Written evidence submitted by Papworth
Trust
ABOUT PAPWORTH
TRUST
1. Papworth Trust is a disability charity and
registered social landlord, whose aim is for disabled people to
have equality, choice and independence. Papworth Trust helps over
20,000 people every year through a wide range of services including
employment, vocational rehabilitation, housing and personal support.
2. Papworth Trust is a sub-contractor to the
Department of Work and Pensions in the delivery of employment
programmes. In 2010-11, we helped nearly 8,000 disabled and disadvantaged
people through our employment services.
3. Papworth Trust welcomes the opportunity to
submit evidence to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Select
Committee Inquiry into the migration from Incapacity Benefits
(IB) to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and share with
you our thoughts and concerns on the Work Capacity Assessment
(WCA).
4. In July 2010 and January 2011, Papworth Trust
chaired two roundtable seminars of like-minded disability charities,
voluntary organisations and employment service providers to discuss
the failings of the WCA and the measures that should be taken
to improve its accuracy. These seminars culminated in open letters
to Professor Harrington in September 2010, as part of his independent
inquiry, and Chris Grayling MP in January 2011 calling for the
Government to focus on implementing the Harrington review recommendations.
The letters were signed by over 36 organisations (see Annex 1).
OVERVIEW
5. Papworth Trust fundamentally believes that
a job is the best form of welfare and route out of poverty. Where
individuals can work, they should be supported to do so. For some
individuals work is not always a viable solution, this may be
due to their condition or circumstance, and there must be a system
in place that supports them as well.
6. In the past, the Government has recognised[35]
some of the issues which prevent people returning to employment
such as disability, health problems and in some circumstances
the complex nature of our benefits system. Papworth Trusts also
believe that discrimination, language barriers, criminal records,
lack of experience and transportation needs further restrict the
opportunities and ability to gain work. A major barrier for our
clients is that employers often seek "ready-made" employees
who are proficient in their role with minimum training, support,
cost or perceived risk to the employer. Extra support or training
is viewed as inconvenient, time consuming and costly. Access to
Work goes someway to solving this barrier, although the future
of this funding is currently being looked at as part of the Sayce
review.
THE WORK
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
(WCA)
7. For a long time, Papworth Trust has been concerned
about the outcomes of the WCA which suggest it is a flawed assessment.
When the WCA was first applied to existing IB claimants, the Government
estimated that:[36]
— 65%
would be assessed to be in the Work-Related Activity Group of
ESA;
— 20%
would be assessed to be in the Support Group of ESA; and
— 15%
would be passed as fit for work.
8. In reality we see the breakdown for all completed
assessments carried out by the end of May 2010,[37]
as follows:
— 25%
were assessed to be in the Work-Related Activity Group of ESA;
— 10%
were assessed to be in the Support Group of ESA; and
— 65%
were passed as fit for work.
This means that the Government's original estimate
of those being found fit for work by the WCA was inaccurate by
a factor of over 330% compared to reality.
9. The Government has so far welcomed that more
people are being found fit for work than it originally estimated.[38]
Papworth Trust is concerned at how vastly different the predictions
made are from reality. We are concerned that vulnerable people
are being wrongly assessed as fit for work, and what the legacy
holds for those people subsequently placed onto Jobseekers Allowance
(JSA) on reduced incomes and with less support to find employment.
In our experience, simply reducing benefits does not help the
hardest to reach to find work; instead tailored support is required
to help them into employment.
10. We are increasingly puzzled at the significant
proportion (37%) of people who close their claim before the assessment
process has ended. Whilst many of these people will have found
jobs or may have stopped their assessments for personal reasons,
we are concerned about those who may have become frustrated by
the system and simply given up, excluding themselves from appropriate
support. This is in part due to our welfare to work system where
eligibility for support is based on which benefits a person is
claiming. We believe greater understanding of this group is needed,
and as part of second year independent review the Government has
promised to start tracking people who do not complete their WCA.
As part of this inquiry, we urge the Committee to ensure that
the DWP has started tracking the final destinations of this group
and that this data is made publicly available.
