Post by nickd on Aug 27, 2012 13:38:56 GMT 1
Is the DWP really enabling the disabled?
Or is this all a sinister pretence?
Government steers its ministerial departments and amongst them one of the most controversial is currently the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP), the Department is relentlessly forcing through an agenda aimed at forcing thousands off the sick and back to work. Thousands of disability campaigners are voicing their increasing anger at the way they are being targeted by the DWP who contract out disability assessments to private healthcare firm Atos. But the agenda doesn't just stop at those reliant on benefits, it's also aimed at making sure thousands of employees won't be able to 'throw a sickie'. Unsurprisingly the keep Britain working message is primarily targeted at the public rather than private sector workforce. You can read more about Atos's role in occupational healthcare assessments here.
There's no two ways about it, David Cameron has made it clear he wants to get Britain working. Cameron's DWP messenger boys are out in force and now tweet under the guise of 'GB Working'. It's abundantly clear that controversial French IT firm Atos Healthcare is the privatised commercial vehicle by which Cameron sees all his wishes as being delivered on time. Ironically Atos has set themselves up as major sponsors of the Paralympics. A great deal has been said of the sponsorship but very little over how the firm's secured a major contract to integrate IT systems in readiness for the Olympic games, when it comes to jumping for government contracts it seems no hurdle is too high for Atos. The firm is a huge commercial entity with their sights on contracts which go way beyond healthcare. Atos's sponsorship of the games is seen as problematic by many disability groups but regardless, it does provide Cameron with a golden opportunity to capitalise on a message which will reverberate with the giving of every medal given to a Paralympian; each one being a potential gold plated statement of 'capability'.
But in his positive spin Cameron has laid himself wide open to accusations of deliberately using the Paralympics to highlight just how much the disabled can do. Understandably some would say it's sheer hypocrisy that the Paralympic flag sporting the 'Agitos' symbol can be seen flapping in the breeze above 10, Downing Street. You can see why Cameron acting as though he's some kind of disability champion will cut like a knife into those affected by disability given the way his government has relentlessly stamped on them. The coalition hasn't been backwards in stripping thousands of their blue badges by declaring those who can barely walk as 'fully mobile'. So who's to say Cameron wouldn't use this opportunity of making a neat comparison in illustrating how much a Paralympian can achieve?
It could after all work; people seeing Paralympians bringing in the medals may well ask: why can't all these benefit claimants achieve similar things?
The media fuelled public will once again focus their unwarranted attention on disability benefit claimants who they consistently perceive as 'under - achievers', that's putting it mildly of-course; their language will be somewhat harsher; it many cases it borders on sheer hatred. My own theory is the able bodied often pick upon the disabled because (a) it's seen as downright easy and (b) because they see it as a statement of their own 'ability'.
I stumbled across an excellent article by Sue Marsh who suggests we shouldn't let Cameron have a glory moment during the games, it's a really good read and effectively illustrates a very important point. Many Paralympians are only able to participate because they've had the support of disability benefits which have provided them with the essential means of getting them as far as the games. Indeed for some it will be down to their disability status (so often related to an award of Disability Living Allowance) that a Paralympian will be able to proudly 'wheel' (with no disrespect to non - wheelchair users) themselves on to the podium.
Another good read is an article by the Red Pepper forum; it very effectively breaks down some of the myths surrounding welfare reform; if you know someone who spouts the kind of rubbish we all too often hear then please point them in the direction of Red Pepper's article; you never know they may just learn something.
A further reality check can be found in the writings of another excellent piece by Debbie Jolly of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) who sums it up quite nicely:
"This regime is not about supporting disabled people nor is it about supporting disabled people into work – it’s about cuts."
They are all absolutely right in what they are saying, it's becoming abundantly clear that there's no genuine intention to help those who are disabled (and on benefits) back into work. What's more the message the DWP appear to be throwing out to those lucky to be in work is 'don't even think about throwing a long term sickie because your employer can't afford you to take the time off'.
