000+00:002015-03-18T20:13:58.937+00:00Sanctions help jobseekers into work? (Contrary evidence)<a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2015/03/sanctions-help-jobseekers-into-work.html">I wrote recently</a> about the debate over the effectiveness of sanction as a tool to get the unemployed to try harder and get jobs. The DWP had come up with a load of evidence that it <b>is </b>effective although that evidence is non-UK and old enough to be from a different employment climate. <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_that_being_sanctioned_h_2#outgoing-425623">I've asked for more recent research based on UK data</a> but in the meantime I've found some myself. It comes from <a href="http://www.landman-economics.co.uk/Staff.html">Howard Reed</a> of <a href="http://www.landman-economics.co.uk/">Landman Economics</a> and is published by <a href="http://www.oxfam.org.uk/">Oxfam</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/oxfam/bitstream/10546/337096/4/rr-how-effective-benefit-sanctions-121214-en.pdf">HOW EFFECTIVE ARE BENEFIT SANCTIONS? An investigation into the effectiveness of the post-2012 sanctions regime for Jobseeker's Allowance claimants</a> uses a technique similar to that used Boockmann to analyse data from Germany
during 2006-7. Sanction rates vary from place to place - <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/analysis-of-million-sanction-decisions_11.html">as I have shown myself</a> - so this should be reflected in re-employment rates. Boockmann used this to show that sanctions helped people into work but Reed found "The results show no evidence that Jobcentre Plus districts with higher rates of sanctions between October 2012 and June 2014 experienced greater decreases in unemployment or increases in employment than districts where sanctions were used less often" and goes on to say <b>"Overall, this report finds that sanctions are an ineffective tool for improving labour market performance."</b><br />
<br />
A slight weakness in this paper is that it appears to accept the geographic variation in sanction rates as essentially random. There's <a href="http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/90148/">some work by David Webster </a>showing that sanction rates tend to be higher in areas of high unemployment. Perhaps staff are keen to encourage jobseekers to try harder in jobs deserts? Somewhat futile!<br />
<br />
A further related post is <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2015/03/sanctions-help-jobseekers-into-poor.html">here </a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-10187547739186358012015-03-10T00:45:00.000+00:002015-03-15T18:08:50.315+00:00Sanctions help jobseekers into work?Benefit sanctions are supposed to give jobseekers an incentive to take necessary action to get in to work. Agencies such as Citizens Advice <a href="http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/pressoffice/press_index/press_20140415.htm">say they can be counter-productive</a> when actually imposed "Claimants are distracted from job-hunting as they focus on putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head." In contrast, <a href="http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/wo%20rk-and-pensions-committee/benefit-sanctions-policy-beyond-the-oakleyreview/%20oral/17970.html">on 4 February 2015, Rt Hon Esther McVey MP, Minister of State for Employment told the Work and Pensions Committee "... and there is further research that, should somebody have been sanctioned, it helps them into work afterwards." </a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_that_being_sanctioned_h">So I asked for the evidence and (unusually for the DWP) they sent it! </a><br />
<br />
"The minister referred to a range of international evidence regarding the impacts on<br />
employment following a benefit sanction. Recent studies from Denmark, Germany,<br />
Netherlands and Switzerland show an increased employment uptake for recipients of<br />
unemployment insurance or welfare benefits after a benefit sanction has been imposed"<br />
<br />
See below for the research they've relied on together with some other data I thought was relevant:<br />
<br />
<table border="1" bordercolor="#0033FF" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" style="background-color: #99ffff; width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Source</th>
<th>Location</th>
<th>Dates</th>
<th>Typical Sanction</th><th>Unemployment then/January 2015</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>van den Berg G, van der Klaauw B, van Ours J (2004) Punitive sanctions and the transition<br />
rate from welfare to work. J Labor Econ 22:211–241</td>
<td>Holland</td>
<td>2003-2005</td>
<td>20% 1-2 months</td><td>6%/7.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Abbring J, van den Berg G, van Ours J (2005) The effect of unemployment insurance<br />
sanctions on the transition rate from unemployment to employment. Econ J 115:602–630</td>
<td>Holland</td>
<td>1992-1998(?)</td>
<td>5% 4 weeks</td><td>?/7.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>The Effect of Punitive Sanctions on the Transition rate from Welfare to Work Qureshi</td>
<td>Denmark</td>
<td>2007-8</td>
<td>33% 3 weeks</td><td>2.2%/4.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>van der Klaauw B, van Ours J (2013) Carrot and stick: how re-employment bonuses and<br />
benefit sanctions affect exit rates from welfare. J Appl Econometrics 28(2):275–298</td>
<td>Rotterdam, Holland</td>
<td>2000-2003</td>
<td>10%</td><td>5.3% */7.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Svarer M (2011) The effect of sanctions on the exit rate from unemployment: evidence from<br />
