Work Capability Assessment figures released
The DWP have released figures on the pass rates for Work Capability Assessments (WCAs), which were introduced along with Employment Support Allowance (ESA) last year. The WCA determines who gets to receive ESA, and who is diverted onto Jobseeker's allowance.
- 5 per cent who are the most severely ill or disabled people are going into the support group, and will not be expected to undertake any work related activity, instead being offered voluntary help to manage their condition.
- 36 per cent are found fit for work and not eligible for ESA.
- 11 per cent are found eligible for ESA with work related activity (such as regular advisor interviews) to help them prepare to return to work in the future.
- 38 per cent stopped claiming benefit before the assessment on them was completed.
- 10 per cent were still being assessed as the statistics were compiled.
Roughly a third of appeals are successful. As noted in the comments below, comparison with the previous system is difficult as there is (apparently) less of a bar to making an initial claim, hence in part the huge drop-out rate during assessment. Also, the length of time for assessments to be completed means that some claimants will get better and find work in the interim. A rough indicator could be derived from changes in the absolute number of claimants for IB and ESA, if anyone feels particularly statistical.
Both of these have complex impacts on Pathways to Work delivery. In those areas where unassessed claimants are being referred, the health status of customers may be better than that of the previous IB caseload, but with a strong risk of losing them after completion of assessment. In areas that only take on ESA claimants post-assessment, the health status of customers may be more difficult than previously, with a further issue around customer numbers.
Additionally, the increasing expectation that JSA claimants will have disabilities, health conditions and other limiting factors has made it necessary to require more specialist support in mainstream tendering, and to extend specialist programme eligibility to JSA recipients.
Responses
- The Shaw Trust response is in the comments below
Comments
Shaw Trust's response:
Over a third found fit for work who were previously not fit for work. What a remarkable "cure all", it must be rated nearly as highly as acupuncture!
Many of those previously on Incapacity Benefit will be re-assessed under these new rules and many of them currently receive DLA at various rates. There is a tendency (incorrectly) for the DWP to automatically cut peoples DLA when they return to work. This will mean a lot of the claimants Carers will lose their Carers Allowance as well.
This government will be remembered for their harsh and heartless treatment of sick, disabled and elderly.
The Tories will be no better alas.
Regards
Ian.
Incapacity Benefit (or whatever it's called today)has for far too long been a dumping ground for people who, with only a stretch of imagination on the part of a benefits advisor (or themselves, come to that) could and should have been working a long time ago. Dumping them on IB has just bred a culture of dependency and more depressingly of hopelessness. It's unpalatable to think that "sick people who are unable to do so are being forced to work" but actually that's not really true, is it? People unable to do one type of job are more often than not now being prodded to go and do another type of job instead, rather than be left to fade away on a state benefit. I can't stand this bloody Government but this is one thing I have to credit them for - taking on the elephant in the room that is IB. Just a shame they've only done it as a result of their massive mishandling of the economy as opposed to doing because it needed to be done.
The effect of these moves on DLA is another matter. My daughter receives DLA at the highest rate but in no way would either she or I claim that she is unable to work. In previous years I suspect she would have all too readily been consigned to IB and basically left there. Of course, being able to work doesn't necessarily mean DLA must be cut as a result, and if that's happening something's wrong, because DLA is addressing different needs rather than an ability (or not) to work. However the notion of automatically expecting someone who is sick or disabled to feel happy that the Government is going to pay for them to never work again is not one anybody should welcome.
Raven
I completely agree - I remember a "disability adviser" expressing their extreme sorrow at my son having a heart condition and also having cateracts at an early age - I was incensed!!! He's currently working as well as continuing with his education! No benefit in sight!
Also having a member of my family with mental health problems, in receipt of DLA but all the same, working during less economically oppresive times.
One things I hate about our industry is that some people (not all) make assumptions about an individual's capability, which, when you analyse it is not helpful.
By all means show empathy, and challenge where necessary (yes, I do recognise that some benefit claimants could be working rather than waiting for their "giro"). But, don't assume because you have come across a particular health condition or set of circumstances before, it impacts everyone in the same way. Everyone is individual and deserves to be treated as such, rather than put in a "category" and assumptions made about them.
I have to ask Raven is she a cheerleader for New Labour and their welfare reform.
Nothing worse than someone who suffers from a disability or has a family member with a disability preaching to others.
Paul
[Moderation - I'm leaving this up, but it's a bit uncalled for. Besides, as any fule kno, there's nothing worse than a Summer Cold]
These statistics, though interesting, should be interpreted with caution, especially by anyone looking for indications about how a reassessment of existing incapacity benefit claimants might pan out.
