Memorandum submitted by the Shaw Trust
1. Shaw Trust is the United Kingdom's leading
provider of employment services for people with disabilities.
2003 will be our 21st anniversary year and over this period of
time we have seen a number of positive developments in terms of
disabled people being able to exercise their right to work. Despite
these positive changes there remains much to do. It is a sad reflection
on our national employment policy that at a time when unemployment
is at its lowest level for over thirty years and 78% of non-disabled
people are now economically active that only 52% of disabled people
are able to say the same.
2. There is a real cost to this situation,
a cost to the exchequer in lost tax and national insurance payments,
as well as enormous care costs for keeping people economically
inactive (see Annex 1), a cost to the economy in reduced consumer
spending power, a cost to employers in lost skills and expertise
and a human cost to those disabled people excluded from full participation
in society. Shaw Trust welcomes the decision by the Work and Pensions
Select Committee to undertake an enquiry into the government's
disability employment policy. We are pleased to have this opportunity
to submit this written evidence and would welcome an opportunity
to amplify this in front of the Committee itself.
3. Shaw Trust is working hard to enable
disabled people to find and keep employment. During 2002-03 Shaw
Trust expects to work with around 14,000 individuals with disabilities
or health problems. We currently work with 3,000 disabled people
on the Workstep Programme and provide Job Broking services, under
the New Deal for Disabled People programme (NDDP), for a further
4,000 clients. In addition we work with nearly 100 Local Authorities
and Health Trusts to provide services designed to prepare disabled
people for employment.
4. During this year Shaw Trust also expects
to place close to 2,000 disabled people into employment through
the NDDP Job Broking programme. We are achieving a job entry rate
of 33.5% which compares well with other New Deals. We will enable
a further 600 new participants to enter employment through the
Workstep programme and will double our progression rate from Workstep
with more than 200 people moving from Workstep into open employment.
We also expect to find jobs for a further 100 disabled people
through our Work Preparation contracts, and to enable over 100
people with mental health problems to secure employment through
the combined efforts of our mental health projects.
5. Shaw Trust also works with young disabled
people in both mainstream and special education, to enable them
to make a successful transition from education to work. Through
our Opening Doors Programmes over 40% of young people with special
needs have successfully made this transition.
6. At the other end of the continuum from
welfare to work, we have successfully worked with companies both
in the public and private sectors to enable people to retain their
employment after the onset of ill health and/or a disability.
This year we expect to enable at least 250 people, who might otherwise
have moved to Incapacity or other disability benefit, to retain
their employment status.
7. Shaw Trust is proud of its record in
assisting people with enduring health and disability problems
to enter, re-enter or maintain their employment, but the numbers
that we are currently able to assist are a tiny proportion of
the ever-increasing number of economically inactive disabled people.
8. 3.356 million disabled people are economically
inactive, with only 3.43 million disabled people in employment.
Four out of five people with a mental health problem are economically
inactive, and three out of five people with a learning disability
are not working.
9. With over 200,000 disabled people claiming
Job Seekers Allowance and over 2.7 million people claiming Incapacity
Benefits this combined total is greater than the combined total
of Lone Parents and non disabled unemployed people on benefits.
For a summary of relevant disability statistics, please refer
to Annex 1 of this document.
10. If the Department for Work and Pensions
is to get anywhere near its Public Service Agreement Target by
2006 of increasing the employment rate of disabled people and
significantly reducing the difference between the employment rate
of that group and the overall rate, Shaw Trust believes a number
of key changes are required. Above all we must increase the scale
of activity in supporting people with disabilities back into employment.
We estimate that in order to halve the difference (currently 26
percentage points) between the employment rates of non-disabled
(78%) and disabled people (52%) then somewhere in the order of
900,000 disabled people would need to move from benefit to employment
over the next three years. Shaw Trust is confident that with the
right employment policy in place this is a realisable objective.