Denmark. Economica 78(312):751–778</td>
<td>Denmark</td>
<td>2003-2005</td>
<td>2-3 days or 3 weeks 15%</td><td>5.7%/4.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>The Effect of Benefit Sanctions on the Duration of Unemployment Rafael Lalive</td>
<td>Switzerland</td>
<td>1997-8</td>
<td>3 weeks 100%</td><td>4.5%/3.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Boockmann et al (2014) Intensifying the use of benefit sanctions: an effective tool to increase<br />
employment? IZA Journal of Labor Policy 3:21</td>
<td>Germany</td>
<td> 2006-7</td>
<td>10%</td><td>9.5%/5%</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/">Data source</a> Click on the "Jobless figure for the country of interest. A * indicates incomplete data. </span><br />
<br />
We <b>could </b>argue about the definition of"recent" but let's not other than to observe that the data for this research mostly pre-dates the general rise in unemployment during 2008.<br />
<br />
During this period it was employers who had a hard time in the job market so lighting a fire under lazy "jobseekers" <b>might </b>well have persuaded them to take jobs that would otherwise have remained vacant.<br />
<br />
At times of high unemployment it's still possible that some sanctioned jobseekers will compete very hard and get jobs that the non-sanctioned also tried for but <b>total </b>unemployment will be unaffected.<br />
<br />
What would be useful is some research from a time of high unemployment, preferably from Britain and <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_that_being_sanctioned_h_2">I've asked DWP if they have any </a>However, the study in Germany at a time of 9.5% unemployment (<a href="http://www.izajolp.com/content/pdf/2193-9004-3-21.pdf">Boockman</a>) is close but it makes the usual mistake of looking at higher employment of a small group subjected to a particular treatment while ignoring the displacement of their untreated competitors. <br />
<br />
So, strictly speaking, DWP have answered the question. Things we don't know include: <br />
<ul>
<li>How much evidence to the contrary is out there</li>
<li>If the DWP is aware of it</li>
<li>If there is more relevant UK evidence from a time of high unemployment</li>
</ul>
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
Severity of Sanctions </h4>
<h4>
</h4>
This is another important factor. Most of the sanctions in the table above are less severe than current UK regime. In the UK, sanctions are for a minimum of 4 weeks and can go up to 3 years. Nominally they are 100% benefit cuts although the little advertised and restrictive hardship payments system can reduce them to to 40%. Form this is could be argued that the UK is more coercive leading to better results. There's two main objections to this logic:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>The usual one about the futility of coercing people into non-existent jobs </li>
<li>Whether the jobseeker is close to destitution or not</li>
</ul>
To expand on the second point, <b>some </b>jobseekers have sufficient savings for a sanction not to be an <b>immediate </b>distraction from jobseeking while still unpleasant and "motivating". It's also plausible that for some claimants, it does (as mentioned above) render them "distracted from job-hunting as they focus on putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head"<br />
<br />
So, the research that's really needed should look at the effects of sanctions on near-destitute jobseekers. One way of detecting this is to look at the fate of sanctioned jobseekers with very low savings. The DWP should have the savings data but so far as I know, they haven't attempted a correlation with fate.<br />
<br />
Perhaps an FOI request for another day?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2015/03/sanctions-help-jobseekers-into-work_15.html">Part 2: Sanctions help jobseekers into work? (Contrary evidence) </a>Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-70746083078460653662015-02-19T21:44:00.000+00:002015-05-10T18:59:00.879+01:00Benefit related deathsIt's often alleged that there is a connection between how the DWP treats claimants and the untimely death of some of them. The DWP sometimes investigates these cases, EG:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2014/11/dwp-admits-investigating-60-benefit-related-deaths-since-2012/"><span style="font-size: 100%;">"The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has carried out 60 secret reviews into benefit-related deaths in less than three years, Disability News Service (DNS) can reveal."</span></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 100%;">Understandably, people want to see these reviews in case wrongdoing is identified. Also understandably, the DWP don't publish them saying "</span></span><span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act (SSSA) 1992 makes it an offence for anyone who is employed in social security administration to disclose without lawful authority any information which he acquired in the<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span>course of that employment and which relates to a particular person"</span> <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/239458/response/620073/attach/html/3/FOI%205009%20REPLY.doc.pdf.html">See here for an example FOI request where this and other arguments are deployed </a></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">However, <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/246714/response/620075/attach/html/3/Reply%2018%20Harris.pdf.html">a more modest request got better results</a> Here the request was mainly for <b>numbers</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #073763;">In the "60 peer reviews following the death of a customer":<br /><br />1. How many reviews identified that all local and national standards had been<br />followed?