Post by nickd on Feb 23, 2012 21:54:41 GMT 1
The Work programme has come in for a hammering of late
Mylegal puts it under the magnifying glass.
(1) Introduction
Following in the wake of the controversial reforms to the NHS, it seems that Government's flagship WORK programme is in for an equally choppy ride; with a great deal of negative publicity being given to it over the last few weeks. Mylegal is going to cast its critical eye over where this is could go badly wrong. From the perspective of a welfare benefit specialist - I would like to think we have a valid point of view. After all many of the people we see are directly affected by the government's current welfare reforms and thus I think we have a valuable contribution to make in the discussion. It strikes me that there are a number of crucial misunderstandings, not least by those who seek to implement these reforms and also the wider general public; many of whom seem to be incredibly in the dark as to what's really going on at the front-line of social welfare advocacy services. I say this because in our line of work, those who have been made redundant in rounds of savage job cuts, those who face disability or illness and those who face consequential high levels of personal debt all too often turn to us in an attempt to sort out their affairs. We listen and get an understanding of what our client's real problems are; - regrettably few people seem to take much notice of what we have to say. In the advice sector we are seeing all manner of people these days, they include ex-staff from the departments we so often have to challenge in a sea of out of control bureaucracy. In dealing with welfare benefits over the years we naturally take an interest in our subject too, remember we've seen welfare reforms well before the current ones going through Parliament; - we usually end up spending a lot of our time fixing things when they go wrong. So we know a thing or too about statistical analysis, it's very often reflected in the nature or our client's presenting problems.
(2) Benefit claim related patterns over the years.
The media has fueled a perception that practically everyone dependent on welfare benefits has no wish or inclination to work. Many of our typical client group have been labeled as lazy and in want of something for nothing; - it's just not what we are seeing at all. Of course we have to accept that in the welfare state there are individuals who have for all manner of reasons become welfare dependent, but we also have to accept that there are not enough jobs to go round; - no end of distortion of statistics is going to alter the fact we have high unemployment figures, that's the reality. The problem is it has become all too easy to blame it on 'lazy layabouts & scroungers' and to point the finger at the youths of today. Whilst government massages the figures, it fails to take into account the changing face of the labour market over the years. What you really need to consider is the overall effect of an increasing population, more part time workers and a complete change in our industrial base over the years.
Take a look at these figures;
They make quarterly comparisons between January and March of each year from 1971 to 2011 and more recently October - December 2012 (January to March 2012 obviously not yet being available). The first column to the right of the quarter is the population over the age of 16 - the second column are the numbers of economically active - the third are those employed and the fourth are the numbers of unemployed. The figures are taken directly from the data sources and here they are shown in units of thousands, so 980 = 980,000 and 40,513.00 = 40,513,000 (40.5 Million).
Jan-Mar 1971 ----- 40,513.00 ----- 25,593 ----- 24,613 ----- 980
Jan-Mar 1972 ----- 40,697.00 ----- 25,656 ----- 24,501 ----- 1,155