11. Key issues which this employment policy
should address include:
Significant new investment in employment
programmes for disabled people, investment which will over a short
period of time be self-financing;
Improved access to government databanks
to ensure that providers of those services can successfully reach
New incentives to overcome the "benefit
trap" problems, which many disabled people face;
Clear leadership to champion the
effective and efficient operational delivery of employment services
for disabled people;
Rigorous enforcement of the Disability
Discrimination Act employment provision combined with a major
marketing initiative to help redress the prejudice and discrimination
that disabled people face in the employment market; and
Educational initiatives to help overcome
the negative conditioning regarding work which many disabled people
receive from a wide range of influencers, including doctors, social
workers, teachers and parents.
12. Our responses to the questions asked
by the Select Committee are detailed below This ideas put forward
in this submission draw on the proven experience of Shaw Trust
in delivering programmes which enable disabled people to move
into employment and to remain there. However this experience is
not unique to Shaw Trust; we are just one of a number of organisations
in the field that do know what works in terms of supporting disabled
people into employment; collectively we put this into practical
effect day by day. There is a proven body of practical experience
to draw on. What is needed now is not some new magic formula or
further research pilots but a commitment to sustained and reasonably
resourced services which are then robustly delivered.
13. We would welcome the opportunity to
attend a hearing of the Select Committee so that we are able to
expand on the brief responses contained in this paper.
Do the high numbers claiming Incapacity Benefit
represent hidden unemployment?
14. Entry into Incapacity Benefit is still
rising. DWP data shows that at 31 August 2002 there were 2,380,000
IB claimants, an increase of 11,000 from the previous quarter
and 1.7% higher than the same point a year earlier.
15. It is then clearly right to question
a Personal Capability Assessment process which is permitting such
an increased take up of Incapacity Benefit.
16. It is true that historically a number
of people, particularly in "old" industrial areas, moved
in significant numbers from unemployment registers on to IB. It
is also the case that many of those currently judged as "incapable"
of work are in fact able and want to work. The government's own
figures suggest that this number is as high as 1.5 million people.
However, Shaw Trust does not believe that it is helpful to question
whether these figures contain "hidden unemployment"
as the implication here can be taken to mean that it is the claimants
who have somehow hidden themselves.
17. What really matters is that tackling
the issue of the large number of economically inactive disabled
people becomes a major strategic priority of this government's
Welfare to Work policy and is resourced accordingly. The table
set out in Annex2 illustrates the spending on the respective New
Deals. What is striking about these figures is the imbalance in
resources between the New Deals for 18-24 and 25+ compared with
those for NDDP. In this current year it is estimated that £656
million will be spent on the former compared to £58 million
on NDDP; this is despite the fact that that there are two and
half times more IB than JSA claimants. This makes neither political
nor economic sense.
18. We also believe that there is a need
to examine the process by which individuals are deemed to be eligible
for Incapacity Benefit. It may be that the process is still measuring
an individual's capacity against a previous employment, it may
also be that the individual's capacity is being assessed without
proper understanding of the various types of support which can
be used both to prevent an individual from needing to leave employment
and to enable someone to make a rapid return to the world of work
if one type of employment proves unsuitable.
19. The advent of Jobcentre Plus makes for
opportunities to address this. The Personal Capability Assessment
process is an opportunity to get claimants thinking about employment
right from the start. Some areas are piloting the production of
a Capability Report for Personal Advisers which highlights the
work an individual can do rather than that which they cannot,
this should be developed further. A move away from a purely medical
process would be helpful, for example by using more occupational
nurses and fewer doctors.
What is, or should be, the role of Jobcentre Plus?
20. Shaw Trust believes that Jobcentre Plus
has and should continue to have an important role in employment
services for disabled people. We do believe that it would be helpful
to review the focus of this role. It is our contention that there
is a fundamental weakness in the current system which enables
Jobcentre Plus to act as both the purchaser and provider of services.
This weakness is exacerbated by Jobcentre Plus' role as a referring
agent to services where its in-house provision is one of a number
of provider options in a geographical area.