<br />2. How many reviews identified that some local or national standards had not<br />been followed?<br />3. How many reviews identified that some local or national standards need to<br />be revised/improved?<br />4. What action has there been to date in the cases referred to in my questions<br />2 & 3 above?</span><i><span style="color: #073763;"> </span></i><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This is essence of the response:</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">in fact only 49 of these reviews had been conducted in circumstances where the claimant had died. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">...</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></span>33 out of the 49 cases referred to above contained recommendations for</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">consideration at either national or local level.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #073763;">National recommendations have been referred to the Customer Journey team</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">for inclusion in their regular reviews. Local recommendations have been</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">referred to the appropriate office to be taken forward. </span><br />
<br />
This isn't <b>actually </b>an admission of wrongdoing but it seems unlikely that many of the "recommendations" will be drawing attention to <i>good </i>practice in these unfortunate cases,<br />
<br />
10May2015: <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/252562/response/650114/attach/html/2/VTR501%20Bellows.pdf.html">This related FOI response</a> shows that 10 out of 49 cases had a sanction at some point during their claim.<br />
<br />Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-43111890437841540882015-02-17T20:14:00.000+00:002015-02-17T20:15:23.685+00:00Sanctions comprehensive monitoring regimeThe DWP tells the world <span style="color: #073763;">"Sanctions are used as a last resort and the DWP has put in place a comprehensive monitoring regime to ensure that sanctions are always and only applied where appropriate to do so."</span> (<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/benefit-sanctions-ending-the-something-for-nothing-culture">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/benefit-sanctions-ending-the-something-for-nothing-culture</a>) There is a contrary view that many sanctions are capricious, arbitrary, bullying and driven by targets to get people off benefits. (EG: <a href="http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/">http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/</a>)<br />
<br />
<br />
So what's the truth? I chose to focus on the DWP's "comprehensive monitoring regime" as that sounds to me like data and evidence and we <b>love </b>that.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sanctions_comprehensive_monitori">So I asked about it</a>. Initially I just got some Quality Assurance Frameworks and a DMA Referrals Checklist. Interesting but no data. After asking for a review I got a "summary of the quality checks undertaken" - I've plotted the accuracy rate below together with the number of cases checked:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjhZr0YSBLEw1ms99NJTECXKWg_Qk_9qdq3NUKl0KvV8bD90E94sFG4uVhVtOHa7uTn6c8bDGbUlDZ5ZjWIQ0ulLxpEz71yr2ShV0_3yJz45iGXdW7vuWEVS92yS-ldbr6gIPiadBn8gH2/s1600/Untitled.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjhZr0YSBLEw1ms99NJTECXKWg_Qk_9qdq3NUKl0KvV8bD90E94sFG4uVhVtOHa7uTn6c8bDGbUlDZ5ZjWIQ0ulLxpEz71yr2ShV0_3yJz45iGXdW7vuWEVS92yS-ldbr6gIPiadBn8gH2/s1600/Untitled.jpg" height="400" width="286" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
We can see that for some months, accuracy hovered between 90% and 95% which if you want to be picky doesn't quite match "<span style="color: #073763;">always and only applied"<span style="color: black;">. I was more interested in the decline that set in during Autumn 2014. The peak in the number of cases checked is interesting too. It looks like "something happened" around that time and I'd be interested in ideas about what?</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;">I think it will be interesting to ask the same question again later in the year to see if the decline <b>is </b>a decline or just part of a blip. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;">Given the lack of data before April 2014, I wonder if the "comprehensive monitoring regime" wasn't actually in place back in November 2013 when the original claim was made?</span></span>Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-69737221964310756382015-02-10T15:26:00.000+00:002015-02-10T15:26:32.920+00:00Sanctions used as a Last Resort<span style="font-family: inherit;">DWP people are often quoted as saying that sanctions are used as a "Last Resort" EG:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #073763;">"Sanctions are applied as a last resort when claimants fail to do enough