Unlike incapacity benefit and JSA, assessment phase ESA and JSA are generally paid at the same rate. If someone has a potential health issue, and can choose between claiming ESA and JSA, they have nothing to lose by claiming ESA as no overpayment will arise. Similarly, clients who make a partial recovery prior to their assessment have little incentive to switch to JSA beforehand.
Most claimants coming on to ESA are have become sick or disabled relatively recently (many people working intermittently between periods on incapacity benefit and income support will continue to be eligible for these benefits under the rules which link claims separated by up to two years). ESA claimants are therefore less likely to have long standing health conditions - and more likely to have recovered before the assessments. The Telegraph is reporting that 38% of claimants "gave up" or "abandoned the process" - "before their assessment was even complete" - many of these will simply have returned to work or recovered their health during this time. This is especially likely given that many claimants have had to wait far longer than the statutory 13 weeks for their assessments - it appears from the DWP research report that by the end of August 10% of claims begun between October and February had yet to be assessed - all should have been undertaken by end of May at the latest.
The report also says that 31% of 4,900 appeals were successful - no dates given.
Raven - it's a shame nobody in the political system will tackle the other elephant in the room, namely that to get all these people back to work the Government needs to conjure up 5 or 6 million extra jobs. Real jobs that is, not shrapnel like hour a day cleaning or agencies touting for new victims. Read the statistics and wake up.
Instead of pouring money into W2W schemes, the Government - or the Tories, who could probably get away with blaming Labour even though we all know it's really Maggie's fault - need to hold their hands up and admit that actually, there aren't enough jobs to go around and there probably never will be again. The only way to get people back to work will, I fancy, be to a)cut working hours by legislation to share out what work there is, and b)limit immigration to genuine refugees only, meaning no more cheap labour from Eastern Europe and so on thus forcing bosses to employ, train and maybe even pay decent wages to the people they wouldn't even spit on before.
Like the old New Deal, the current crop of schemes are doomed to failure. Unemployment in Britain will be a perennial problem until politicians can bring themselves to move beyond populist scroungerphobia and tackle the REAL issues.
Daniel,
I think we're only a few comments away from making the link back to Hitler and the Nazis.
Why don't we all give the system a go (a real go) before we unpack all the baggage of the legacy of the 20th century.
Each individual needs individual support, work is and will be the best therapy for many people and there's no more money in the bank of DWP...
Let FND, JCPSC, ESF, P2W, NDDP as well as the local authority, regional, third sector and ad hoc programmes work before we condemn them.
I don't knwo about anybody else, but this recession is different..it's still majorly impacting the close to work who seem to finding work..even just a bit slower.
Firelfy,
There is enough money in the bank of the DWP to pay up to five billion pound to employment providers and incentives to employers.
There were many disabled people looking for work in the past who could not find work,and that was in the so called good times and thousands more did and still do voluntary work. There was no need for much of this reformm, extra money should have been given to help those already looking for work. Fraud is running at 0.5 per cent I believe for IB.
What I Would like to know When is pressure going to be put on Employers, instead of the one way attack on the sick?
The government scrapped the rule that employers had to employ a percentage of disabled people when they introduced the almost worthless DDA, soon to be replaced by the equalities act. The DDA protected employers and made money for lawywers.
The new ESA medicals with the CAN DO criteria will mean these people face a major risk of being put straight onto job seekers allowance.
Job seekers allowance or the SWAB is of course the real motive behind welfare reform, ever the employment providers will be finished at the end of all this People on IB doing voluntary work should now be warned the risks thay are taking in my view.
Paul
Mr Smith, I'm a bit bemused by your comment on two counts. Firstly I'm not a she and am just interested to know what made you think I was? (Not that it's a problem, just interested!)
Secondly, not sure why you think I might be a new labour cheerleader. (The phrase "I can't stand this bloody Government" should have given you a clue here.) However, credit where credit's due - they are tackling the flawed IB/ESA system by trying to figure out who is actually unfit to work and who isn't, as opposed to just chucking everyone who has a milk allergy or an ingrown toenail onto IB benefits and leaving them there for ever to rot.
I'm certainly not preaching to anyone (at least I didn't intend to) - I feel the same way as you on that. In fact, it was the preachiness of DLA Help Group that prompted me to reply in the first place. The system needs to toughen up in its approach to the link between worklessness and benefits. There is no god-given right to any benefit, but unfortunately whilst new labour bangs on about "rights and responsibilities" it's only recently begun to look at the responsibilities bit properly. By all means we should support those who cannot work, and do so properly and at a decent living rate - but the default position should be that you can work and should be expected to make every effort to do so before you get benefits. Just saying how awful it is that someone who doesn't feel very well isn't getting their benefit anymore and is being made to earn their own living does not, in itself, cut it anymore.
