It'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:
"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."
Understandably, people want to see these reviews in case wrongdoing is identified. Also understandably, the DWP don't publish them saying "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 course of that employment and which relates to a particular person" See here for an example FOI request where this and other arguments are deployed
However, a more modest request got better results Here the request was mainly for numbers
In the "60 peer reviews following the death of a customer":
1. How many reviews identified that all local and national standards had been
followed?
2. How many reviews identified that some local or national standards had not
been followed?
3. How many reviews identified that some local or national standards need to
be revised/improved?
4. What action has there been to date in the cases referred to in my questions
2 & 3 above?
This is essence of the response:
in fact only 49 of these reviews had been conducted in circumstances where the claimant had died.
...
33 out of the 49 cases referred to above contained recommendations for
consideration at either national or local level.
National recommendations have been referred to the Customer Journey team
for inclusion in their regular reviews. Local recommendations have been
referred to the appropriate office to be taken forward.
This isn't actually an admission of wrongdoing but it seems unlikely that many of the "recommendations" will be drawing attention to good practice in these unfortunate cases,
10May2015: This related FOI response shows that 10 out of 49 cases had a sanction at some point during their claim.
19 February 2015
17 February 2015
Sanctions comprehensive monitoring regime
The DWP tells the world "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." (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/benefit-sanctions-ending-the-something-for-nothing-culture) There is a contrary view that many sanctions are capricious, arbitrary, bullying and driven by targets to get people off benefits. (EG: http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/)
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 love that.
So I asked about it. 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:
We can see that for some months, accuracy hovered between 90% and 95% which if you want to be picky doesn't quite match "always and only applied". 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?
I think it will be interesting to ask the same question again later in the year to see if the decline is a decline or just part of a blip.
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?
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 love that.
So I asked about it. 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:
We can see that for some months, accuracy hovered between 90% and 95% which if you want to be picky doesn't quite match "always and only applied". 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?
I think it will be interesting to ask the same question again later in the year to see if the decline is a decline or just part of a blip.
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?
10 February 2015
Sanctions used as a Last Resort
DWP people are often quoted as saying that sanctions are used as a "Last Resort" EG:
"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..." (1)
However, there are many claims that they as used as a first resort (2)
So what's the truth? We may soon find out via an FOI request "Number of people sanctioned for missing just one JSA appointment". This doesn't simply ask the obvious question, it also asks:
"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?"
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 technique I've blogged about before - ask for recorded information that should exist, force an admission that it doesn't exist and then comment adversely.
Another pertinent FOI request is about "Sanctions comprehensive monitoring regime" which refers to this government statement:
"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."
Finally, a request that asks rather directly for the evidence relied on for these statements that sanctions are used as a "last resort"
These requests are at various stages - stay tuned for updates
"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..." (1)
However, there are many claims that they as used as a first resort (2)
So what's the truth? We may soon find out via an FOI request "Number of people sanctioned for missing just one JSA appointment". This doesn't simply ask the obvious question, it also asks:
"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?"
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 technique I've blogged about before - ask for recorded information that should exist, force an admission that it doesn't exist and then comment adversely.
Another pertinent FOI request is about "Sanctions comprehensive monitoring regime" which refers to this government statement:
"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."
Finally, a request that asks rather directly for the evidence relied on for these statements that sanctions are used as a "last resort"
These requests are at various stages - stay tuned for updates
2 February 2015
DWP -STILL- have no idea if Workfare costs jobs or not
It's often alleged by Boycott Workfare 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. The answer was they didn't.
Recently I asked essentially the same question again in hopes that the DWP would have now done some work on it. After a tussle it emerged that they still have no idea if Workfare costs jobs or not
``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``
This is very disappointing. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the Irish equivalent of the DWP have commissioned some proper research and even chucked some "employers" off their scheme for displacing jobs.
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 initial response gives lots of information about guidelines, the benevolent intent of schemes, how they are delivered, the contracted providers and meetings. What it does not do is provide the recorded information I requested on "all research intended to measure compliance".
I solved this by asking them to do a Review of their response and quoted the very useful Section 1(1) of the FOI Act that says they have to either provide the information or say that they don't hold it.
You may find this useful if you want to be sure that a Government does not know something you think it should. For more on this technique, see here
Recently I asked essentially the same question again in hopes that the DWP would have now done some work on it. After a tussle it emerged that they still have no idea if Workfare costs jobs or not
``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``
This is very disappointing. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the Irish equivalent of the DWP have commissioned some proper research and even chucked some "employers" off their scheme for displacing jobs.