21. If Jobcentre Plus is to continue to
deliver services, it is our contention that another arm of government
should take responsibility for the commissioning of those services.
22. Shaw Trust also recommends that access
to potential client information should be made more freely accessible
to all contractors so that gatekeepers within Jobcentre Plus do
not restrict access to clients.
Is Jobcentre Plus doing enough to engage people
with disabilities in finding suitable work?
23. The high number of disabled people who
are currently detached from the labour market would suggest that
more needs to be done to engage this group in finding work. However,
to criticise Jobcentre Plus for this situation would be unfair.
24. Staff within Jobcentre Plus who are
actively engaged in enabling disabled job seekers to find work
are at a quadruple disadvantage.
25. Firstly, there is a real lack of trust
by disabled jobseekers of the role of Jobcentre Plus. One of the
reasons that Shaw Trust is successful in delivering programmes
such as NDDP is simply because we are not an arm of government.
We have no power to withdraw or re-examine entitlement to disability
benefits; we are simply there to help the individual to find and
keep work. Perhaps it is simply asking too much for the organisation
that administers benefit entitlement to be seen as a genuine "helping
hand" by disabled people who have had to fight hard to win
and keep their disability benefits.
26. Secondly, in the main, Jobcentre Plus
tends only to become interested in clients when they are already
in receipt of benefits. In many cases, an effective retention
service would either prevent an individual who develops a health
problem or disability from losing their job or it would rapidly
intervene to enable them to move into other, more suitable employment.
27. Thirdly, the provision of the appropriate
package of support requires the provider to have good contacts
with the whole network of specialist services, from within the
education system, social services, and health as well as in the
area of work. This type of joined up provision is the natural
and logical way of working for organisations which have the individual
as the focus, rather than a departmental responsibility. It is
our experience that staff within Jobcentre Plus simply do not
have the necessary range of contacts to put together the right
support package for each individual client. Shaw Trust has what
we believe to be a unique position providing, as we do, employment
services on behalf of national government departments, local authorities,
health trusts, local regeneration agencies as well as for commercial
28. Finally the recent restructuring within
Jobcentre Plus means there is no longer the same range of specialist
teams available to work with disabled job seekers. We question
whether this leaves them as well placed to respond to the scale
of activity required.
Are initiatives such as Workstep successful?
29. Shaw Trust believes that the Workstep
programme is a successful programme which enables severely disabled
people to take their place in the world of work. Shaw Trust is
currently operating its Workstep programme to maximum capacity
and has a large number of individuals wanting to access this programme.
30. In order to respond to the challenges
of the Workstep programme, Shaw Trust has completely reinvented
its approach to the delivery of its employment provision for severely
disabled people. This means that we no longer offer a wage subsidy
to employers, preferring to use the Workstep funding to pay for
client training and to facilitate natural support mechanisms within
the workplace. We believe that this reinvention of the service
will enable us to move towards the target set by Jobcentre Plus
of having approximately 30% of our Workstep clients moving into
Open Employment within a two year timeframe.
31. We are enthusiastic about the new look
Workstep programme as it enables us to market severely disabled
job-seekers to employers in a positive light, as legitimate members
of a workforce who happen to be eligible for special assistance
because of their disability. This is a real move away from the
old system of compensating employers through wage subsidy for
employing disabled people.
32. Shaw Trust staff have had to work hard
to market this new service to employers but we are now exceeding
our original contract requirements on a regular basis and would
welcome any opportunity to extend this service to the large numbers
of severely disabled people who would benefit from this type of
support into work.
33. We are currently examining whether this
different approach to the delivery of Workstep is having an impact
on the type of client we are able to support. Previously, under
the old Supported Placement programme, we were placing a number
of employees with very high support needs into employment. We
intend to continue this service under the Workstep programme but
our emphasis in the first instance has been to introduce the programme
to people who we can expect to succeed in open employment after
a two-year support programme. Once we have achieved the targeted
30% progression we will be in a better position to review our
marketing of this service.