to find work, fail to attend appointments or have turned down job offers..." <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-update-communications-with-benefit-claimants">(1)</a><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-update-communications-with-benefit-claimants"><span style="color: black;"></span></a></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #073763;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">However, there are many claims that they as used as a <b>first </b>resort <a href="http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/">(2)</a></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">So what's the truth? We may soon find out via an FOI request <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/number_of_people_sanctioned_for">"Number of people sanctioned for missing just one JSA appointment".</a></span></span></span> This doesn't simply ask the obvious question, it also asks:<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #073763;">"If DWP don’t have this number, then how can Iain Duncan Smith possibly know, or be believed, that JSA benefit sanctions for failure to attend an adviser interview were only applied as a last resort?"</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;">Strictly speaking, DWP can decline to answer that by arguing that it isn't "recorded information" but I note with approval the use of <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2014/03/proving-that-information-does-not-exist.html">a technique I've blogged about before</a> - ask for recorded information that <b>should </b>exist, force an admission that it doesn't exist and then comment adversely.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;">Another pertinent FOI request is about <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sanctions_comprehensive_monitori">"Sanctions comprehensive monitoring regime"</a></span></span> which refers to this government statement:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #073763;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #073763;">"Sanctions are used as a last resort and the DWP has put in place a comprehensive monitoring regime to ensure that sanctions are always and only applied where appropriate to do so."</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #073763;"><span style="background-color: white;">Finally, a request that asks rather directly for </span></span><a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sanctions_as_a_last_resort">the evidence relied on for these statements that sanctions are used as a "last resort"</a><br />
<br />
These requests are at various stages - stay tuned for updatesTruth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-15979498638743376162015-02-02T22:26:00.002+00:002015-02-02T22:26:30.166+00:00DWP -STILL- have no idea if Workfare costs jobs or notIt's often alleged by <a href="http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=663">Boycott Workfare</a> and others that Workfare costs jobs. Why would employers recruit paid workers when they can get slaves from the Jobcentre for nothing? The DWP, aware of this allegation counter it by having "strict" guidelines that paid jobs must not be displaced. Nearly a year ago I took to wondering if they did any research, auditing, etc. to make sure the guidelines were kept to. <b>The <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2014/04/dwp-have-no-idea-if-workfare-costs-jobs.html">answer </a>was they didn't.</b><br />
<br />
Recently <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mwa_cwp_should_not_replace_jobs">I asked essentially the same question again</a> in hopes that the DWP would have <b>now </b>done some work on it. After a tussle it emerged that they <u>still</u> have no idea if Workfare costs jobs or not<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">``Although there are strict guidelines in place that providers must follow when sourcing appropriate placements I can confirm that we do not hold the information you requested for MWA and CWP placements`` </span><br />
<br />
This is very disappointing. <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/irish-dwp-do-have-idea-if-workfare.html">As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago</a>, the Irish equivalent of the DWP <b>have </b>commissioned some proper research and even chucked some "employers" off their scheme for displacing jobs.<br />
<br />
The other disappointing aspect of this response is the determination of the DWP to coyly avoid admitting that they'd put no effort into this important matter. Their <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/243011/response/601768/attach/html/2/FOI5272%20Response.pdf.html">initial response</a> gives lots of information about guidelines, the benevolent intent of schemes, how they are delivered, the contracted providers and meetings. What it does <b>not </b>do is provide the recorded information I requested on <span style="color: #073763;">"all research intended to measure compliance". </span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;">I solved this by asking them to do a Review of their response and quoted the very useful <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/1">Section 1(1) of the FOI Act</a> that says they have to either provide the information <u>or say that they don't hold it</u>.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;">You may find this useful if you want to be sure that a Government does <b>not </b>know something you think it should. For more on this technique, see <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/proving-that-information-does-not-exist.html">here</a></span></span><br />
<br />