Evidence of this can be found in one of the most illuminating reads of late, it's yet another DWP appointed report. This one's called 'Health at work - an independent review of sickness absence' (November 2011) by Dame Carol Black and David Frost CBE. You can read the report here, you'll be surprised at its far reaching findings over how they recommend the DWP should tackle sickness absence - remember this applies to those who aren't even claiming benefits:
Here are some of the key recommendations
[/li][/ul][/b][/size]
There's an interesting reference to Employment and Support Allowance, the inference being that it helps people find another job; it's not what the majority of people with a limitation are saying. Indeed given the high bar test to get on it few would benefit from the support it should provide. The report seems to suggest that transfer from one employment placing to another more suitable placement should take place within employment itself. The emphasis is all about keeping people off benefits with a proposal that job shifting should be the new alternative. The problem is how many employers will use the opportunity to 'offload' those they see as less than efficient because of their limitations. Here's how the report draws attention to the cost of keeping a claimant on the allowance:
"The average claimant receiving Employment and Support Allowance
(ESA) costs the State £8,500 a year. Yet the State does not intervene to help such people find an alternative job until after they have become unemployed, often after a long delay."
It is however pleasing to see at least some recognition of the obstacles ahead or should I say 'warning bells' to any government hell-bent on cutting the benefit bill:
"This challenge will become ever more important because the population in Great Britain (GB) is both growing and ageing. The total GB population is forecast to grow by over 10 million from an estimated 60.5 million people in 2010 to 71.2 million by 2035. Over the same period, median age will increase to 42.2 years from 39.7 years in 2010. In 2035, there will be 639 dependants per 1,000 persons of working age, up from 618 in 2010"
They also forecast a worsening in the nation's health conditions as they neatly sum up limited capability for work in their quaint terminology in 'less than perfect health':
There is evidence to suggest that the health of the population – and thus the workforce – will deteriorate in the coming decades. Levels of disease in the workforce will increase, due partly to lifestyle. Coupled with an ageing workforce this represents a major challenge for the economy. It will become increasingly important to emphasise that work is compatible with less than perfect health.
There's very little mention of how this older age working expectation may well contribute to worsening health, I have visions of elderly men at the roadside in their luminescent jackets pounding away at those noisy kango hammers as Britain gets to work in building its infrastructures. This government's obsessed with 'enabling' but the empowerment is all geared up to ensuring the city folk can get from A to B that bit little bit faster in their Audi's and beamers. The recent Olympic games showed us all how the government saw it as a priority to provide the high flyers with a fast lane to the games. Perversely the journey to the games for the wheelchair bound doesn't begin until they've been through a costly telephone exercise aimed at providing the hosts with advance notice of their 'requirements'. So the city boys get the fast lane and the disabled get stuck in the slow queue; hardly evidence of the enabling process is it?
The inevitable question which we will have to ask is: will all our new working age pensioners be up to the job? I don't mean this disrespectfully to those who want to work to a ripe old age, I'm referring to those who can't. You can almost imagine the poor souls being told by yet another privatised 'healthcare professional' employed by this proposed 'Independent Assessment Service' how they 'better be in work on Monday morning or face the sack'. Another omission in the report is how stress can be related to the pressures of work, not to mention those who are affected by the sheer worry of coping with a potentially disastrous future ahead. Stress is a known killer and a major contributory factor affecting a person's ability to perform, it's also linked to the onset and worsening of physical disability according to many clinicians. What Cameron and co just don't get is how many people are stressed simply because they can't get the support they need to get to work.
Whereas the previous government stands accused of being a deficit denier, the Coalition has become the new 'disability denier', its new mantra appears to revolve around a concept of "from cradle to grave you shall work, work, work"
As benefit specialists we know the score. When a client comes to us and says they want to appeal for Employment & Support Allowance we have a devil of a job in getting the DWP to see sense. However when we take the case to a more listening Tribunal we are achieving time and time again success rates of 80%. It's because we say in our legalistic way 'look this person's got a limitation, here's what it is, now what they want is a bit of support to help them got off this god damn awful benefit and back into work". Tribunals buy it because they know we're talking common sense.