THE ASSESSMENT
CRITERIA
11. Papworth Trust was extremely disappointed
with the Government's decision to implement the recent regulations[39]
to amend the WCA descriptors. In a joint letter to Chris Grayling
MP (see Annex 2) in January 2011, we expressed our concern that
these amendments were developed prior to Harrington's review and
were not subjected to the same level of external scrutiny. Unlike
the Harrington review, which has received strong support from
the sector, the Internal Review was widely criticised, including
by 10 of the 12 organisations involved in the Internal Review.
12. As a result of these regulations, the number
of descriptors under the new assessment will fall from 21 to 17.
Whilst Papworth Trust supports the move to a more employment outcome
based approach, we are concerned that the reduction in the number
of descriptors will further worsen the WCA, rendering it even
less effective for vulnerable people.
13. Papworth Trust has a long standing concern
that the assessment is too focused on a person's physical capability,
and needs to better recognise the barriers faced by people with
learning disabilities, mental health issues and fluctuating conditions.
The reduction in the mental health descriptors from three to one
under these regulations is particularly concerning, considering
the assessment is already poor at recognising these conditions.
14. There appears to be an underlying assumption
that because someone has physically managed to arrive for an appointment,
that they must be fit to work. The assessment illustrates what
people can do in a test, but it fails to do so in a way which
reflects work. Taking claimants through a system which is not
fit for purpose and does not accurately determine a person's capability
for work has caused stress and anxiety to claimants and represented
significant costs to the public purse. We know the system needs
a complete overhaul and believe Professor Harrington's review
is the most effective way of delivering this, including through
the work he has already instigated by establishing four expert
working groups to recommend changes to the descriptors.
15. The Government has indicated it will make
further, necessary amendments to the assessment if identified.
As part of this inquiry, we urge the Committee to ensure this
commitment happens and without delay. We are concerned that even
a six month delay between identification and implementation of
a solution could now result in over 250,000 people having an assessment
that is not fit for purpose.
CUSTOMER COMMUNICATIONS
16. Papworth Trust believes that past communications
with claimants going through this process has been extremely poor.
During Professor Harrington's independent review last year, we
expressed our concern that the current support was insufficient
with notifications of assessments sent without warning and no
further support offered to help individuals to prepare for the
process. Under circumstances where a claim for ESA was rejected,
individuals were given no indication of the support they could
receive or the actions they needed to take to ensure their benefits
were reinstated. Claimant's letters did not explain how they could
claim JSA, nor inform them that they had the right to appeal and
any explanation of the appeal process.
17. Papworth Trust felt these communications
were causing unnecessary anxiety to vulnerable people and were
pleased when Professor Harrington shared these concerns: "the
communications lack empathy and clarity, they are at best bland
and technical and at worst confusing and threatening."[40]
18. Since Professor Harrington's review, we understand
Jobcentre Plus has taken good steps to try to correct these inadequacies.
Telephone calls are now made to claimants before they receive
their initial letter calling them for their assessment to provide
further information and advice, and to establish whether any help
or support is needed. In cases where the claim for ESA has been
rejected, an adviser telephones the claimant to inform them of
the entitlement decision and advises them of their options and
how they can make a claim for JSA, if they wish. Whilst these
changes have only recently come into practise, Papworth Trust
welcomes the move to a more personalised service from Jobcentre
Plus with clearer, and less-threatening, communications. As part
of this inquiry, we urge the Committee to ensure these measures
are rolled out and are closely monitored.
THE DECISION
MAKING PROCESS
19. In the past, decision makers have tended
to act as little more than a rubber stamp to the Atos assessment.
In future, Papworth Trust understands that decision makers will
undergo better training to empower them to use the assessment
as guidance whilst they make the final decision. We welcome this
change.