<br />Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-54645361368993806652015-01-14T01:05:00.000+00:002015-02-04T16:56:54.922+00:00Irish "DWP" DO have an idea if Workfare costs jobs or notI wrote last year about <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2014/04/dwp-have-no-idea-if-workfare-costs-jobs.html">the DWP having no idea if Workfare costs jobs or not</a> and I'm interested to find that their Irish equivalents, the Department of Social Protection were somewhat more responsible. They got Indecon International Economic Consultants to do <a href="https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Indecon-Report-on-Evaluation-of-JobBridge.pdf">a report - and published it</a><br />
<br />
The Irish scheme is called <a href="http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/JobBridge.aspx">JobBridge</a> and typically offers the unemployed a 6-9 months "internship" for which they get €50 on top of their welfare payment each week.<br />
<br />
The report actually looked for and documented cases where the scheme could have displaced paid employment. Some snippets from the somewhat dryly named section "6.1.5 Scheme deadweight and displacement" include:<br />
<ul>
<li>6.4% (of employers) indicated that they would have taken on paid employees in the absence of the scheme</li>
<li>It is also notable that the proportion of host organisations who indicated that they would have been highly likely to have offered paid employment to JobBridge interns in the absence of the scheme rises to 10.3% among large organisations employing 250 persons or more</li>
<li>Indecon also understands, based on information supplied by the Department of Social Protection, that a total of forty cases of suspected displacement were investigated by the Department since July 2011. Following investigation, it was found that these allegations were substantiated in four distinct cases and action was taken to disqualify these companies from participating in JobBridge.</li>
</ul>
<b>That last item is particularly impressive - the Department of Social Protection were alive to the risk, investigated, took action and allowed publication.</b><br />
<br />
My <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/workfare_should_not_replace_jobs">original FOI</a> showed that DWP had done nothing like this. It's possible that <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mwa_cwp_should_not_replace_jobs">a second FOI request that's in progress</a> will yield better results. <b>Update 02 February 2015: <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2015/02/dwp-still-have-no-idea-if-workfare.html">No, it didn't :-(</a></b><br />
<br />Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-31109150903988685882015-01-06T18:14:00.000+00:002015-01-06T18:26:14.374+00:00Does the Bedroom Tax help people get into work?Readers may remember my work on <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2014/02/does-benefit-cap-help-people-get-jobs.html">the idea that the Benefit Cap helped people get work</a> and may be interested in whether other controversial "Welfare Reform" policies increase employment?<br />
<br />
The "Bedroom Tax" is one such policy and I'm grateful to Trudy Baddams for asking <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/how_many_people_has_the_dwp_help">how many people has the DWP helped into work by introducing the bedroom tax</a><br />
<br />
The answer was essentailly: <br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:TargetScreenSize>800x600</o:TargetScreenSize>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #073763;">“<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt;">The information requested is not available and could only be
provided at disproportionate cost. However one of the aims of the evaluation of
the Removal of the Spare Room subsidy (RSRS) is to assess the extent to which,
as a result of the RSRS, more people are in work, working increased hours or
earning increased income. The Interim Report of this evaluation found that 18
per cent<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>of affected claimants had
either looked for employment, or looked to earn more though employment-related
income as a result of the RSRS. The final report of the RSRS evaluation will be
published in late 2015.</span>”</span></div>
<br />
The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/removal-of-the-spare-room-subsidy-interim-evaluation-report">Interim Report </a>does indeed show affected people looking for work (or more hours/better pay) but also:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">"Our survey found, however, that most (87 per cent) of those claimants who said they<br />have looked for work also said they that, in the first six months since RSRS had been<br />implemented, they had not been able to find work or secure better paid employment.<br /> </span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">From the qualitative work with claimants, most participants who were able to work had<br />considered earning more through starting work – although this was not solely in response<br />to the reforms, rather that they had been hoping to do so anyway. Those who reported that<br />they were looking for extra hours or a better paid job more often reported that this was in<br />response to the policy."</span><br />
<br />
So it doesn't look like the policy is actually <b>getting </b>people work.Truth Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10122725185761328732noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-58972577879897963072014-12-21T18:43:00.000+00:002015-01-06T17:38:24.031+00:00"The out-of-work group who are in housing estates and unwilling to work"This story starts back in September with another utterance from Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">"We're not just getting people back to work, we're making real inroads into that stubborn part of the out-of-work group who are in housing estates and unwilling to work..."</span><br />
