APPENDIX 23
Memorandum by Unemployment Unit &
Youthaid
Introduction
We believe that the Single Work Focused Gateway (SWFG)
should be the future shape of social security administration.
It is a welcome effort to provide claimants with a simpler, seamless
service, integrating the activities carried out by the Employment
Service, the Benefits Agency and by local authorities' Housing
Benefits administration. It is intended to build on the principles
pioneered in the New Deal and provide the guidance needed for
employment, training or rehabilitation.
Most importantly, the SWFG aims to re-orientate the
benefit system towards labour market engagement. Over many years
the benefits system itself has contributed to the growth of economic
inactivity and long term detachment from the labour market.
If undertaken well, the SWFG should blend the best
of the Benefits Agency (its attention to identifying needs and
ensuring correct calculation and take-up of benefit) with the
best of the Employment Service (understanding the labour market
and providing job relevant advice and services). The Gateway also
gives Government a chance to dramatically improve the erratic
and widely diverging service standards for Housing Benefits administration
which might involve adoption of common working practices, IT applications
and client-centred culture.
JSA Claimants
Considerable attention has been given to the SWFG
involvement of claimants for whom JSA is not the currently claimed
(or right) benefit. In the pilot areas, an initial interview will
be offered to all new claimants in these categories followed by
continuing help on a voluntary basis.
However, at least 3 4 of all participants in the
SWFG are likely to be JSA claimants who are unemployed and want
work. They will have to meet the JSA labour market conditions
and take particular courses of action to remain eligible for benefit.
For these claimants, the SWFG should represent a
step-change improvement in the assistance they currently receive.
It is an opportunity to offer to all JSA recipients the range
of personalised help that—through the New Deal—has
so far been concentrated on two categories of longer term unemployed
claimants. It also gives the Employment Service the chance to
re-design aspects of the New Deal Gateway which will otherwise
be the adopted model for the guidance, counselling and provision
of specialist help. In particular, we recommend a re-assessment
of the role of Personal Advisers.
Lone Parents and Disabled People
The continued growth in economically inactive benefit
claimants have been surprising against a backdrop of falling unemployment.
But in many regards, the increase in ICB claims seems to be a
form of benefit substitution. There are incentives for claimants
to switch from JSA to ICB. On the long term rate, Incapacity Benefit
pays more money than JSA. And for many claimants it means that
Jobcentre staff no longer make them engage in often pointless
jobseeking activity or force them to consider unsuitable or badly
paid jobs on pain of benefit sanction.
As a result, the number claiming incapacity or disability
benefits rose to just over 23 4 million people despite significant
improvements in the general health of the working age population.
Whilst many recipients of these benefits have serious disabilities
which prevent them from work, others do not.
We believe that the previous Government cynically
encouraged this wholesale transfer of hundreds of thousands of
claimants—mainly older men—off mainstream unemployment
benefits and onto disability related benefits. Whilst many of
these claimants had work related medical conditions which limited
their ability to work, many did not. Yet the benefit system treats
them all the same. It incorrectly assumes they do not want to
work.
Similarly, Lone Parents receive a benefit—as
of right—which excludes them from the regular job seeking
assistance provided by the Employment Service. Individuals who
are in work or who want to work represent a clear majority of
Lone Parents and it is perverse that they receive a benefit under
conditions that encourage economic inactivity.
Data from the Labour Force Survey in 1998 reveals
significant numbers of people who are lone parents or who have
health problem which limits their ability to work.
For lone parents it shows that there are 1.175 million
individuals with children over the age of five. Of these 55 per
cent are in work, 18 per cent do not want employment whilst 24
per cent (284,000) want to work. This latter group represent over
half of those who are not in work and have varying degrees of
labour market attachment—those who are "ILO unemployed"
as well as those who are not immediately ready to start a job.
Even amongst the 711,000 with pre-school aged children, 27 per
cent are employed. Whilst 32 per cent do not want employment,
40 per cent (287,000) do want to work. So in total, 571,000 lone
parents want to work—which is 55 per cent of the non-employed
lone parent population.
