APPENDIX 21
Memorandum by the Child Poverty Action
Group
Contents
Summary
Purpose of interviews and training needs
Compulsion
Arranging interviews and processing claims swiftly
First impressions: contact and invitations
Special needs and equal access to the gateway
Welfare advice and the gateway
Gateway as an anti-fraud measure
People who are incapable of work, entering work
Benefit penalties
Private and Voluntary sector pilots
Summary
The introduction of the Single Work-focused Gateway
(SWFG) is in many ways a welcome development. It will give many
claimants the opportunity to discuss the full range of their benefit
entitlements and, where appropriate, the possibilities of finding
work and overcoming any practical barriers to taking employment.
The positive aspects of the proposal are however undermined by
the elements of compulsion, by making a claim for benefit dependent
on attendance and by an over-emphasis on work and using the gateway
as a means of "policing" the system.
The Government announced that the introduction of
the SWFG will mark: "The end of the something for nothing
welfare state. The days of the automatic right to benefit will
go." (Tony Blair. "It really is the end of the something
for nothing days" Daily Mail, 10 May 1999). There
is, even now, no such thing as an automatic right to benefit.
A claimant must justify her/his entitlement by the contents of
a written application form in which s/he shows how s/he satisfies
the conditions of entitlement.
In the article Tony Blair talks about the duty on
claimants to look for jobs: ''individuals have a responsibility
to accept work, ...be flexible in the jobs they take and
avoid dependence where they can".
The emphasis on the importance of paid work appears
to ignore the situations of those who rely on social security
because of ill health or because they are carers. Such an approach
will be detrimental if it influences the way the new interviews
are conducted. Those who have no choice to "avoid dependence"
because of their circumstances may become stigmatised. The interviewers
must be open minded and aware of the needs of different claimants,
only some of whom will be able to move into work. We believe that
a successful gateway system should be mindful of the following
issues:
Monitoring and advocacy should be essential parts
of the gateway. Services offered to non-JSA claimants should be
confidential.
The introduction of compulsory Interviews for those
not required to be available for work should be delayed until
it has been demonstrated that compulsion is necessary or desirable.
If a claimant wants a home interview or believes
they should be exempt from the requirement to attend, they should
be able to make representations to this effect prior to the interview
and before any benefit penalty has been applied.
There should be a duty on personal advisers to follow
up claimants who fall to attend an interview to find out why they
did not attend before depriving them of benefit.
Termination of a claim is not an appropriate benefit
penalty. Non-JSA claimants should not be left without any benefit.
If penalties must be applied CPAG would like to see a small reduction
in benefit comparable with the hardship system for "vulnerable"
JSA claimants.
Benefit claims should be processed and remain in
payment in full until a decision has been made by an adjudication
officer.
The rules determining whether a claimant has taken
part in an interview will need to be very clear. There is a risk
that claimants will be vulnerable to the subjective views of a
personal adviser over what constitutes "participation"
in the gateway interview.
Adequately funded, accurate and skilled advice about
benefit entitlement and "better off" calculations should
form part of the gateway. This service must be confidential and
clearly independent from any decisions over entitlement.
Funding for the voluntary and private sector pilots
should not emphasise outcomes. The definition of outcome should
incorporate "distance travelled" and education and training
as well as work.
The gateway will be less effective if it tries to
operate simultaneously as an anti-fraud measure and a service
to help people overcome barriers to work.
Purpose of Interview and Training Needs
The range of tasks to be undertaken by both the Registration
and Orientation (R&O) advisers and the Personal Adviser (PA)
demand wide-ranging skills, expertise and knowledge about issues
such as possible benefit entitlement and sources of practical
help available. Making decisions such as whether a claimant needs
a home visit, special needs interview or whether the claimant
should be exempt from the requirement to attend will require a
great deal of information about the claimant which they may not
be willing to divulge over the telephone. Consequently the skills
and sensitivity of the officers involved will be particularly
important.