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 initial response gives lots of information about guidelines, the benevolent intent of schemes, how they are delivered, the contracted providers and meetings. What it does not do is provide the recorded information I requested on "all research intended to measure compliance".
I solved this by asking them to do a Review of their response and quoted the very useful Section 1(1) of the FOI Act that says they have to either provide the information or say that they don't hold it.
You may find this useful if you want to be sure that a Government does not know something you think it should. For more on this technique, see here
14 January 2015
Irish "DWP" DO have an idea if Workfare costs jobs or not
I wrote last year about the DWP having no idea if Workfare costs jobs or not 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 report - and published it
The Irish scheme is called JobBridge and typically offers the unemployed a 6-9 months "internship" for which they get €50 on top of their welfare payment each week.
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:
My original FOI showed that DWP had done nothing like this. It's possible that a second FOI request that's in progress will yield better results. Update 02 February 2015: No, it didn't :-(
The Irish scheme is called JobBridge and typically offers the unemployed a 6-9 months "internship" for which they get €50 on top of their welfare payment each week.
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:
- 6.4% (of employers) indicated that they would have taken on paid employees in the absence of the scheme
- 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
- 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.
My original FOI showed that DWP had done nothing like this. It's possible that a second FOI request that's in progress will yield better results. Update 02 February 2015: No, it didn't :-(
6 January 2015
Does the Bedroom Tax help people get into work?
Readers may remember my work on the idea that the Benefit Cap helped people get work and may be interested in whether other controversial "Welfare Reform" policies increase employment?
The "Bedroom Tax" is one such policy and I'm grateful to Trudy Baddams for asking how many people has the DWP helped into work by introducing the bedroom tax
The answer was essentailly:
The Interim Report does indeed show affected people looking for work (or more hours/better pay) but also:
"Our survey found, however, that most (87 per cent) of those claimants who said they
have looked for work also said they that, in the first six months since RSRS had been
implemented, they had not been able to find work or secure better paid employment.
From the qualitative work with claimants, most participants who were able to work had
considered earning more through starting work – although this was not solely in response
to the reforms, rather that they had been hoping to do so anyway. Those who reported that
they were looking for extra hours or a better paid job more often reported that this was in
response to the policy."
So it doesn't look like the policy is actually getting people work.
The "Bedroom Tax" is one such policy and I'm grateful to Trudy Baddams for asking how many people has the DWP helped into work by introducing the bedroom tax
The answer was essentailly:
“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 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.”
The Interim Report does indeed show affected people looking for work (or more hours/better pay) but also:
"Our survey found, however, that most (87 per cent) of those claimants who said they
have looked for work also said they that, in the first six months since RSRS had been
implemented, they had not been able to find work or secure better paid employment.
From the qualitative work with claimants, most participants who were able to work had
considered earning more through starting work – although this was not solely in response
to the reforms, rather that they had been hoping to do so anyway. Those who reported that
they were looking for extra hours or a better paid job more often reported that this was in
response to the policy."
So it doesn't look like the policy is actually getting people work.
21 December 2014
"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:
"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..."
(Source: Sunday Express: We are breaking up 'Shameless' housing estates, says Iain Duncan Smith)
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"?
So I asked and was told:
"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.
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."
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.
So I submitted a review request pointing out
"...you have not provided information for the main part of my request, ``In particular, please provide:
• The numbers in the out-of-work group who are in housing estates
and unwilling to work during 2010 and for all subsequent years for
which statistics are available
• The method used to identify claimants as “unwilling to work” ''
After some nagging and delays I was told "The Department does not define “unwilling to work” therefore data is not held on this topic"
It also tells me of statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on working or
workless households, derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) but so far as I can see, there's no analysis of "housing estates"
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 political speech intended to demonstrate action on a matter of public concern. See also "Folk Devil"
"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..."
(Source: Sunday Express: We are breaking up 'Shameless' housing estates, says Iain Duncan Smith)
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"?
So I asked and was told:
"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.
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."
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.
So I submitted a review request pointing out
"...you have not provided information for the main part of my request, ``In particular, please provide:
• The numbers in the out-of-work group who are in housing estates
and unwilling to work during 2010 and for all subsequent years for
which statistics are available
• The method used to identify claimants as “unwilling to work” ''
After some nagging and delays I was told "The Department does not define “unwilling to work” therefore data is not held on this topic"
It also tells me of statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on working or
workless households, derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) but so far as I can see, there's no analysis of "housing estates"
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 political speech intended to demonstrate action on a matter of public concern. See also "Folk Devil"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)