The New Deal for Disabled People: have the lessons
been learned from the earlier pilots?
34. Shaw Trust delivered two of the six
Personal Adviser pilots that were contracted out to the Private/Voluntary
sector. We were also involved in the delivery of three more PVS
pilots as well as working with Jobcentre Plus in two of their
pilot areas. We are pleased that the original pilot has been extended
on a national basis and that some of the features which made the
PA pilot a success have been incorporated into this extended pilot.
However, a number of other lessons that could have been learned
from the earlier pilots appear to have been studiously ignored.
35. Firstly, the funding structure whereby
more than 98% of the funding is payable on outcomes, ensured that
there was a limit, not necessarily to the number of organisations
who bid to deliver job broking but to the number who could commit
to the sort of investment to ensure that it was delivered effectively.
One of the lessons that Shaw Trust drew from our experience of
running the Personal Adviser pilot was that, in order to draw
in a sufficient quantity of clients into our programme, we would
need to invest up front in dedicated premises, in a substantial
amount of marketing material and advertising of the service. This
level of investment is presumably untenable for organisations
who, because of the high risk factor of the Outcome Related Funding,
have attempted to "bolt on" Job Broking to other services
and existing infrastructure.
36. Secondly, the insistence, by Jobcentre
Plus, of creating a selection of Job Broking providers for clients
to select from has proved to be a choice on paper rather than
in reality. It appears that the need to stretch the budget for
NDDP to provide a national service, with customer choice in each
locality, has inevitably led to an under funded provision in a
large part of the country, with many contractors bidding cheaply
in order to compete for this business on the grounds of cost rather
than quality. As a result there has been a failure to deliver
by many contractors.
How might NDDP be made more effective?
37. Firstly, there needs to be a demonstrable,
united and visible commitment by both government and its civil
service to the long term future of this programme. As we have
previously stated, NDDP is a low profile and under resourced arm
of the government's Welfare to Work agenda. It has appeared to
us that, perhaps understandably, Jobcentre Plus and the DWP as
a whole have, until now, put much more emphasis on ensuring the
success of other New Deals. It is essential that both commitment
and resources proportionate to the scale of need are now allocated
to NDDP. Appendices 1 and 2 show both the level of need and the
current resource allocation.
38. Secondly, the insistence on a funding
regime, that is so heavily weighted (98%) towards outcomes, needs
rapid review. This is particularly the case where contracts have
been recently reallocated. The time remaining on these contracts
does not allow the opportunity to recoup the upfront investment
in premises, staff and marketing which is needed in order for
the programme to really have an impact.
39. Thirdly, developing critical mass is
essential. Successful delivery is most easily achieved through
being able to deploy dedicated staff, premises, training programmes
and marketing activity in any given area. Delivering such programmes
as bolt on provision to existing core activity has been shown
not to work in achieving outcomes on any significant scale. This
means that providers need to be contracted to deliver sufficient
volume of outcomes to justify investment in such resources. Whilst
this has implications for national programme budgets the practical
issue is that this is only likely to be cost-effective if there
is a single contractor per area, along the lines of Employment
Zone & PSL New Deal provision. Providers should be closely
monitored to ensure that they are fulfilling their contracted
targets and contracts reallocated if they are failing.
40. Fourthly, a new approach to the client
contact strategy is required. The present arrangements for engaging
IB claimants with NDDP contractors are inadequate and ignore the
experience of the Personal Adviser pilots. Contractors should
be able to manage more directly the contact with potential clients.
This could be done through direct access to the benefit claimant
database. We understand that the Welfare Reform Act makes provision
for supply of such data to third parties. There is precedent for
such access; in the PSL ONE pilots private sector staff (including
seconded Shaw Trust staff) had access to BA and ES systems and
client data. We recognise that there are practical implementation
issues here and a fall back position would be for mail shots to
the database to be carried out by Jobcentre Plus staff, but to
an operational plan decided by the contractor.