20. Papworth Trust understands that better use
will be made of the reconsideration process. At present, if a
claimant disagrees with their decision, they tend to pursue an
appeal rather than seek a reconsideration of that decision. We
welcome this and the subsequent saving it should make to the public
purse given that it will not be subject to the same costly, judicial
process. However, at present the Government does not track the
reconsideration process and the subsequent outcomes. As part of
this inquiry, we urge the Committee to ensure that reconsiderations
and their outcomes are tracked in future. Without this tracking,
we are unable to draw any conclusions as to whether a fall in
the appeal rate is as a result of more correct decisions in the
first place, or that the reconsideration process is simply a shortened
version of the appeal process.
THE TIMESCALE
FOR NATIONAL
ROLLOUT
21. Papworth Trust recognises the expectation
to assess 1.6 million existing Incapacity Benefit claimants over
the next three years, equating to 11,000 per week, is an ambitious
target, especially when added to the routine flow of new claimants,
estimated at a further 11,000 per week. In addition, DWP statistics
show that of the 273,900 who were found fit for work under the
current assessment (by November 2009), a third of those people
went on to appeal, causing further strain on the assessment flow.
As part of this inquiry, we urge the Committee to probe how the
system will cope with this strain.
IMPACT ON
THE WORK
PROGRAMME
22. Papworth Trust supports the principles behind
a single Work Programme. We believe the Work Programme will provide
a real opportunity to help those who are furthest away from the
labour market. With the right support, those people who are fit
and able to work should have the necessary requirements placed
on them to actively engage in work. However, for those people
found wrongly fit for work under the WCA, they will receive a
third to two-thirds less support to find and retain work under
the Work Programme payment structure, which is extremely concerning.
23. Furthermore, the failings of the WCA in the
past has meant that employment adviser's spend more time providing
advice and guidance on how to appeal their outcomes than supporting
them into work. Papworth Trust's experience has shown that clients
simply will not engage in employment programmes whilst they believe
they have been placed on the wrong benefit.
24. As part of this inquiry, we urge the Committee
to explore what impact this has on the success of the Work Programme,
and how the Government might review this in future.
Annex 1
INDEPENDENT REVIEW
OF THE
WORK CAPABILITY
ASSESSMENT
As charities, voluntary organisations and employment
service providers from across the country, we work with some of
the most disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals and communities
in the UK. For a while, we have been concerned about the accuracy
of the outcomes from the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). This
concern was compounded by the announcement of changes to Housing
Benefit in the Emergency Budget statement in June 2010, where
payment will now be tied to the period of the JSA claim. It is
concerning that an assessment which we do not believe has demonstrated
its ability to place people correctly onto Employment and Support
Allowance (ESA) may become the basis of eligibility for a far
wider range of benefits.
We welcome your appointment to independently review
the WCA, and would like to share with you our firsthand experience
in working with people who are being let down by this assessment.
THE ROLE
OF WCA PROVIDERS
Amongst all the uncertainties, what is clear is that
the medical assessors will have a heavy workload over the next
three years. The expectation to assess 1.6 million existing Incapacity
Benefit claimants over that time period, equating to 41,000 per
month, is an ambitious target. It is particularly ambitious considering
that DWP statistics show that of the 166,300 who were found fit
for work under the current assessment (by June 2009), a third
of those people went on to appeal. Your review of the situation
is timely, particularly with the current backlog of 50,000 assessments
in mind.
ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLES
The assessment should be founded on a realistic model
of what "work" is and what is meant by "limited
capability for work" as per the Work-Related Activity Component
assessment under ESA. Rather than simply assessing whether someone
can work, the WCA should be amended to evaluate the full range
of employability factors including an individual's barriers to
work, which could then inform the appropriate segmentation for
the Work Programme. These barriers can include, but are not limited
to literacy, numeracy, confidence, self-esteem.
RECOGNISING CONDITIONS
The current WCA is too heavily focussed on physical
capability, and needs to better recognise the barriers faced by
people with learning disabilities, mental health issues and fluctuating
conditions. Given the stigma attached to mental health, our experience
indicates that people are more likely to answer questions in the
way that they want to be viewed. It is therefore imperative that
a trusting relationship can be established to allow the claimant
to feel comfortable in sharing such personal information. We recommend
assessors are provided with better training on working with people
with learning disabilities, fluctuating conditions and mental
health issues.