The trouble is that no sooner has the Judge's signature dried on the decision notice that the DWP are summoning our client back for a further assessment; it's utterly farcical in every respect. I've interviewed hundreds of clients throughout the duration of these wretched appeals and in not one single case have I heard of one being positively helped by the Work Programme. Despite all the hoops they have to go through to get their 'support allowance', the reality is once they've reached a point where their award is 'confirmed' they are sent back to the beginning to start all over again. The process isn't enabling these people, it's positively disabling them.
It seems the DWP isn't happy until it gets these clients where it wants them - back in the queue at the Jobcentre. This is all about cuts and nothing else, the Work Programme is fast becoming a multi - billion pound failure. Perversely government says it is 'relaxed' over splashing its cash on the wasteful charade aimed at 'getting Britain back to work'. In reality it seems to be primarily aimed at helping those who are more 'job ready', it's doing very little to help the long term disabled. The programme was promoted to help the disabled, all it's doing is helping those on Jobseeker's Allowance. It's not doing anything the Job Centre hasn't been doing for years. Here's some statistical evidence that the Work Programme just isn't working.
The Coalition, DWP and Atos are absurd in their hopes to wave a magic wand over the disabled. Atos may have all the commercial credentials in the world when it comes to new technology but they have yet to master the art of admitting a disabled person into the clutches of their healthcare professionals to release them in to the working world as though they have cured them of all ills. I hate to break it to you all but Atos are a million miles from creating the perfect bionic man.
[/li][/ul][/size]
Or is this all a sinister pretence?
Government steers its ministerial departments and amongst them one of the most controversial is currently the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP), the Department is relentlessly forcing through an agenda aimed at forcing thousands off the sick and back to work. Thousands of disability campaigners are voicing their increasing anger at the way they are being targeted by the DWP who contract out disability assessments to private healthcare firm Atos. But the agenda doesn't just stop at those reliant on benefits, it's also aimed at making sure thousands of employees won't be able to 'throw a sickie'. Unsurprisingly the keep Britain working message is primarily targeted at the public rather than private sector workforce. You can read more about Atos's role in occupational healthcare assessments here.
There's no two ways about it, David Cameron has made it clear he wants to get Britain working. Cameron's DWP messenger boys are out in force and now tweet under the guise of 'GB Working'. It's abundantly clear that controversial French IT firm Atos Healthcare is the privatised commercial vehicle by which Cameron sees all his wishes as being delivered on time. Ironically Atos has set themselves up as major sponsors of the Paralympics. A great deal has been said of the sponsorship but very little over how the firm's secured a major contract to integrate IT systems in readiness for the Olympic games, when it comes to jumping for government contracts it seems no hurdle is too high for Atos. The firm is a huge commercial entity with their sights on contracts which go way beyond healthcare. Atos's sponsorship of the games is seen as problematic by many disability groups but regardless, it does provide Cameron with a golden opportunity to capitalise on a message which will reverberate with the giving of every medal given to a Paralympian; each one being a potential gold plated statement of 'capability'.
But in his positive spin Cameron has laid himself wide open to accusations of deliberately using the Paralympics to highlight just how much the disabled can do. Understandably some would say it's sheer hypocrisy that the Paralympic flag sporting the 'Agitos' symbol can be seen flapping in the breeze above 10, Downing Street. You can see why Cameron acting as though he's some kind of disability champion will cut like a knife into those affected by disability given the way his government has relentlessly stamped on them. The coalition hasn't been backwards in stripping thousands of their blue badges by declaring those who can barely walk as 'fully mobile'. So who's to say Cameron wouldn't use this opportunity of making a neat comparison in illustrating how much a Paralympian can achieve?
It could after all work; people seeing Paralympians bringing in the medals may well ask: why can't all these benefit claimants achieve similar things?
The media fuelled public will once again focus their unwarranted attention on disability benefit claimants who they consistently perceive as 'under - achievers', that's putting it mildly of-course; their language will be somewhat harsher; it many cases it borders on sheer hatred. My own theory is the able bodied often pick upon the disabled because (a) it's seen as downright easy and (b) because they see it as a statement of their own 'ability'.