Jan-Mar 1973 ----- 40,865.00 ----- 25,904 ----- 24,903 ----- 1,002
Jan-Mar 1974 ----- 41,031.00 ----- 25,908 ----- 24,984 ----- 923
Jan-Mar 1975 ----- 41,204.00 ----- 26,025 ----- 24,996 ----- 1,029
Jan-Mar 1976 ----- 41,415.00 ----- 26,187 ----- 24,809 ----- 1,379
Jan-Mar 1977 ----- 41,674.00 ----- 26,239 ----- 24,803 ----- 1,436
Jan-Mar 1978 ----- 41,958.00 ----- 26,336 ----- 24,862 ----- 1,474
Jan-Mar 1979 ----- 42,267.00 ----- 26,533 ----- 25,113 ----- 1,420
Jan-Mar 1980 ----- 42,610.00 ----- 26,808 ----- 25,250 ----- 1,558
Jan-Mar 1981 ----- 42,940.00 ----- 27,063 ----- 24,661 ----- 2,403
Jan-Mar 1982 ----- 43,176.00 ----- 26,923 ----- 24,120 ----- 2,803
Jan-Mar 1983 ----- 43,399.00 ----- 26,649 ----- 23,651 ----- 2,998
Jan-Mar 1984 ----- 43,664.00 ----- 27,368 ----- 24,125 ----- 3,243
Jan-Mar 1985 ----- 43,937.00 ----- 27,695 ----- 24,515 ----- 3,180
Jan-Mar 1986 ----- 44,175.00 ----- 27,820 ----- 24,670 ----- 3,150
Jan-Mar 1987 ----- 44,389.00 ----- 28,038 ----- 24,925 ----- 3,113
Jan-Mar 1988 ----- 44,565.00 ----- 28,407 ----- 25,795 ----- 2,613
Jan-Mar 1989 ----- 44,713.00 ----- 28,769 ----- 26,590 ----- 2,179
Jan-Mar 1990 ----- 44,829.00 ----- 28,904 ----- 26,900 ----- 2,004
Jan-Mar 1991 ----- 44,920.00 ----- 28,836 ----- 26,530 ----- 2,306
Jan-Mar 1992 ----- 44,992.00 ----- 28,472 ----- 25,710 ----- 2,762
Jan-Mar 1993 ----- 45,016.00 ----- 28,286 ----- 25,282 ----- 3,004
Jan-Mar 1994 ----- 45,059.00 ----- 28,214 ----- 25,408 ----- 2,806
Jan-Mar 1995 ----- 45,169.00 ----- 28,167 ----- 25,670 ----- 2,497
Jan-Mar 1996 ----- 45,322.00 ----- 28,301 ----- 25,970 ----- 2,330
Jan-Mar 1997 ----- 45,481.00 ----- 28,466 ----- 26,381 ----- 2,085
Jan-Mar 1998 ----- 45,648.00 ----- 28,490 ----- 26,677 ----- 1,813
Jan-Mar 1999 ----- 45,851.00 ----- 28,816 ----- 27,036 ----- 1,780
Jan-Mar 2000 ----- 46,090.00 ----- 29,044 ----- 27,362 ----- 1,682
Jan-Mar 2001 ----- 46,386.00 ----- 29,105 ----- 27,623 ----- 1,481
Jan-Mar 2002 ----- 46,686.00 ----- 29,297 ----- 27,782 ----- 1,515
Jan-Mar 2003 ----- 46,974.00 ----- 29,595 ----- 28,064 ----- 1,531
Jan-Mar 2004 ----- 47,310.00 ----- 29,851 ----- 28,415 ----- 1,436
Jan-Mar 2005 ----- 47,723.00 ----- 30,138 ----- 28,719 ----- 1,419
Jan-Mar 2006 ----- 48,130.00 ----- 30,553 ----- 28,946 ----- 1,607
Jan-Mar 2007 ----- 48,538.00 ----- 30,765 ----- 29,064 ----- 1,701
Jan-Mar 2008 ----- 48,942.00 ----- 31,128 ----- 29,510 ----- 1,618
Jan-Mar 2009 ----- 49,307.00 ----- 31,398 ----- 29,172 ----- 2,225
Jan-Mar 2010 ----- 49,687.00 ----- 31,335 ----- 28,825 ----- 2,511
Jan-Mar 2011 ----- 50,064.00 ----- 31,696 ----- 29,240 ----- 2,455
Oct-Dec 2011 ---- 50,339.00 ----- 31,800 ----- 29,129 ----- 2,671
(A) What this tells us:
The population figures for those over 16 has increased by 9,826,000 (9.8 Million) since 1971. That's a population increase of around 10% over the last 40 years.
The number of people who are 'economically active' has increased by 6,207,000 (6.2 Million) since 1971 as has the number of Employed at 4,516,000 (4.5 Million). It stands to reason that as the population increases the labour market will also rise.
Whereas the number of unemployed in real terms has increased by 1,691,000 (1.6 Million) since 1971.
The above statistics show the pattern of changes in claimants & the labour markets over the years.
These can also be illustrated as follows:
In 1971 out of a population figure of 40,513.00, 62% (25,593,000) were economically active, 61% (24,613,000) were employed and 2.4% (980,000,000) were unemployed
In 2011 out of a population figure of 50,330,000, 63% (31,800,000) were economically active, 58% (29,129,000) were employed and 5.2% (2,671,000) were unemployed
In 1984 (the worst recorded year) out of a population figure of 43,664,000, 62.6% (27,368,000) were economically active, 55.5% (24,125,000) were employed and 7.5% (3,243,000) were unemployed.