SUPPORTING CLAIMANTS
THROUGH THE
PROCESS
Better upfront support needs to be provided before
claimants undergo their assessments, as the current support is
insufficient. Notifications of assessments are sent out without
warning and no further support is offered to help individuals
to prepare for the process. Under circumstances where a claim
is rejected, individuals are not signposted to any person or organisation
who can help them understand why their claim was rejected or who
can provide assistance with reinstating their benefits. This causes
unnecessary anxiety to vulnerable people.
POST ASSESSMENTS
We are increasingly puzzled at the significant proportion
(37%) of people who close their claim before the assessment process
has ended. Whilst many of these people will have found jobs or
may have stopped their assessments for personal reasons, we are
concerned about those who may have become frustrated by the system
and simply given up. Greater understanding of this group is needed
and we urge you to recommend that the DWP begins to track the
final destinations of this group in the future.
In addition, we believe a further recommendation
should be for DWP to track people post-assessment by their disability
type. This will enable the sector to better understand what happens
to people with particular barriers who are passed fit for work,
and will demonstrate whether the system is capable of supporting
them.
Taking these factors into account, we believe the
current WCA interview time needs to be lengthened in order to
form a realistic impression of a person's employability and to
build up the trust required.
We see your review as a real opportunity to make
the necessary changes to the assessment before the wider migration
from Incapacity Benefits begins next year. We wish you all the
best of luck and look forward to working with you on this important
issue.
Annex 2
WORK CAPABILITY
ASSESSMENT
As charities, voluntary organisations, associations
and employment service providers from across the country, we work
with some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals
and communities in the UK. We share a common interest in the Work
Capability Assessment (WCA) and have worked hard to support the
Government with its review and reform.
We welcomed your appointment of Professor Harrington
to lead an independent review of the assessment. We also support
his recommendations for change. We have been encouraged by your
public support for Professor Harrington and the swift and positive
Government response which followed. We are keen that his recommendations
are implemented quickly to ensure the flaws in the WCA are addressed
in a structured and effective way.
However we are increasingly concerned about the implementation
of the internal Departmental review of the assessment, which was
developed prior to the Harrington review and was not subjected
to the same level of external scrutiny. Unlike the Harrington
Review, which has received strong support from our organisations,
the internal review was widely criticised. We think implementation
of this internal review will:
— further
worsen the WCA, rendering it even less effective for vulnerable
people;
— increase
the level of WCA appeals being experienced;
— diminish
the positive impact of Harrington's recommendations; and
— divert
limited resources from addressing the Harrington reforms.
Taking claimants through a system which is not fit
for purpose and does not accurately determine a person's capability
for work has caused stress and anxiety to claimants and represented
significant costs to the public purse. We know the system needs
a complete overhaul and believe Professor Harrington's review
is the most effective way of delivering this, including through
the work he has instigated around reviewing certain groups of
descriptors based on the expertise within the voluntary sector.
We urge you to implement Professor Harrington's recommendations
as a matter of urgency, and not divert resources and risk further
problems for vulnerable people by implementing the internal review.
We would be happy to meet you and look forward to
working with you on this important issue.
April 2011
35 DWP, 21st Century Welfare, July 2010. Back
36
Answer provided by Jonathan Shaw MP to a Written Parliamentary
Question, Hansard Column 1347W, 20 October 2009. Back
37
Department for Work and Pensions, Employment and Support Allowance:
Work Capability Assessment by health function and functional impairment:
Official Statistics, January 2011. Back
38
Department for Work and Pensions press release, Majority of people
found fit for work as Government presses ahead with reforms, 25
January 2011. Back
39
Statutory Instrument No 228: The Employment and Support Allowance
(ESA) (Limited Capability for Work and Limited Capability for
Work-Related Activity). Amendment Regulations 2011. Back
40
Professor Harrington, An Independent Review of the Work Capability
Assessment, p 34, November 2010. Back
| 
