Are many IB customers hostile to potential help?
Its a sweeping statement I know - I don't mean to offend anyone.But you only need to read the blog (from your link) to an IB customers reaction to their initial WFI to see the vehemence of some peoples opposition to talking about employment in the future.Im not saying IB customers can't complain about poor service or advice,but I see a lot of evidence of customers finding it an insult to be asked to talk about their health and work prospects.Why? its unlikely that someone who has had - or still has - a health condition that has prevented them from working, can just slip easily back into work again without needing some help and support?What's so wrong in asking people what they need? Yes, there is a sanction element, but all of our choices in life have consequences - if you choose not to talk to someone there s a financial cost.If you do, there isnt - simple as.I'm really disappointed that advisers - private sector and JCP - are depicted as demos who are oly interested in forcing peple into work.Believe me, it is not possible to force an employee to hire anybody they don't want to! Bit disappointed that you chose to promote that persons site - he's entitled to his opinion but we need balance too.
Hi Pamplemousse,
Thanks for responding to the blog that I linked to in this week's newsletter.
In answer to your point on balance, I agree that it's important to reflect the full range of views, and we've linked to positive experiences of Pathways in the past. While this writer does not represent the full spectrum of customer experiences, I and many other people delivering employment support have occasionally faced suspicion and hostility from individual customers. I'm linking to every blog entry I find that talks about people's own experiences of benefits and employment support. Hopefully, over time, a proportionate and inclusive picture will emerge of how different people experience the employment system.
With regard to his initial refusal to attend and eventual exemption from mandated WFIs, DWP research report 513 appears to indicate that mandating attendance for mental health cause of claim is unhelpful.
My own take on the more contentious part is that he's chosen to engage with Pathways support, albeit with severe reservations, but has then been turned off by the support offered to him by his adviser. It's impossible to judge from the blog whether his rather sour verdict is justified by his experience or not. However, his extension of this to a sweeping claim that the entire industry is corrupt and self-serving is rather easier to judge on. What do other people think?
Relatedly, I've been thinking of setting up a rate-my-provider system. All kinds of services and products are being rated in this way. Why should public services be different?
Update 9/10/08 - The blog posts that sparked this discussion have been taken offline. Both welfare-to-work customers and providers occasionally seem to be a rather reticent bunch.
Mindfever is pretty representative of a large group of people on IB who perceive themselves to have insurmountable barriers to working. I use the word "perceive" in no way judgementally - the perception is often totally accurate. Mandating attendance, as we all know, makes life more difficult from the start of the relationship with the provider. Far better to enthuse people to participate and let their motivation drive their progression.
But I often we confuse the 2 issues: forcing people to justify their claim is different from getting them to want to work.
The blogger that originally wrote about their Pathways experience has written a further update, which I've responded to on their site here.
Many people on IB will automatically not trust schemes like the ones this site covers, due to past experiences with ATOS and the DWP.
Especially people with mental health issues, who due to their condition will focus on the negatives, and fail to see much positive side.
Trust must be gained, and is all to easily lost.
What are the chances of someone with a genuine condition trusting a provider if they have been turned down for incap by the DWP due to a ATOS medical which stated they were fine? (even though the claimaint clearly is not fine, not in their mind, not in their GP's or CPN or other specialist's opinion.)
What are the chances of someone trusting a provider if for years a claimaint has been unable to do voluntary work when having a good period, as they feel (justifiably it would seem) that ATOS is likely to use that against them?
What are the chances of someone trusting when they have been let down time and time again (having to go to appeal multiple times) by ATOS and the DWP, and then are FORCED to attend these interviews/schemes?
All the DWP have to do is leave them alone to recover, and not penalise anyone for trying to better themselves when they feel able to, yet for years people have felt unable to, they know how the system operated.
People with depression have even been failed at medical (so they are fit for work) with reasons similar to the claimaint is too pessimistic about their condition, so how can they trust when even the doctors that are supposed to do no harm under their oath are telling them there is nothing wrong with them because they are exhibiting a known sign of their condition!
People with severe mental illness like schizophrenia may hear voices shouting at them in their head over which they have no control. They may have the negative effects which destroy their motivation and make any action an enormous struggle, they take medication that means they sleep fifteen hours a day.
In their late teens when the illness developed they were probably fully psychotic, perhaps homeless, destitute, sectioned and kept in a mental hospital against their will. Many were in prison. They may have paranoia.
If you had that experience would you trust a benefits advisor that had the power to take away your benefits. They don't trust authority. They will never relax and try if you have that power over them.
They should be put in the support group where they feel safe and then they might learn to trust you and you may be able to help them. No sanction can ever be fair for them anyway because any action or behaviour on their part may and probably is caused by the illness.
If you don't understand what the problem is here then you probably don't understand severe mental illness and you should not be dealing with these clients.
Even Lord McKenzie who was debating the Welfare reforms recently showed a lack of understanding of mental illness, if the people who are actually deciding the reform policies dont understand the basics, the whole system will be designed flawed from the TOP down sadly.
You can read up on what was said, and more at the link below
http://www.u.tv/News/The-welfare-reform-bills-hour-of-need/43326bc8-608e...
With people like Freud and McKenzie being involved with reforms, the future is scary - lets hope some common sense rears it's head before its too late.
"Yes, there is a sanction element, but all of our choices in life have consequences"
Only due to people like Frued, who himself admitted he had no knowledge of the benefit system, and spent little time writing his report, and then people who are debating it with little knowledge of the specialist area's or how it will affect people.
Sanctioning people with mental health issues is against good medical practice, and common sense, its not life - its a decision made by someone, who does not seem to understand the effects or damage it will cause.
Daniel your idea about rating providers is brilliant
"Relatedly, I've been thinking of setting up a rate-my-provider system. All kinds of services and products are being rated in this way. Why should public services be different?"
You could of found a gap in the market here. I know this site is related to welfare at work providers but, I have to say that an awful lot of managers in the health sector find it hard to decide which training providers to either avoid or use for NVQ's. An awful lot of those managers using the 'Scils website'would, I am sure ,use your site to find the best provider.If you do decided to go ahead with rating please let me know.
Providers should be rated and the people who pay good money should be able to view these ratings.
Lisa my thoughts too !
The rate-my-provider system is moving ahead. The details and funding source still need to be worked out, but it's clearly the way things are going and I've been building relationships with other web-based feedback sites for public services that could lead to a cheap, effective, self-financing, and ethically sound solution to the issue.