The flaw with the assessment is that it assesses the person without employment and not the employer who could provide the work. 75% of employers have stated that they would not employ someone with a mental illness. So, the "barrier" to work for those suffering from mental health issues is one that is external to the individual and cannot be removed by JCP pressure or providers giving help with CV writing, motivation, etc. In fact, the highest ‘want to work’ rate of all disabled people is among the 86% of those with mental health conditions who are currently without work.
If the Government really wants to support people back into work, then surely some robust anti-discrimination legislation is what is needed. Imagine if 75% of employers stated that they would not employ ethnic minorities and JCP response was to blame the ethnic minorities for the situation and cut their benefit accordingly.
Could I apologise to Raven for calling her a she, perhaps people should sign their first name at the bottom of the entry. I had problems on Tuesday 13 October, trying to enter my comments as the site would not accept my original entry citing, some else had the name Paul, so i wrote Mr Smith.
For any doubt I am actually Paul from Hereford, that is my real name and I left a comment earlier today. Perhaps other should have the courage at least to use their real name especially with some of the more provocative comments that appear on this site sometimes.
Going back to Raven, because he shuld be challenged on his statement about some IB claimants.
Could you tell people how many you think are signed off on IB due to the fact that they have a milk allergy or an ingrown toenail?
Paul
Can you please advise what is uncalled for in respect of my comment on Tuesday 13 October 2009, under the mame Mr Smith, which was a reply in response to the person Raven?
Paul
being called a preacher or a cheerleader springs to mind - it is a bit snipey I think raven cleared that one up in the response to your post
Paul/Mr Smith, have we had a sense of humour bypass lately? Under the old IB regime you;d have been signed off work.
I wasn't in the least offended by being presumed to be female, just wondered what I'd written that led you to that conclusion.
Just so you know, I only don't use my name because of my job role which could be quite compromised by some of the things I write on here. I'm not being libellous or anything (nothing edited out by Daniel yet), it's just that stating my opinion in public is not compatible with my job in the sector, so I either stay anonymous so I can write something constructive, or shut up and stay out of everything. It's not as if I trivialise thingsby going around calling a respondent to my posting....ooh, let's say, just purely hypothetically and for example..... "a [bad person]" which might not be the case at all. (Sorry Daniel, couldn't resist it. Do I get edited?)
On your point about IB sign-offs, I think 514 people have been signed off for ingrowing toenails and 253 because of milk allergies. Obviously considerably more will have been signed off for less trivial conditions that nonetheless do not prevent, or should not have prevented, the claimant from working, which was really the point of my tongue-in-cheek remark. Unfortunately having to explain the joke slightly dilutes the impact - but there again it had absolutely no impact whatsoever on you so I don't know why I bother really.
In your 8.49 posting, was that meant for me? I'm not sure I ever said you'd written something uncalled for. I didn't think you had actually - I was just disagreeing with your opinion of me as a new labour cheerleader. (And as a female).
Would be delighted now if we could actually get back to a decent discussion of how wimpy the Government's approach to IB/ESA has been, before quite recently.
[Moderation - Yes, you get edited]
Raven,
I personally would moderate you for just using the words "[bad person]" on a post.
As for your statistics for 514 people claiming IB for ingrowing toenails and 253 for milk allergies unless you have access to peoples medical records from either the DWP or other agencies I fail to see how you got those figures you claimed on your posts.
If they are not true, then you are telling others wrong information that give other readers a false impression of some IB claimants. As for humour there is no humour for many in welfare reform, many people are very frightened at the moment including some that were in the army from a young age and served their country. and others that hsve worked for 30 years and now could face forced Therapy CBT) benefit sanctions and potential WORKFARE when the welfare reform bill gets passed soon.
Paul
[Moderation - Share and share alike]
Paul
I give up. I'm wriggling inescapably in the crushing grip of your reason.
I know a lot of people here do this for a job and probably get battle hardened.
But ESA will be claimed by every really sick and disabled person in this country. Many people have diagnoses of very serious and enduring conditions that they have to face up to and have no way out of.
Wanting to 'toughening up' the approach to these people seems to me a strange heartless attitude to take. Help, concern, compassion would be more appropriate. ESA is a benefit for sick people and that needs to be remembered. Helping sick people is what youa re employed to do.