41. Shaw Trust would be happy to expand
our proposals for increasing the effectiveness of NDDP, including
our suggestions for reshaping the funding arrangements, should
we be invited to attend a Select Committee hearing.
The role of the private sector in delivering employment
services for people with disabilities and health problems
42. There is clearly a role for any organisation
which can offer quality provision in this area, whether from the
private or voluntary sector. However, a number of private sector
organisations were involved in the NDDP and ONE pilots and a significant
number have chosen not to continue with this line of business.
We believe that some of the most innovative and effective work
in the disability and employment area has been carried out by
voluntary sector organisations. We would wish to draw the Committee's
attention to the importance of the Voluntary Sector in the provision
of employment services for disabled people.
Are the needs of particular groups of people with
disabilities and health problems adequately catered for?
43. Shaw Trust provides a generic work-placement
and work support service and we have 20 years experience of working
with people with all types of disabilities. We tailor our services
to the needs of the individual and over the years have come to
recognise that this individual approach, together with the depth
and range of experience within our own workforce, ensures that
we can cater for the employment needs of individuals with a wide
range of different requirements.
44. However, there is no doubt that Voluntary
Sector organisations which specialise in understanding the very
particular needs of people with certain types of disability also
have a key role to play. Shaw Trust works with such organisations
on a regular basis and access to their expertise is vital in ensuring
that all individual requirements are properly understood and well
met. We would be concerned if, for whatever reason, such organisations
were to become further removed from the provision of employment
services to disabled people.
Should employment projects be more inclusive and
adapt to individual needs rather than be aimed at people with
45. Our experience has taught us to look
at the individual not the disability. It is misleading to assume
that because a group of people have the same disability that their
individual needs are the same.
46. That said it is essential that employment
projects are run by people who have a good knowledge of the types
of support that individuals who are disabled may need if they
are to be successful in the world of work. It is interesting to
note the growth in the number of IB claimants who have mental
health related conditions and recognition of this in the design
of employment policy is important.
The Tax credit and benefit system: is it too complex
for the circumstances faced by people with disabilities? And should
it be reformed to reduce financial disincentives to find work?
47. The biggest single barrier to moving
into work is expressed as a fear of losing benefit. This fear
is made up of two parts: not being able to get back onto IB if
the individual's health or disability deteriorates, (or if the
job does not work out), and being financially worse off in work.
The 52-week linking rule is helpful in respect of the first part,
although there are some anecdotal comments about how it works
in practice. The Disabled Persons' Tax Credit has gone some way
towards the second but this needs to be taken further. A more
robust minimum income guarantee is needed. A major stumbling block
remains housing benefit which must now be addressed. If we are
to make real in-roads into reducing the number of claimants we
must address the significant financial disincentives to work facing
those who are receiving care support either in residential or
48. Shaw Trust has gained a good understanding
of how the benefit system impacts on disabled job seekers. Our
assessment of a number of the key issues, together with suggestions
of changes that could be made, is included as Annex 3 to this
How does discrimination hinder the employment
of people with disabilities?
49. Our experience is that discrimination
at the point of job entry is hard to detect and difficult to prove.
Our broad observation is that this often happens because employers
are fearful of the costs and responsibilities of employing disabled
person. Their perception of both is usually significantly greater
then the reality. This is why programmes that pave the way into
employment for disabled people are so important. Much of the work
that is done by organisations like Shaw Trust is about supporting
employers as well as disabled employees through the first weeks
or months of a new job. We provide the support and advice which
gives employers confidence to take the step of employing a disabled
person. It is interesting to note that a recent (2002) study carried
out for Unum Provident Ltd illustrated that many employers themselves
still believe that disabled people are discriminated against in
applying for jobs.