Availability of mentoring and advocacy services throughout
the gateway process will be pivotal to its success. The R&O
adviser will have to be able to identify cases where a claimant
who has problems articulating their needs (such as those with
mental health problems or learning disabilities) has a need for
a mentor or advocate and to ensure that the claimant has access
to these services.
The government has stated that it intends to introduce
the scheme on a national basis, subject to the results of the
pilots, in April 2000. Assessment of the pilots should involve
looking at areas of skill shortage amongst advisers to inform
a high quality training programme for the staff who will be involved
in the national scheme.
In order to provide a quality service to claimants,
consideration needs to be given to the optimum workload an R&O
adviser and PA should have. Results from the New Deal studies
and gateway pilots may provide some indications.
Compulsion
CPAG is concerned that the interview with the PA
is to be compulsory and a condition of entitlement to benefit.
In our view this is an unhelpful requirement in what is otherwise
an imaginative development. It is unhelpful as it could alarm
and confuse claimants, who are not required to be available for
work, about what the interview is for. It is difficult to explain
that a compulsory interview is there to help them find an appropriate
job not to force them into one that they do not want to take.
In a wider sense compulsion sends out negative signals
to claimants and their representatives. If the single work-focused
gateway contains elements which are of benefit to claimants and
is seen to be helpful, many claimants are likely to take it up
of their own accord. Conversely some claimants will view a programme
they are compelled to attend with suspicion. Many claimants are
extremely anxious at any interviews and fear that their benefit
could be taken away. The government has spoken of the importance
of developing the trust of claimants. This is far more likely
to exist if the person has a right to choose whether or not to
attend and arrives for positive reasons rather than fear of negative
consequences.
The introduction of compulsory interviews for those
not required to be available for work should be delayed until
it has been demonstrated that compulsion is necessary or desirable.
Research examining the New Deal for lone parents, which is similar
in scope to the SWFG but not compulsory, is due to report this
autumn. Although the research would not have been able to take
account of the impact of the more generous tax credits, it may
provide some explanation as to why so many lone parents did not
take advantage of the invitations to interviews for the New Deal.
Cumulative figures up to 25 September 1998 show that 48,394 letters
were issued and 20,413 initial interviews were carried out (HC
18 November 1998 col. 621624). It may be that the parents
taking up the invitations are a self-selecting group that can
gain most benefit from the interview. Those not taking up the
invitations may be unable or unwilling to even begin tackling
barriers which are preventing them getting work. Interviewing
them would merely double a personal adviser workload for little
benefit.
Full analysis of research on the single work-focused
gateway pilots is not due until 2002. National rollout of compulsory
interviews before this date is premature.
Arranging Interviews and the need to Process Benefit
Swiftly
The proposal to timetable all SWFG interviews for
within three days of the initial contact with the BA may undermine
the effectiveness of the whole operation. Whilst some claimants
may want to talk to an adviser as soon as possible, in other cases
the interview will be more productive if it takes place later.
People usually claim benefit because there has been a change in
their circumstance; new Benefit Agency leaflets are based around
the concept of "life events". It is likely that the
claimant will be adjusting to new circumstances such as chronic
health problems, care duties or the main wage earner leaving the
household. They may have many other administrative matters to
sort out relating to their change in status. Claimants will be
in a far better position to discuss the future, including the
possibility of getting work, once they know their current needs
are answered and their new circumstances are stable and secure.
We support proposals to process benefit entitlement
immediately for those claiming benefits other than on work-seeking
grounds. Those who are not exempted should be required to attend
an interview approximately a month, or the optimum period suggested
by research, after the benefit decision is given.
Information could be gathered from pilots to assess
how soon people claiming benefit for the first time are able to
fully participate in a work-focused interview.
CPAG is concerned that in practice it may not be
possible to conform to the projected timetable and that interviews
with PAs will be delayed beyond the three-day period. Under current
proposals claimants will not have a claim for benefit until the
interview takes place and therefore payment of their benefit will
be delayed. CPAG proposes that a claim should be processed forthwith
even though no interview has taken place where:
- the BA (or other organisation) has been unable
to allocate the claimant an interview date within the three days;
- the claimant has been unable to attend the interview
for acceptable reasons (practical or other good cause reasons);
- the claimant is not required to attend an interview
and the interview has been postponed.