<br />
(Source: <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/515700/Iain-Duncan-Smith-breaking-up-Shameless-housing-estates" target="_blank">Sunday Express: We are breaking up 'Shameless' housing estates, says Iain Duncan Smith</a>)<br />
<br />
This suggests some pretty detailed research into a highly targeted intervention. How had he identified those in Housing Estates? And, fascinatingly, had they discovered a way of identifying those "unwilling to work"?<br />
<br />
So I <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/method_used_to_identify_claimant#outgoing-388521" target="_blank">asked </a>and was told:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">"According to the Department’s most recent Labour Market Statistics, the number of claimants on Jobseekers Allowance is down half a million since the election, the number on out of work benefits is 800,000 lower since the election, and the number of children in workless households is at its lowest since records began, having fallen by 290,000 since the election.<br /><br />During his work as both a constituency MP and Secretary of State of the Department, the Secretary of State will have seen for himself the impact of these falls, and has subsequently reflected on this during his interview." </span><br />
<br />
So it looks like there hasn't been any rigorous research on this - at best, Iain might have spoken to a few formerly unemployed people and discovered that they lived in housing estates and really didn't want to work but had been forced into it by his policies.<br />
<br />
So I submitted a <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/method_used_to_identify_claimant#outgoing-394449" target="_blank">review request </a>pointing out<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #073763;">"...you have not provided information for the main part of my request, ``In particular, please provide:</span> <span style="color: #073763;"><br /> • The numbers in the out-of-work group who are in housing estates<br /> and unwilling to work during 2010 and for all subsequent years for<br /> which statistics are available<br /> • The method used to identify claimants as “unwilling to work” ''</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;">After some nagging and delays I was told <span style="color: #073763;">"</span></span></span><span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: #073763;">The Department does not define “unwilling to work” therefore data is not held on this topic"</span> </span> </span><br />
<br />
It also tells me of statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on working or <br />
workless households, derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) but so far as I can see, there's no analysis of "housing estates"<br />
<br />
My conclusion: While the "stubborn part of the out-of-work group who are in housing estates and unwilling to work" might actually exist, no one really knows how many there are and if the numbers have changed recently. Iain Duncan Smith's statement should be seen as essentially <b>political</b> speech intended to demonstrate action on a matter of public concern. See also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_devil" target="_blank">"Folk Devil"</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-29879872032974746212014-10-20T01:46:00.000+01:002014-10-20T01:46:10.533+01:00The “Pretending There Are Enough Jobs” IndustryThis post is a bit off-topic as it refers to Australia but it makes a point that applies just as much to the UK. Points made in the <a href="https://medium.com/@nomadicpolymath/the-pretending-there-are-enough-jobs-industry-part-one-recruitment-and-job-services-25fdf5dafe67" target="_blank">full article</a> include:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #073763;">"To put it simply, there is not enough work for everyone who wants it and that is not going to be reversed anytime soon."</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #073763;">"As of August 2014, there are <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://jobsearch.gov.au/providers/search.aspx#search.aspx?%255Bobject%2520Object%255D&_suid=1408195352656025314475502818823" href="http://jobsearch.gov.au/providers/search.aspx#search.aspx?%255Bobject%2520Object%255D&_suid=1408195352656025314475502818823" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">4,868 job service providers</a> in Australia" </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #073763;">"Now, if these Job Service Providers were making a difference that would
be fantastic, but they cannot force employers to create more positions,"</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #073763;">"Tony Abbott, plans on making it harder for jobseekers to receive
payments. Apparently, the Government wants to beat the unemployed into
submission while ignoring that employers aren’t hiring because they
don’t need any more employees and that is not the fault of anyone who
currently does not have a job."</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #073763;"><em class="markup--em markup--p-em">"If all goes to plan, half of us will
be employed in the “pretending there are enough jobs” industry helping
the other half of us get employed (most likely in the “pretending there
are enough jobs” industry).</em>" </span></blockquote>