(B) Conclusions from longer period related data
(1) You have to consider how the increasing population numbers, the economically active and those employed have all increased in greater multiples than those relating to the unemployment figures when averaged out over the entire period. What we see from the figures is a progressive increase in the population figures (relating to those over 16) over the years which obviously reflects in higher numbers of employed and the economically active; - the progression is by and large regardless of the more direct impact of recessionary times. It stands to reason, the higher the population the more people will be in employment. It could be said that we are simply reaching a situation where there aren't enough jobs to go round; - the ratio between the population, employed and unemployed can stagnate. Every year the population goes up, there is a need to create more jobs; - government has an added problem in times like these.
(2) You cannot rely on the economically active figures increasing to show that unemployment is being tackled; - take 1984 as an illustration of how we had the highest unemployment figure over the whole period and yet the number said to be economically active was 62.6% compared with 61% in 1971 and 63% in 2011). Government often quote increases in the numbers who are economically active as an indicator that there are jobs, the statistics from 1971 show this in a different light.
(3) You also need to consider how figures can appear massaged by using different classifications of the unemployed and economically active because they change from one data set to another. The ones shown above were derived from data sets released through the Guardian from Office of National Statistics (ONOS) sets produced in January 2012.
Link www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/17/unemployment-and-employment-statistics-economics (download 'All Unemployment' set to analyse on excel)
(C) Compare the data with claimant data sets produced by the National Audit Office :
The first column are those on Jobseeker's Allowance, the second relates to those on Incapacity Benefit (which merges with Employment & Support Allowance from 2008) and the third column is the cumulative total; - these relate to the same months (August) from 1999 to 2009. The majority of these figures will relate to the older Incapacity Benefit rather than its replacement Employment & Support Allowance: (numerics are the same as before in the 1971 to 2011 table)
Aug-99 ---- 1,181.86 -- 2,655.38 ---- 3,837.24
Aug-00 ---- 1,015.83 -- 2,714.85 ---- 3,730.68
Aug-01 ---- 907.68 ---- 2,763.62 ---- 3,671.30
Aug-02 ---- 890.54 ---- 2,769.36 ---- 3,659.90
Aug-03 ---- 851.37 ---- 2,777.06 ---- 3,628.43
Aug-04 ---- 769.25 ---- 2,774.93 ---- 3,544.18
Aug-05 ---- 825.11 ---- 2,725.47 ---- 3,550.58
Aug-06 ---- 900.92 ---- 2,683.00 ---- 3,583.92
Aug-07 ---- 788.45 ---- 2,641.11 ---- 3,429.56
Aug-08 ---- 868.73 ---- 2,590.61 ---- 3,459.34
Aug-09 ---- 1,485.32 -- 2,632.74 ---- 4,118.06
They are from sets of statistics released on the 17th February 2010 by the National Audit Office under data set ID170210SSFEB10.
What you will note is the cumulative total more or less remains the same. There is no massive growth as claimed by government when you look at the cumulative total - until 2009 when a higher Jobseeker's Allowance claimant count increases; - it's the reactive effect of recession as illustrated by the jump in numbers between 2008 and 2009.
The overall difference figures for Jobseeker's Allowance between 1999 and 2009 was +303,460
The overall difference figures for Incapacity Benefit between 1999 and 2009 was - 22,640
The difference figure for cumulative totals between 1999 and 2009 was + 280,820
The relevance of these statistics is it shows there was no great increase in Jobseeker's Allowance and Incapacity Benefit related claims of any great magnitude over the decade between 1999 and 2009. The figures refute claims that increases in these claimant groups can be solely attributed to the previous Labour administration. The figures for Incapacity Benefit are much the same in 1999 as they were in 2009 which scotches the myth over the numbers growing under a previous government; - although of course, it has to be said that Incapacity claimants have not materially reduced either.
The figures also show the differences in the classification of 'unemployed' between different data sets. For instance in 2007, the Office of National Statistics quote a figure of 2007 of 1,701 claimants whereas the National Audit Office quote a figure of 788, 450. How can these data sets be relied upon if they vary so much in the methodology used and the figures they arrive at? Surely it is right to apply consistency in order to monitor precisely what the figures are?
(D) Which figures should be relied upon?