I stumbled across an excellent article by Sue Marsh who suggests we shouldn't let Cameron have a glory moment during the games, it's a really good read and effectively illustrates a very important point. Many Paralympians are only able to participate because they've had the support of disability benefits which have provided them with the essential means of getting them as far as the games. Indeed for some it will be down to their disability status (so often related to an award of Disability Living Allowance) that a Paralympian will be able to proudly 'wheel' (with no disrespect to non - wheelchair users) themselves on to the podium.
Another good read is an article by the Red Pepper forum; it very effectively breaks down some of the myths surrounding welfare reform; if you know someone who spouts the kind of rubbish we all too often hear then please point them in the direction of Red Pepper's article; you never know they may just learn something.
A further reality check can be found in the writings of another excellent piece by Debbie Jolly of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) who sums it up quite nicely:
"This regime is not about supporting disabled people nor is it about supporting disabled people into work – it’s about cuts."
They are all absolutely right in what they are saying, it's becoming abundantly clear that there's no genuine intention to help those who are disabled (and on benefits) back into work. What's more the message the DWP appear to be throwing out to those lucky to be in work is 'don't even think about throwing a long term sickie because your employer can't afford you to take the time off'.
Evidence of this can be found in one of the most illuminating reads of late, it's yet another DWP appointed report. This one's called 'Health at work - an independent review of sickness absence' (November 2011) by Dame Carol Black and David Frost CBE. You can read the report here, you'll be surprised at its far reaching findings over how they recommend the DWP should tackle sickness absence - remember this applies to those who aren't even claiming benefits:
Here are some of the key recommendations
- "We have been motivated, first and foremost, by the financial and social loss to those suffering ill health. There are also major gains to be made for employers, who pay sick pay and associated costs of £9 billion a year and for the State, which spends £13 billion annually on health-related benefits."
- "In longer-term and more difficult sickness cases, employers have told
us that they need independent, bespoke advice, especially if they do not have their own occupational health services. Such advice could help doctors, who usually do not consider themselves expert in this area." - "We therefore recommend that the Government should fund a new Independent Assessment Service (IAS)"
- "However, we would expect the new assessment service to provide useful evidence for a state-sponsored WCA, on claims made by people who fall out of work subsequently."
- "Currently, employers who experience high rates of sickness absence, can be compensated by the Government through the Percentage Threshold Scheme (PTS). However, this scheme costs £50 million a year and gives the employer no incentive to reduce absence. Therefore, we propose abolishing the PTS"
- "We therefore recommend that the Government ends the ESA assessment phase altogether. People should go onto ESA only if they qualify after a WCA or as now, if they have sufficient medical evidence not to need a face-to-face WCA."
[/li][/ul][/b][/size]
There's an interesting reference to Employment and Support Allowance, the inference being that it helps people find another job; it's not what the majority of people with a limitation are saying. Indeed given the high bar test to get on it few would benefit from the support it should provide. The report seems to suggest that transfer from one employment placing to another more suitable placement should take place within employment itself. The emphasis is all about keeping people off benefits with a proposal that job shifting should be the new alternative. The problem is how many employers will use the opportunity to 'offload' those they see as less than efficient because of their limitations. Here's how the report draws attention to the cost of keeping a claimant on the allowance:
"The average claimant receiving Employment and Support Allowance
(ESA) costs the State £8,500 a year. Yet the State does not intervene to help such people find an alternative job until after they have become unemployed, often after a long delay."
It is however pleasing to see at least some recognition of the obstacles ahead or should I say 'warning bells' to any government hell-bent on cutting the benefit bill:
"This challenge will become ever more important because the population in Great Britain (GB) is both growing and ageing. The total GB population is forecast to grow by over 10 million from an estimated 60.5 million people in 2010 to 71.2 million by 2035. Over the same period, median age will increase to 42.2 years from 39.7 years in 2010. In 2035, there will be 639 dependants per 1,000 persons of working age, up from 618 in 2010"
They also forecast a worsening in the nation's health conditions as they neatly sum up limited capability for work in their quaint terminology in 'less than perfect health':
There is evidence to suggest that the health of the population – and thus the workforce – will deteriorate in the coming decades. Levels of disease in the workforce will increase, due partly to lifestyle. Coupled with an ageing workforce this represents a major challenge for the economy. It will become increasingly important to emphasise that work is compatible with less than perfect health.