For disabled people, the LFS shows that 4.3 million
people have a work restricting health problem. Of these, only
5 per cent are in work, 44 per cent (1.9 million) do not want
employment whilst 27 per cent (1,157,000) want to work.
In total, 1,728,000 lone parents or disabled people
are not employed but want to work. Not all of these will be benefit
claimants of course, but the vast majority will be. This is a
sizeable population group who will welcome the services that the
SWFG could offer.
Image
There is a perception—especially when viewed
alongside cuts to disability benefits—that the Government
wants to impose JSA-style work availability and work seeking tests
on non-JSA claimants. Ministers have repeatedly stressed that
there "is no question of forcing lone parents and disabled
people into work" and these assurances are very welcome.
In practice, the Government proposes that from April
2000 non-JSA claimants will be required to attend SWFG interviews.
Because this requires legislation, there is also a perception
that these claimants are being asked to do something which imposes
new obligations that are onerous and unreasonable. However, non
JSA claimants already have obligations. They need to apply for
benefit in the first place. They have to fill out forms, furnish
evidence and, for incapacity related benefits, they are subject
to medical tests. Their claims for Housing Benefit require further
evidence and claimants can be subject to home visits and investigated
for compliance.
The SWFG—at the very least—offers claimants
an opportunity to meet all their existing obligations at one place
at one time.
The Role of the Personal Adviser
Experience from the New Deals indicates that the
allocation of a Personal Adviser, offering advice, guidance and
signposting to training and specialist support, can greatly enhance
employment prospects for the unemployed. Firmly rooted in a client-centred
approach, the Personal Adviser should act as the single point
of contact with the social security system and provide continuity
for the claimant throughout the SWFG.
One success measure of the SWFG will be a positive
change in the relationship between benefit recipients and the
Government Agencies they come into contact with. In recognising
that there is considerable scope for improvement upon current
relationships, particularly between claimants and the Benefits
Agency, the Personal Adviser must move the emphasis away from
purely benefit administration to one of support and empowerment.
This will be achieved through the dual focus of the adviser: providing
access to and advice about appropriate benefits; and improving
employability through access to training, specialist support and
intense jobsearch.
The ES evaluation of the New Deal Gateway recognises
the value of the relationship between the young person and their
Adviser and says that it is of "key importance irrespective
of time on the programme".1 With such an important
role, the environment and parameters in which the claimant-adviser
relationship occurs needs to be established and made clear to
all concerned. What the claimant can expect from their adviser,
together with an understanding of the boundaries in which they
operate, will add greatly to the process of building trust between
not only the claimant and their adviser, but also between the
claimant and the State.
In the past, those not in receipt of JSA have not
been able to benefit from the more individually tailored approach
practised by the Employment Service. Extending this approach to
all SWFG participants is one of the most significant aspects of
the programme and is greatly welcomed.
Case Management
The current focus and emphasis of the Personal Adviser
is somewhat inhibiting as there will be the expectation that they
will be "all things to all people". Creating a system
where there are numerous advisers all providing the same generalist
advice may lead to a dilution of support and advice services.
We believe that a radical re- design of the personal adviser system
is needed, and the SWFG provides the most appropriate opportunity
to do this.
Personal Advisers should be Case Managers, in much
the same way as General Practitioners act as case managers within
the health care system. Our suggestion is that a number of highly
skilled and trained Personal Advisers would always act as the
point of contact and oversee the gateway provision. Working with
them would be a support team who would undertake much of the administration,
claim checks and day-to-day operation of the case. This would
then free-up the Personal Adviser to dedicate time to the claimant
and build a relationship of trust, as well as managing every aspect
of their progression through the SWFG.