Question marks over the quantification of the number of people unemployed have been raised for some time. Using 2007 as an example, here's a further reference to doubts over the true level of unemployed:
"The True Level of Unemployed""
"The government publish two statistics – the claimant count and Labour Force Survey. However, there are reasons to suggest that unemployment is often higher than official statistics suggest. This is particularly the case for the Claimant count survey, which only counts those eligible for benefits. According to government statistics unemployment in the UK, is under 1 million. (sept 2007)
The claimant count for Jobseeker’s Allowance was 835,800 in September 2007"
This would support the figures produced by the National Audit office who put the Jobseeker's Allowance figure at 788,450 in 2007.
www.economicshelp.org/blog/8/unemployment/the-true-level-of-unemployment-in-uk/
The same article then makes a reference to the 'true' number of unemployed being somewhat higher than the claimant count. The article refers to how the ILO Labour Force Survey put unemployment at 1.66 million in August 2007.
"This is supported by the ILO Labour Force Survey. This survey is a monthly questionnaire of 60,000. It asks them whether they have been actively seeking work and would be able to take work if offered. The ILO method gives a significantly higher figure currently 1.66 million August 2007"
The Labour Force Survey figure closely matches the National Office of Statistics higher estimation of the real number of people unemployed which they identify as being in 1.7 million (1, 701,000) in 2007.
Both sets of data are no doubt reliable. The claimant count is just that; - the National Office of Statistics data sets include claimants who are economically inactive into the equation when quantifying those who are unemployed. The material differences between the data sets are the inclusion of 'economically inactive' individuals. It can have the effect of making the number of unemployed to be much higher than the actual claimant count.
(E) Why would we want to illustrate higher unemployment statistics than the claimant count by using these different data sets?
The answer is almost certainly connected with an expectation by government that they want more people to contribute to society by way of taxation and national insurance. It means broadening the target group well beyond Jobseeker's and including individuals who have not been expected to work before, this accounts for the much higher 'economically inactive' figure. This would also include groups of claimants who aren't eligible for Jobseeker's Allowance but are still out of work. There are claimants who cannot claim for instance because they have exhausted their contribution based entitlement and have their awards terminated after six months, they may well not be able to claim the income based variant after the expiry period because their partner works. This leaves us with a situation where even though the out of work individual doesn't claim benefits, he or she is regarded as 'economically inactive' - the media often use the figures to label them unemployed.
The same methodology is almost certainly adopted by other data-set compilers when considering lone parents or those claiming a disability related benefit as opposed to an unemployment related benefit.
There will also be some people who simply don't claim benefits at all and chose to live off limited savings, despite the fact they are economically inactive. One has to suspect the media perhaps fueled by government has misrepresented the numbers of people said to be unemployed; - we've seen countless examples of this in the tabloids where public perception is aimed at highlighting huge numbers of people as seemingly taking advantage of the welfare state. It's a radical change in welfare thinking as to whom we seem to expect to work which is increasing the figures rather than a rapid growth in the claimant count.
The WORK programme is based on the ethos that claimants cannot expect something for nothing; thus it puts an emphasis on economic recovery being found through people making greater contributions through taxation and National Insurance; - ultimately it is tax and contributions which balances state expenditure. Of course, this only works when people end up in proper remunerative work.
The contribution expectation extends to those who historically have not necessarily needed to work (such as some lone parents and incapacitated claimants who previously did not need to work but in government's estimation could work) - it also extends to those who do not actually claim benefits but are said to be 'economically inactive'. Some people make a choice to give up work early and live off their savings - they end up being labeled as 'economically inactive'.
(3) Now let's look at the inclusion of disability related claims into the equation.
(A) Disability related claimant count over the years
A lot of people fail to consider the difference between those who claim on the grounds of disability and those who claim they are incapable of work. In some cases there can be an overlap between the two.
So we shall take a look at Disability Living Allowance and see what's happened to this over the years. We take a look at 2003 as it is relatively mid term in the administration of the previous government.
As of February 2010 the number of Disability Living Allowance claimants stood at 3,137,730 (3.1 Million), expenditure in this area accounts for a significant proportion of the overall benefit bill. It was introduced in 1992 and has steadily increased over the years. There are limited data sets for earlier claims, the data methodology also changed in 2002 (source DWP).