In order to enable benefit to be paid in these circumstances,
attendance at a work-focused interview should not be a pre-requisite
of claim.
First impressions: Initial Contact and Invitation
to Interview
The experience a claimant has when speaking to the
R&O adviser may affect their whole attitude towards the gateway
interview, their personal adviser and ultimately the success of
the SWFG. In CPAG's experience, it is difficult to convey the
purpose of the interview, its compulsory nature and its scope
in easy to understand terms. It is not easy to reassure a person
that a compulsory interview about work will not lead to a requirement
to look for or undertake work.
The content of the "Invitation to interview"
letter will have a potential impact on the subsequent success
of the interview. The letter should make it clear that the only
obligation on the claimant is to attend the interview and they
will not have to take any further steps unless they want to.
The letter should tell claimants whom to contact
if they want a mentor, advocate or independent advice. There should
be a separate leaflet about the availability of these services
to emphasise their independence and confidential status. The claimant
should be able to ask for a home visit if they need one or to
explain any special needs that must be met to enable the interview
to take place.
The letter will also need to contain information
about how to make representations where the claimant does not
feel able to attend. There does not appear to be a right of appeal
against a decision about the requirement to attend an interview
or need for a home visit.
CPAG would like to see a clear process for requesting
a home interview and for people who would like their referral
to be deferred or believe they should be exempt. Without the opportunity
to make representations at the invitation stage, if a claimant
knows they will be unable to attend for some reason they will
have to wait until they are penalised for missing the interview
and try to argue good cause. The subsequent delays in the system
could leave a very vulnerable claimant without any benefit for
a long period.
Special Needs and Equal "Access" to the
Gateway
Claimants should be able to bring representatives
to help them deal with the questions at interview. Information
on the purposes of the interview and the type of questions that
will be raised should be sent to a claimant before the interview.
This may allay some anxieties about the interview and also enable
claimants to arrive best prepared to use the interview as an opportunity
to explore the options available to them.
In addition to a general need for advocacy for claimants
who have difficulty articulating their needs, some claimants will
need specialist help such as interpreters. Where no interpreter
is available within the time limit required, the BA should process
benefit forthwith provided the person is willing to come at a
later date when there is an interpreter available.
Some women in the Muslim community would not be able
to take work outside the home. This limitation should be taken
into account when work opportunities are discussed. It will be
especially important to make clear to these claimants that they
are not being required to take work.
Monitoring will need to look at these issues, for
example did claimants have problems because of a need for independent
advocacy, interpretation or support? Mental health, special needs,
race and culture issues should be specifically considered.
Welfare Advice and the Gateway
The gateway will be more successful in helping people
into work if there is provision of accurate independent and confidential
advice about benefit entitlement including "better off"
calculations. A key element of the New Deal for lone parents has
been to calculate by computer the difference in income and outgoings
for claimant if they look work. Feedback to CPAG suggests that
these calculations have sometimes failed to accurately estimate
the real costs of taking work or entering training. Better computer
systems are not the whole answer, staff need to be highly skilled
in benefit calculations to ensure the system has correct and comprehensive
information to work from.
In order to gain the trust of claimants to explore
different options, a personal adviser providing a "better-off"
calculation service needs to be separated from the function of
determining entitlement for benefit and referring people for benefit
sanctions.
The Gateway as an Anti-Fraud Measure
The gateway will struggle to operate simultaneously
as an opportunity to explore options available to the claimant
and an anti-fraud measure checking that their claim is legitimate.
The emphasis on security and policing the system is particularly
damaging to those who are not required to work. If the work-focused
part of the interview is of no benefit to them, then it may appear
to claimants that the only reason that they are compelled to attend
an interview is as an anti-fraud measure. To gain the most from
a gateway interview a claimant will need to feel able to discuss
openly their circumstances and abilities. Their relationship with
the personal adviser should be based on trust, the sharing of
information for anti-fraud purposes can not go hand- to-hand with
an attempt to win that trust. The construction of an invisible
wall between the personal adviser and the function of determining
entitlement to benefit and fraud detection would be the most effective
way to operate the gateway.