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-18023411692975581382014-10-01T00:01:00.001+01:002014-10-01T00:01:12.710+01:00Another sort of Jobcentre targetMost jobseekers have to attend the Jobcentre every two weeks but this is going to change. From October 2014, it is expected that 50% will be on <b>weekly </b>"Job Search Reviews" Enter "D McDermott" who was told s/he'd now have to attend weekly and was even told that everyone had to.<br />
<br />
"D" made an <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/all_jsa_claimants_to_sign_weekly#outgoing-388717" target="_blank">FOI request</a>, to find out more. In the first round it became clear that only 50% would receive this extra support. Also provided was the mechanics of the 50%. Basically, if JCP staff <b>feel</b> you'd benefit from weekly attendance, that's what you get. It gets more complex - Senior Operations Managers and Customer Services Operations Managers (CSOM) are going to measure the position against the 50% ratio for their cluster of Jobcentres and will investigate where any Jobcentres are significantly above or below the target.<br />
<br />
So, front-line staff have to decide whether to require weekly attendance based on what they feel about the claimant and with the knowledge that 50% is expected and will be monitored. "D" wrote back:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You can not possibly know for sure that 50% of all claimants will need this extra help so I do not understand how targets can be set.What happens if a Jobcentre only has 5% of claimants who need extra support? Will said Jobcentre employees be subject to extra demands/reprimanded to fulfil this quota? </blockquote>
From an FOI point of view it's rather week. The DWP is unlikely to have any "recorded information" showing that discipline will be applied to staff not meeting their quota.<br />
<br />
It's still a good question though. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-85099214913135619282014-09-12T20:38:00.000+01:002014-09-12T20:38:24.601+01:00'Benefits Street' and the Myth of Workless Communities<br />
This is an interesting paper about a hunt for inter-generational benefit culture and how hard it is to find evidence.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">Abstract </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">This paper critically engages with a pervasive myth about welfare in the
UK which is commonly spread by politicians, think tanks and the media.
This is the myth that there are areas of the country which are so
affected by entrenched cultures of 'welfare dependency' that the
majority of residents are unemployed. In undertaking research that
sought to investigate a different idea - that there are families where
no-one has worked over several generations - we simultaneously gathered
evidence about the likelihood that there are localities where virtually
no-one is in employment. The rationale for Channel 4's Benefits Street
was exactly this; that whole streets and neighbourhoods are of out of
work and living on welfare benefits. We draw on research evidence
gathered in Middlesbrough and Glasgow to investigate this idea. Thus,
the aim of our paper is simple and empirical: is the central idea of
'Benefits Street' true? Are there streets and neighbourhoods in the UK
where virtually no-one works?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><span style="color: black;">Full paper <a href="http://www.socresonline.org.uk/19/3/1.html" target="_blank">here </a></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2940267312636892572.post-87159751961849495512014-08-19T20:46:00.000+01:002016-08-16T00:13:15.377+01:00Daily Work Search ReviewsOne of the support options for the long term unemployed announced by George Osborne back in September 2013 was daily visits to a job centre. This has now been the reality for some claimants for a few months now in the form of "Daily Work Search Reviews". The <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/201658/response/517413/attach/3/HtW%20guidance%20v1%204%202014%2004%2024.pdf" target="_blank">guidance</a> gives examples of claimants who may be suitable:<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #0b5394;">claimants who need additional support with their jobsearch activities, which the Work Coach believes will be best provided by Daily WSR. This may include following up job applications and interviews, identifying and addressing issues such as skills gaps</span></li>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">
</span>
<li><span style="color: #0b5394;">claimants who have reasonable levels of work experience but may lack the level of motivation required to seek out employment opportunities or pursue options for improving their employment prospects</span></li>
<span style="color: #0b5394;">
</span>
<li><span style="color: #0b5394;">claimants who have a history of poor timekeeping in terms of attending interviews at the Jobcentre. The timekeeping requirements of Daily WSR would improve claimant's discipline and understanding of the importance of timekeeping in a work environment</span></li>
</ul>