The adviser does not need to provide all of the support
and guidance, particularly where there is a more appropriate agency
or team available, but they should have an overview of the claimants
progress. To reduce the levels of duplication the adviser will
be able to co-ordinate the provision and draw together all of
the agencies working with the claimant. This is a much more radical
approach and will require a substantial investment into the skills
and knowledge base of the advisers. It will add considerable value
to the programme and maintain continuity and provide a single
reference point at all times for the claimant.
The capacity of the SWFG to operate such a holistic
approach is an important consideration. Resources, in the first
instance, should be targeted towards Personal Advisers to ensure
that they are well trained, resourced and supported to undertake
the multi-functions required. They must be equipped with appropriate
diagnostic tools, and trained in the use of these tools, to undertake
a thorough assessment of need and ability at the interview or
subsequent stages. They should have access to a wide range of
information and become proficient in the application of benefit
regulations and be able to undertake better-off calculations.
They should also have a knowledge of the local labour market and
know how to access training, programmes, and specialist support.
Knowledge of forthcoming programme developments, such as Individual
Learning Accounts and Employment Zones, is also essential.
"Routing"—The Low-level Design
There are a number of junction points in the low
level design of the Gateway which need some adjustment. Essentially
the routing of claimants is heavily borrowed from the current
JSA design. But there are points where diversions and short-cuts
have been introduced mainly to help non-JSA claimants.
The first is the decision whether to refer a claimant
to a Gateway interview at all ("stage 8"). The Adviser
may decide that an interview is not required or appropriate at
that point.
However, the claimant should be given the opportunity
to do so and not be automatically removed from the process. They
may wish to discuss future strategies, the opportunity of training
whilst labour market inactive, or just talk about their benefit
claim and what they are entitled to.
The second points ("stage 13 & 15")
are at the Gateway and Caseload interviews. Diagnostic testing
must be built into the process at these stages. The testing must
be relevant and produce meaningful results. Multi- method approaches
should also be used in order to avoid the inherent short-falls
of any one method. Personal Advisers, or whoever undertakes this
testing, must be adequately trained in the use of these tools.
At the Gateway interview, there is a danger that
too much is loaded into this one event. There are also contradictory
functions which are starkly exposed in relation to disabled people.
At the Gateway interview, ICB or SDA claimants must prove they
are incapable of work in order to qualify for their benefit. However,
they will be doing this at an interview which seeks to explore
their potential ability to work.
We regard one point of diversion as unnecessary ("stage
13.1") where a claimant is referred from the Gateway interview
to "specialist provision" and then back to the Gateway
interview. If specialist help is needed, then automatically the
claimant should move onto Caseload.
Training & Jobsearch
There is an implicit assumption that jobsearch will
always be carried out in the first instance. For some this will
be of no use as this will mean undertaking meaningless jobsearch
when the need may be for training or work tasters. Whilst jobsearch
is explicit in the design their is little mention of access to
training.
There should be a move towards establishing entitlement
to training from day one of the claim to avoid meaningless jobsearch
which only disenfranchises further the claimant from the system.
There is no reasoning behind making someone wait 6 months until
they can access training when that need can be identified at the
beginning instead of waiting for the jobsearch to weed-out the
bad from the good. A speedier process will further encourage confidence
and trust between the claimant and the state.
The SWFG pilots is an opportunity to re-cast the
entitlement rules for adult training or other ES products and
help non-JSA claimants become labour market active. We recommend
a waiver of the six month entitlement rules and to extend eligibility
beyond JSA claimants.
Conclusion
Reforming the benefit system in itself is not enough.
To be worth the name, a "strategy" has to include other
essential elements: imposing minimum standards in the labour market
so that work is better paid and more secure; promoting jobs growth
so that good vacancies exist for the marginalised groups that
all these labour market "activation" measures are designed
for; and encouraging training—particularly at the bottom
end of the labour market so that people with precarious work history
or poor skills stay in work after the "re-entry" jobs
that the Government's programmes help them into. Lastly, employers
have to reconsider the employment practices and assumptions in
order to employ more people that they regard as "problems"
to recruit and retain.
May 1999
| 