In November 1999 there were 2,098,300 claims
In November 2000 there were 2,197,700 claims
In November 2001 there were 2,298,000 claims
In November 2002 there were 2,439,000 claims
In November 2003 there were 2,558,000 claims
In November 2004 there were 2,658,400 claims
In February 2005 there were 2,673,000 claims
In February 2010 there were 3,137,730 claims
Sources for 2002 - 2005 (DWP)
statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/dla/index.php?page=dla_quarterly_statistics_feb03
For 2010 (IFS)
www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf
(B) Disability Living Allowance analysis - ages/conditions)
Now let's look at why these figures have increased;- more dramatically between 2005 and 2010. Ironically when the Conservatives introduced Disability Living Allowance in 1992 they heralded how they were looking after the disabled. So let's see who the allowance ended up helping in 2003.
Claimant ages
Of 268, 200 awards made in the year ending February 2003, the following information details the ages and conditions experienced by claimants:
The first column is the claimant age and the second is the number of claimants
0 - 4 -- 18,200
5 - 15 - 25,600
16-24 - 13,800
25-29 - 10,400
30-34 - 15,700
35-39 - 20,300
40-44 - 21,700
45-49 - 25,400
50-54 - 33,900
55-59 - 41,600
60-64 - 41,100
65 and over - DLA is only awarded after the age of 65 in certain cases where they are entitled to it beforehand.
The age groups are of interest because they show, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the highest number of claims are made by those in the age groups between 55 - 59 and 60 - 64. The least number of claims were made by those aged 25 - 29; although it can be noted that a considerable number of awards were made for those aged from birth to age 24. Not surprisingly awards increase from age 25 to 64 which would logically relate to patterns of age related disability.
Claimant conditions
Looking at the conditions suffered by claimants upon which their awards were made out in the same period:-
56,900 ---- Other mental health problems
35,300 ---- Arthritis
33,800 ---- Other
30,100 ---- Malignant disease
22,700 ---- Muscle/Joint/Bone disease
20,000 ---- Back ailments
14,100 ---- Learning difficulty
13,300 ---- Heart disease
8,900 ----- Chest disease
7,800 ----- Stroke-related
6,700 ----- Epilepsy
6,500 ----- Diabetes mellitus
3,800 ----- Blindness
2,600 ----- Deafness
2,200 ----- Renal disorders
1,900 ----- Skin diseases
1,500 ----- Parkinsons disease
The high incidence of mental disorders and arthritis are the top two illnesses, with malignant related disability ranking fourth. It seems hard to see how most of these conditions would not have been subject to some degree of medical evidence in 2003 when the evidence requirement was actually quite high with people on new claims quite often having to provide a report from their doctor or the DWP arranging a 'visiting doctors report' where one of their independent examiners would assess people in their own homes, these have almost ground to a halt today.
For instance, it was noted in 2003 that the incidence of mental illness in students was on the increase:
Growing mental health problems among students are "a matter of considerable concern" and they warrant dedicated student mental-health services in some areas, according to a report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The RCP report, The Mental Health of Students in Higher Education , says NHS mental health services are often inadequate for students because of long waiting periods and an appointments system that does not take into account the academic timetable.
www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=184387§ioncode=26
Likewise, the onset of arthritis will generally affect people as they get older, so it's hardly surprising that we are seeing increased claims on this particular illness. And surely few of us would argue that claimants claiming on the grounds of malignant disease were making false claims? It has to be remembered that Disability Living Allowance was introduced as other benefits such as Disability Working Allowance and Reduced Earnings Allowance was phased out. Disability Living Allowance was launched by the Conservative government in 1992 to pay people for meeting the additional costs of living with a disability; - it was completely the right thing to do as we started to level less of the awful prejudice towards the disabled than we do today, we sought to make the disabled more inclusive members of society - we now seem to have turned on them in a rage of hate;- it's become quite deplorable with a rise in the numbers of disability hate allegations; - the social media world is ablaze with disabled individuals who feel unfairly targeted - few will use their real name for fear of reprisal by the authorities. In my work as a welfare benefit specialist I have never seen people so frightened as they are today.
On a point of mention, the rules relating to Disability Living Allowance entitlement have always been strict, they have a pre-requisite requirement that people are severely disabled mentally or physically in order to qualify for any of the five component rates. If problems existed over the entitlement I believe we should look much more closely at the adjudication process than we do the claimant; - it is after all DWP decision-makers who decide who qualifies, not the claimant. I certainly don't think claimants were being granted their awards without some kind of scrutiny, from what I saw over the years many claimants were routinely refused at the first application and would often have to make several attempts to make a successful claims; - the more evidenced based it was, the greater chance it would stand of being granted - it was no great free for all. Government often talks of life time awards, it is more likely that these would apply to longer pre-existing claimants.