There's very little mention of how this older age working expectation may well contribute to worsening health, I have visions of elderly men at the roadside in their luminescent jackets pounding away at those noisy kango hammers as Britain gets to work in building its infrastructures. This government's obsessed with 'enabling' but the empowerment is all geared up to ensuring the city folk can get from A to B that bit little bit faster in their Audi's and beamers. The recent Olympic games showed us all how the government saw it as a priority to provide the high flyers with a fast lane to the games. Perversely the journey to the games for the wheelchair bound doesn't begin until they've been through a costly telephone exercise aimed at providing the hosts with advance notice of their 'requirements'. So the city boys get the fast lane and the disabled get stuck in the slow queue; hardly evidence of the enabling process is it?
The inevitable question which we will have to ask is: will all our new working age pensioners be up to the job? I don't mean this disrespectfully to those who want to work to a ripe old age, I'm referring to those who can't. You can almost imagine the poor souls being told by yet another privatised 'healthcare professional' employed by this proposed 'Independent Assessment Service' how they 'better be in work on Monday morning or face the sack'. Another omission in the report is how stress can be related to the pressures of work, not to mention those who are affected by the sheer worry of coping with a potentially disastrous future ahead. Stress is a known killer and a major contributory factor affecting a person's ability to perform, it's also linked to the onset and worsening of physical disability according to many clinicians. What Cameron and co just don't get is how many people are stressed simply because they can't get the support they need to get to work.
Whereas the previous government stands accused of being a deficit denier, the Coalition has become the new 'disability denier', its new mantra appears to revolve around a concept of "from cradle to grave you shall work, work, work"
As benefit specialists we know the score. When a client comes to us and says they want to appeal for Employment & Support Allowance we have a devil of a job in getting the DWP to see sense. However when we take the case to a more listening Tribunal we are achieving time and time again success rates of 80%. It's because we say in our legalistic way 'look this person's got a limitation, here's what it is, now what they want is a bit of support to help them got off this god damn awful benefit and back into work". Tribunals buy it because they know we're talking common sense.
The trouble is that no sooner has the Judge's signature dried on the decision notice that the DWP are summoning our client back for a further assessment; it's utterly farcical in every respect. I've interviewed hundreds of clients throughout the duration of these wretched appeals and in not one single case have I heard of one being positively helped by the Work Programme. Despite all the hoops they have to go through to get their 'support allowance', the reality is once they've reached a point where their award is 'confirmed' they are sent back to the beginning to start all over again. The process isn't enabling these people, it's positively disabling them.
It seems the DWP isn't happy until it gets these clients where it wants them - back in the queue at the Jobcentre. This is all about cuts and nothing else, the Work Programme is fast becoming a multi - billion pound failure. Perversely government says it is 'relaxed' over splashing its cash on the wasteful charade aimed at 'getting Britain back to work'. In reality it seems to be primarily aimed at helping those who are more 'job ready', it's doing very little to help the long term disabled. The programme was promoted to help the disabled, all it's doing is helping those on Jobseeker's Allowance. It's not doing anything the Job Centre hasn't been doing for years. Here's some statistical evidence that the Work Programme just isn't working.
The Coalition, DWP and Atos are absurd in their hopes to wave a magic wand over the disabled. Atos may have all the commercial credentials in the world when it comes to new technology but they have yet to master the art of admitting a disabled person into the clutches of their healthcare professionals to release them in to the working world as though they have cured them of all ills. I hate to break it to you all but Atos are a million miles from creating the perfect bionic man.
- This isn't about empowering the disabled, it's all about kicking the stick away for those entitled to support.
- Government has broken yet another promise to help those into work, by not delivering upon their promises they are hampering their own prospects of bringing about an economic recovery .
- This is something which we should see as sinister. It's an emerging agenda which is being cloaked in an absurd pretence that the disabled aren't disabled at all - it has to be viewed as nothing short of dishonesty.
- Government are being exposed as the real benefit cheats because it is they who are setting the agenda in denying claimants all that they are justly owed.
- The DWP are complicit in their dis-empowering of the disabled by wilfully neglecting a duty which the State has to provide support.
[/li][/ul][/size]