People who are Claiming as Incapable of Work Entering
Work
There will be people claiming benefits on the grounds
of incapacity who are keen to try out work but unsure how their
condition, illness or disability will be affected. The linking
rule for "welfare to work beneficiaries", introduced
in October 1998, provides a welcome period of protection for people
who try out work or certain training but need to reclaim benefit
within a year. For three months after they reclaim, their capacity
for work is not reassessed. This protection is very limited.
CPAG would like to see this three-month protection
from the all-work test extended to people who try out other welfare
to work opportunities like worktrials or the incapacity earnings
provision introduced in April 1999.
Benefit Penalties
CPAG is extremely concerned about the potential hardship
which will be caused by the penalties for failing to attend the
gateway interview. Many of the people who fail to attend interviews
and do not respond to enquiries from a personal adviser will be
the most vulnerable claimants who are very ill or have onerous
caring responsibilities. For these people complete loss of benefit
will increase their vulnerability but it will also alienate them
from the system designed to help them.
We believe that their should be a duty on personal
advisers to follow up claimants who fail to attend an interview
to find out why, by telephone if possible, before depriving them
of benefit which may be their only source of income.
Whilst CPAG supports the intention to give people
three invitations to interview prior to issuing a penalty, we
believe that it may be more useful for there to be a duty to actively
follow up those who do not attend to find out why. We are also
concerned that a complete termination of claim is unnecessarily
harsh and could cause hardship to the most vulnerable claimants.
CPAG would like to see benefit paid at the start
of the claim for all non-JSA claimants, whether or not the interview
has been attended, and to remain in payment during any subsequent
dispute period. Although CPAG is opposed to the compulsory nature
of the gateway interview, if penalties are imposed this should
only be after a decision maker has found against the claimant.
CPAG is extremely concerned about the harsh nature
of a complete refusal of benefit or termination of claim as a
penalty. Even JSA claimants who do not make a satisfactory Jobseeker's
Agreement are able to make applications for hardship payments
of JSA. We would like to see a similar provision available for
benefit to remain in payment until the interview has been carried
out. The same "small reduction in benefit" should apply
to all claimants whether they are new, existing or have a "deferred"
or "triggered" interview.
Given the importance of benefit income to many of
the people who will be required to attend, the regulations defining
"good cause" for non-attendance should be drawn as widely
as possible to protect the welfare of those affected. We would
like to see certain reasons for missing an interview included
in regulations as "automatic good cause". These should
mirror a list of people who are exempt from the requirement to
attend. We would also like to emphasise the non-exhaustive nature
of good cause, which is within the JSA regulations for all gateway
benefits.
The regulations to be laid relating to whether a
claimant has "taken part" in the interview risk leading
to subjective decision making. For example, a person who is in
fact depressed or anxious may appear as aggressive or uncooperative
to a personal adviser. Press coverage indicates that there is
already widespread confusion about the scope of the gateway requirements
with many claimants fearing they will be required to work or attend
government employment programmes. It will be even more difficult
to convey a requirement, not only to attend an interview but also
to be seen to "participate".
The Private and Voluntary Sector Pilots
CPAG has concerns about the funding arrangements
for private and voluntary sector organisations who will be running
some of the single gateway pilots. The Government plan is to "pay
them on the basis of agreed outputs and make them accountable
for the impact of their actions on programme expenditure".
CPAG would like to see safeguards built into the
funding process to ensure that people who want help but are more
difficult to help are not refused opportunities, (for example
access to training or a mentoring service) on the basis that they
will not yield output related funding. We are also concerned that
funding pressure may translate into pressure on claimants to enter
work or other programmes of assistance where this is not appropriate
to their circumstances.
There should be a clear direction to all gateway
providers to reassure claimants about the scope of the requirement
and the fact that they cannot be required to take work or undertake
training. The funding process should have a minimum emphasis on
outcomes and the definition of outcome should attempt to incorporate
"distance travelled" and education and training outcomes
as well as work.
|