There are other explanations for the increase in Disability Living Allowance, at first glance the tabloids would no doubt quote headline figures telling us that in 1999 there were 2,042,000 claimants and then tell us how this had risen to 3,182,000 by 2010. It's not so straightforward as the following statistics illustrate:
DLA Growth
The largest 'growth' in DLA figures are reflected in the following figures.
Claimants aged 80+ growth = 285%
Aged 75 - 79 = 146%
70 - 74 = 79%
There's a high total growth figure for young claimants too.
For those aged 10 - 15 = 47%
Aged 16 to 19 = 92%
It may come as a surprise that the lowest growth figure was actually for those aged between 30 - 34 at - 1% (that's minus 1%); - I say this is the light of the media focus who often use this age group as a bad example. In reality, many claimants of this age probably have mortgages and far from wanting to claim benefit, they are desperate to get in to work so they can save their homes homes from repossession.
The reason for the higher growth rates is because of the rules for those who claim before the age of 65. Let's take someone aged 62, they become progressively arthritic and claim DLA. Because they claim it before the age of 65, they can carry on claiming it after the age of 65. No one can claim Disability Living Allowance after they become 65, unless they already claim it. With people living to much longer ages, the effect of this is their pre-existing entitlement could continue for a considerable number of years beyond the claim cut off date at 65. A person aged say 100 could potentially claim DLA for 35 years beyond the age of 65.
There's more on this in an interesting article ' Devil in the DWP detail' (9 August 2011) by Claudia Wood...
"The rise in numbers claiming DLA are not all that they appear, and are being used by ministers in a potentially misleading way
Today the DWP released an ad hoc statistical publication looking at claimants of Disability Living Allowance between 2002-03 and 2010-11. It showed that the numbers of people claiming has increased by 29%. Alongside this came a statement from Ian Duncan Smith decrying the fact that people had been left on benefits for years. The new benefit replacing DLA – the Personal Independence Payment – would end all that, he said.
But as with most government figures related to disability these days, one needs to look a bit closer."
See the rest of the article on the Public Finance website..
opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2011/08/disability-stats-devil-in-the-dwp-detail/
DWP 2011 ad hoc analysis
statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2011/DLA_Growth_in_Caseload_FINAL.pdf
www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?id=6618
DWP consultations
www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/
DWP stats research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/dla/index.php?page=dla_quarterly_statistics_feb05#allowance
[NOTE: In navigating your way around the statistical links, you may come across some which are no longer active, this is because the DWP archive data sets, however they should navigate you to the original locations.
In flows & out flows
It should also be born in mind that in any year there are 'inflows' and 'outflows'. In other words, for every new award, there will be a number of claimants who's award is terminated.
In the year ending February 2003 there were 268,200 new awards against 119,000 terminated awards (a claimant may have recovered or perhaps died) leaving an ongoing case load of 2,503,400 cases (2.5 million). It stands to reason that if the inflow (new awards) is higher than the outflow (terminated awards) then the claimant count will accrue at a higher rate over the years until the inflows match the outflows.
Conclusions on Disability Living Allowance recipients
The rise in disability related claims is higher than those related to incapacity. Claimant groups who are incapacitated do not necessarily claim a disability benefit such as Disability Living Allowance although of course the two can overlap. Patterns relating to ages and conditions are not consistent with media claims generally leveled at those who are out of work and inappropriately claim a benefit to which they are not entitled.
The increase in claim numbers would appear to be consistent with a number of factors, not least those which are age related. There appears to be a reluctance to accept that some people who claim Disability Living Allowance are genuinely entitled to it in the first instance and what is more will remain entitled to it by virtue of illnesses which simply do not improve.
Disability Living Allowance was awarded to recognise the levels of impairment individuals experience and to meet the extra costs associated with living with conditions which have become more treatable and which are bound to increase in line with rises in populations figures. There is now a reverse trend by Government which is effectively 'de-badging' many genuinely disabled claimants.
(4) The bigger picture
The following chart shows you UK benefit expenditure is distributed in monetary terms according to claim categories:
There all manner of permutations of these charts in various data compilations. They all say different things according to whatever the data compiler is trying to illustrate, but the one above illustrates several points fairly effectively. It is taken from DWP information about the UK benefit spend across different areas.