As a fit person you may feel that very sick people need to be coerced to help themselves but if you haven't walked in their shoes I think you should be very careful about how appropriate pressure is in helping them and remember how counter productive it might be especially in the case of people with a mental illness. Do you really have the skills to get this right. Is your gallows humour a defence because you are being asked to do things that are too difficult and morally dubious or ebcause youa r ebeign faced daily with suffering and fear?
So how about limiting the humour and trying more concern and empathy.
This is not a benefit for cheats, scroungers, or malingerers. It is a benefit for sick and disabled people. Fraud is a separate question and it is important to make sure it is detected accurately. But remember that is a separate minor question and don't let the focus on that creep in to the main part of the system which is tthere to help really sick people and where respect for them and their illness is important.
If I were really sick I wouldn't want to be faced with an advisor who automatically suspected me of being a fraud and who thought my whole situation was a joke.
@Lisajones - I suspect the humour on here is fairly low key compared to what flies around in, say, the medical profession, or the average school staff room. It can be a good way of letting off steam, and I don't think anyone on here has let it compromise their basic points.
@Paul - You're drawing site conversations off-topic and into slanging match territory, and insulting other commenters. You're also painting an overly 1984ish picture of the welfare system. You're making some good points, but as with many other claimants / claimant activists who post on this site, you're wrapping it up in a parcel of broad brush bile and thin-skinned victimhood. The moderator who called your comments somewhat uncalled for was me. I'm beginning to wish I'd just deleted your comment.
@Raven - Don't feed the troll!
My own view is probably in alignment with Tim Blackwell when it comes to drawing a meaning from the figures. Simple comparisons with the previous assessment are difficult because the claiming process and the payments have changed, and backlogs have built up that skew all the figures. Anecdotally, the WCA is producing some fairly wacky results in both directions. A terminally ill man pushed onto JSA made the news a while back, and providers are reporting motivated, work ready customers being pushed into the support group.
It's not clear whether the problems with the WCA are small-scale or widespread, and there's no immediate base from which to judge. In part this is because 'fit for work' is fundamentally subjective. What is clear is that moving people with serious, recognised disabilities and health conditions onto JSA is changing the make-up of delivery, and will require both personalised delivery and differentiated payment to work properly if it isn't to end up parking them on a lower benefit rate, then forcing them to do community work when the parking doesn't get them a job.
Daniel your comment
@Raven Don't feed the troll'
Can you not stop the name calling please.
Paul
I stand by my judgement. This is your final warning.
Lisajones - I'm obviously not making myself clear.
When I say "toughening up", I don't mean "we should force sick people to work" - what I mean is we should be more discriminating (in its positive sense) about what constitutes a work-limiting condition. My overall point is that IB has been used for far too long merely to massage top-line unemployment figures or as a dumping ground for those deemed somehow too hard to help by those not bothered enough to try. Clearly there are people for whom, because of their medical condition, work is not a realistic option. Absolutely we should support them with a decent rate of benefit, and if we get real about who these people actually are and give the rest the chance to earn their own money again, we are able to pay the most deserving the level of benefit they ought to get. At current levels what we're doing doesn't really suit anybody.
Having had chronic back problems for years plus a depressive illness, makes me, on some reckoning, a classic recruit for IB but I've never been out of work since I left Uni many years ago now. It could have been quite easy to consign me there but I didn't want it, and moreover actually there was no need, as I've amply proved. I'd far rather the benefit I would've got went to someone who didn't have the choice whether to work or not because they're unable to.
It's not even really about fraud (although yes, there's a small element of that). It's about properly defining to whom we should pay benefit, and how much, and at the moment the system just doesn't have the balance right. This doesn't make me heartless (does it?)
And yes, I am being a bit facetious about the whole thing on here, but be assured I take my job seriously. We're all professionals in the sector I presume and it's not something any of us take lightly. However I'm afraid I can't go round being po-faced about it for ever, and particularly not out of hours, or I'd probably explode.
I would ask if any other 'threaders' have come across the sitaution of an employed client being deemed fit for work via the ESA capability assessment - however the employer deems the client is not fit to return to their previous role and the employer is not able to offer any other role/light or alternate duties to the employee.
The employee then in not able to sign for JSA - as they are in employment - not elegible for SSP (as they will have exhausted their entitlement prior to claiming ESA).
I have sought the opinion of several DEAs who are unable to assist and also spoken with the claims line who again are unable to assist.
Any ideas where I might puruse this query - both my clients in this situaiton are currently appealing the decision therefore giving me some time to seek the most appropriate way of addressing this.