What effect does the Disability Discrimination
50. The DDA is important because it sets
an enforceable process for employers to follow. It is important,
in these still early days of the Act, that is seen by employers
to have teeth. Under the old quota system, whereby employers were
required to employ a minimum percentage of disabled employees,
there were 6 prosecutions in 50 years and a maximum fine of £1,000.
This led to employers ignoring the legislation. It is important
that the DDA does not fall into such disrepute.
51. Much of our work is with small companies
who are not covered by the Act. Shaw Trust believes that all employers
should be covered by the terms of the DDA and that smaller companies
should be eligible for a greater amount of financial assistance,
where it is needed, through an Access to Work programme that has
an increased budget and that offers a tapering scale of financial
What experience do other countries have in tackling
the growth in the numbers claiming incapacity-related benefits?
52. Shaw Trust has an active network of
overseas contacts through our membership of Workability International
and our affiliation to Goodwill in the USA. One interesting area
to note is the pro-active role many overseas governments take
in job creation for disabled people through positive encouragement
of social enterprise, for example through their own procurement
policies and use of set-aside contracts.
3 January 2003
Job outcomes on New Deal for Young People are
expected to be 8.5 times those for disabled people, and outcomes
for New Deal for Lone Parents are expected to be five times the
outcomes on New Deal for Disabled People.
The cost of benefits for non JSA disabled people
in England is £28.44 billion, compared to the benefits for
all other people of working age of £12.11 billion and approximately
20% of this group are likely to be people with disabilities.
Shaw Trust operates 12% of Job Broking programmes,
but achieves 23.5% of the job outcomes.
The Workstep programme at £65 million per
year is nearly one third higher than the current finance for all
Job Broking programmes.
In six months Shaw Trust has filled twice as
many places as our average annual fill and our progression rate
into Open Employment of 7.5% in the first six months of the year
is three times our annual average rate.
Long term sickness is estimated to cost organisations
£6 billion a year.
Residential and Day Care costs in England for
people with disabilities are £3.3 billion.
Day Care in England costs £635 million
each year. This is six times higher than the cost of Workstep
and Job Broking in the UK.
With more that 50 contracts with Social Services
and Health Trusts, Shaw Trust is uniquely placed to modernise
Day Care and meet the challenges of welfare to work.
6% of pupils with special education needs make
the transition from education to employment.
30% of Shaw Trust Opening Door clients make
the transition from education to employment.
9% of all school leavers do not enter education,
employment or training.
4% of Shaw Trust pupils with special education
needs do not enter education, employment or training.
Expenditure on New Deals
|New Deal forYoung People
|New Deal for 25+
|New Deal for over 50s
|New Deal for Lone Parents
|New Deal for Disabled People
|New Deal for Partners
Benefit and Related Issues Adversely Impacting on NDDP
|Impact on NDDP
|Impact of Change
|Personal Capability Assessment (PCA)
|(i) Client can ascertain when next or even first PCA due
(ii) Following medical given outcome plus date of next PCA if staying on IB
|Prospective customers fear that:
(i) Being registered with a job broker will trigger an early PCA
(ii) Working with a job broker will imply "work ready" when going for a PCA and will adversely affect the outcome
|Where customer registers with a job broker second or subsequent PCAs are deferred for 12 months
|(i) Encourage people to register for NDDP
(ii) Removes the "fear"
(iii) Would make customers and job broker more focused in that they would be working towards a known timescale
(iv) Reduce the waiting list and overall costs of PCAs
(v) More customers coming forward means more going into work with consequential savings on benefit
(vi) The job broker becomes part of the process
|If claim rejected from PCA either (INSERT DIAGRAM)
|(i) Customer financially penalised if appeal via IS route
(ii) Customers on IS continue to access NDDP but appeals can be lengthy
(iii) Customers going onto JSA can only access NDDP for very limited period
|Whilst going through the appeals process all customers (both IS and JSA) should be eligible to continue to access NDDP.
|(i) Focuses the customer on getting a job
(ii) Continuity of support from the job broker
(iii) More people will go into work
(iv) Reduction in number of appeals being held, due to people going into work, speeds up the process, reduces costs
|Work Based Learning for Adults (WBLA)
|Customers seeking to access WBLA have to come off their IB and go onto a training allowance.