The major bulk of the benefit bill is on Retirement Pension, it accounts for by far the biggest single element of welfare benefit expenditure. The media and government are loathe to draw attention to this but it is the reality.
By comparison, this particular chart shows expenditure on Employment & Support Allowance to be lower than most people think as is expenditure on Jobseeker's Allowance.
Significant levels of expenditure are on Housing & Council Tax Benefit expenditure; - these are always tied to people on benefits and those earning lower incomes. Higher rent levels set by landlords have increased benefit expenditure; - the cash goes to the landlord (often a social housing landlord) rather than the claimant. The claimant doesn't see any of the cash, they are just meeting rent figures which have shot through the roof due to the housing market.
The Working Tax Credit was introduced as a means of making work pay by subsidising lower earnings as an incentive to help those in work; - government is cutting this, making for less of an incentive. Tax Credits should be seen - as the name implies - as more a reduction in the level of taxation, rather than as a benefit.
For a really good in depth look at the benefit system, I would recommend this study by the Institute of Fiscal Studies.
See here www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf
(5) Providing the right groups with support [/u]
The WORK programme sets out to tackle long term welfare dependency. The DWP now classify this as remaining on benefits for more than a year; - this is not the perception of the public and arguably WORK providers who have been under an expectation that longer term claimants were those who had been claiming for considerably longer than a year. WORK providers stand to benefit from provider payments of up to £14,000 per person if they can manage to help transition longer term claimants from welfare in to work. Employment & Support Allowance is seen as a key tool in the support process but regrettably it is mistakenly seen by many to be a benefit which determines whether claimants are fit for work.
(i) Incapacity Benefit v Employment & Support Allowance
(ii) Incapacity Benefit is about determining which claimants are incapable of work.
Employment & Support Allowance is about determining those who have a limitation and thus need support to transition from welfare to work. It is only the support group who are deemed incapable of work unless of course they decide to voluntarily participate.
Until the adjudicating authorities appreciate that it is counter productive to deny people their Employment & Support Allowance, they will continue to put large numbers of claimants with a limitation on to Jobseeker's Allowance where they will receive no real support in transitioning from welfare to work.
The actual number of long term incapacitated claimants referred to the WORK programme is spectacularly low when considering all the media hype over how this was going to be tackled by the programme. A total figure of 21,960 out of 2.57 million is exceptionally unimpressive. The true number of actual longer- term incapacitated is even less impressive at just 3,110 claimants - it is a claimant group which is being barely touched.
Read more: mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=586#ixzz1nXn6MVib
(6) Conclusion [/u]
We have to accept the changing face of the labour markets and how higher mortality rates rates relate to a higher number of disability related claims. There is an absolute need to make sure the genuinely disabled are correctly assessed in the WORK programme; - this requires an acceptance that some people simply cannot work at all. For those who have limitations it is paramount that they receive the correct amount of support.
There is a need to be far more honest about the figures rather than selecting only the elements which aid distorted media perception. The media should act more responsibly by informing the public over the real facts and thus educate people in a better understanding of the welfare state in a modern society such as we have in the UK.
Ultimately, if government sets outs its promises on the basis of distortions:- it stands to fail - it is upon failure that the WORK programme may transpire to become an embarrassment to government in years to come. It is an untried experiment which has a considerable way to go. The WORK programme's key objective is to tackle-long term welfare dependency; - the earliest sign is that it has seriously failed to reach the key target group. This has the effect of parking people in the welfare wilderness for longer;- just so government can claim short term success at getting easier groups referred in to the programme.
WORK providers are unlikely to be impressed by the first report of the performance of the WORK programme. On the back of adverse publicity given to the major welfare to work contractor A4E, the focus will be on all contractors and on government for the way they remunerate and monitor them - it is their public duty to get this right.
Government should stop making enemies of organisations who have a much better understanding of the real problems faced by claimants, it is they who know their client's limitations best, they are well placed to point out failures in the WORK assessment. Correct assessment is to everyone's advantage, not least the claimant but to a prospective employer as well. The key test for the WORK programme will be how it realistically gets more people into work. Government and the DWP should not applaud every Tribunal results which confirms a person is not entitled to support into employment; - it should seriously question the assessment and ask itself if they have got this right - the WORK related employment statistics are going to be the ones to watch out for.
Government is promising economic growth; - there is little if any sign this is going to come out of the WORK programme unless the need for better assessment is recognised and acted upon.