This might be reasonable but I found something rather curious in the detailed <u>design </u>of DWSR. Also from the <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/201658/response/517413/attach/3/HtW%20guidance%20v1%204%202014%2004%2024.pdf" target="_blank">guidance</a><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;">61. Daily WSR times must vary on each day Monday to Friday; this varied pattern is then repeated for 4 consecutive weeks (i.e. the attendance time must be different for each day of the week but in each 4 week block the time on a particular day will be consistent).<br /> ...</span><br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;">63.The timetable must be changed every 4 weeks; the exception being that the revised timetable issued at week 8 can run for 5 weeks (i.e. until the end of the Daily WSR period).</span><br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="color: black;">It's difficult to see how this detail helps review jobseeking activities. As a lesson in timekeeping it seems a bit OTT for those who hope to get a 9-5 job. It offers a good chance of a sanction though when the jobseeker gets confused!</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="color: black;">Naturally, <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/daily_work_search_reviews" target="_blank">I've been asking about the intent of the design </a>but have yet to get a good answer </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="color: black;">I have found a big clue though. An obvious use of this regime is to disrupt a claimant who may be working on the side and the following paragraph hints at it:</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: #0b5394;">19. Check the Customer Information System (CIS) to determine if the claimant has a Fraud Referral and Intervention Management System (FRAIMS) indicator present. If so, the Fraud and Error Service (FES) must be contacted for further advice before any decision to assign the claimant to Daily Work Search Review (WSR).</span> </span></span><br />
<br />
This paragraph seems to be unique to Daily Work Search Reviews. I think the intent is to frustrate fraudsters working on the side who have not yet been detected. Those already being investigated may be allowed to continue until there's enough evidence.<br />
<br />
Of course, for the honest claimant it's a hassle but that has never worried the Jobcentre,<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Update 19-Aug-14:</b> I finally got <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/daily_work_search_reviews#incoming-552076">some
sort of answer</a>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The first interesting part was where I’d suggested DWP ask
the author of paragraphs 61 and 63 for the thinking behind the variable timing
aspect. They answered:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 115%;">“We do not hold information on who wrote sections 61 and 63
of the Help to Work guidance”</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Maybe that’s usual in the Civil Service but it seems odd
to me. In many workplaces it’s normal to keep a note of who did what and why.
Then, when the next person comes along and considers removing something or making
a change, they do it the knowledge of why things were done the way they were. (My
favourite example of the importance of records is <a href="http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/local/memories-of-pulling-the-plug-on-canal-1-624620">this</a>)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">They do offer some information on the
intent of making claimants turn up on a complicated timetable for their Work Search
Reviews</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">"Information about the intent of the
variable timing aspect can be found at paragraph 48. It lists claimants who may
be suitable for daily work search reviews. One of the groups mentioned are</span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">“Claimants who have a history of poor
timekeeping in terms of attending interviews at the Jobcentre. The timekeeping
requirements of Daily WSR would improve claimant's discipline and understanding
of the importance of timekeeping in a work environment”.</span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">This doesn’t really wash because the other
groups are mentioned are those lacking motivation and those needing additional
support. How are they helped by this? Also note this guidance:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">"49. Key considerations for Work Coaches in determining a claimant’s suitability for Daily WSR must include:</span></span></span></div>
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">whether the claimant is likely to be able to understand and cope with daily variation in attendance times"</span></span></span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"> So, to qualify for this lesson in timekeeping, you must be bad at it but not actually incapable (E.G.: Due to mental health issues)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><b>My conclusion</b></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">The reason the timing of DWSR is as difficult as it is may well be due to an initial idea to disrupt those working on the side or to frustrate claimants off benefits and hit sanction targets. However, </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">to be lawful, all interventions by the Jobcentre are supposed to be <i>helpful </i>so something benign had to be documented.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">I may now move on to investigate paragraph 19 mentioned above.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">See also <span style="font-family: inherit;">the <a href="http://ukwelfarebenefitstruthseek.blogspot.com/2016/07/no-evidence-to-support-daily-trips-to.html" target="_blank">(lack of ) evidence fro DWSR being effective.</a></span> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="color: #666666;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">(Original version published </span></span>19/07/2014 20:18)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<ul>
</ul>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1