Have to surrender their order book.
|(i) Takes away the security of being on their original benefit plus holding their order book
(ii) Customers know that ahead of them, they have to link back into their original benefit. Can be a "difficult" process for the customer with delays in the linking back and receiving their benefits
(iii) Major disincentive to taking up WBLA
|Clients remain on their benefit and retain their order book whilst accessing WBLA. (as for Lone Parent)
|(i) Customers see the barrier removed and take up what is a valuable training option
(ii) Better trained customers result in more going into work and sustaining their jobs
|(i) Very positive development. Increasing take up, however customers on "means tested benefits" end up working for very little extra
(ii) Job brokers are not able to give definitive information to the customer on the amount of earnings disregard
|Customers for whom Permitted Work would be a key stepping stone back to full time employment are not accessing the provision
|A standard earnings disregard of £20
|(i) Amount of earnings disregard would be readily understood
(ii) Greater take up of Permitted Work with more customers progressing into full time employment
|Back to Work Grant for customers on "means tested" benefits who could potentially access Permitted Work
|No grant paid
|No significant financial encouragement for those customers to take up Permitted Work.
|Proportion of the benefit "clawback" should be retained and paid to the customer when they move into full time employment and leave benefit.
|(i) Would increase take up of Permitted Work
(ii) Would encourage progression to full time employment
(iii) Would result in more jobs
(i) Delay in payment
|Wide variation in timing of payment of the jobgrant ranging from two-nine weeks.
|Causes financial hardship to customers
|Process should ensure clients paid within five working days of making the change.
Options could include:
(i) Payment made by job broker and reclaimed from JC+
(ii) Job broker holds supply of Job Grant application forms
|Prompt payment to customers
|Jobgrant available only to customers aged 25+
| Customers under 25 are disadvantaged
|Withdraw cover age limit of 25. Available to all
|All customers benefit, supports return to work
|Order book returned immediately. one week/one month before first wage paid
(i) IS customers get 4 week Run-On for housing benefit and Council Tax Benefit
(ii) IB customers do not get a Run-On therefore have no income until receipt of first wage (normally one month)
(iii) Customers in private rented accommodation can lose property if cannot pay rent
|Customers can experience sever financial hardship on returning to work
will not seek to return to work due to financial position during the first month.
Can impact on customer decision to sustaining employment
|(i) Run-On should apply to both IB and IS clients. Should be qualifying period before eligiblesay 26 weeks:
(ii) Could receive (as for Lone Parents) payment equivalent to two weeks benefit after eligibility period
|(i) Increased take up of jobs
(ii) Improved numbers sustaining employment
(iii) "debt" worry removed
(iv) Could reduce potential for over payment with customers "holding on to" their order books before notifying starting work
|Returning to Benefit
52 week linking rule
|On returning to benefit customers can experience considerable delays in their claim being processed with consequential delays in their receiving payment of benefits
|Causes high levels of
stress in client groups which includes a high proportion of people with mental health issues.
Discouraged from applying for further jobs
|Fast-track "returning" claims
|Eases the process.
Customers are more likely to do further rounds of Jobsearch.
|Disability Living Allowance (DLA)
|When someone on DLA goes into work DLA is reviewed.
Payment is suspended pending review of the changed circumstances
|(i) Payment of DLA is immediately stopped. This benefit is crucial to meeting their care and mobility needs which are still there when they start work.
(ii) Is a clear disincentive to clients accessing NDDP
(iii) Review process is lengthy
|(i) Fast-tracked and a decision given to the customer within five days of the receipt of the change in circumstances
(ii) PreferredEmployment is not viewed as a change in circumstances
|Positive. Will persuade more customers to come forward to NDDP.