ID-S Deception - only telling half of the story

Ian Duncan-Smith regularly claims to have overwhelming public support for his welfare reforms, which might well be true, but if it is these opinions have not been based on the full story. So of course you will elicit support if you just ask the following questions: Q: Do you want to reduce the overall cost of benefit payments through improved efficiency? A: Damned right I do. Q: Do you want to focus on those with the greatest need? A: Yes, they deserve it Q: Do you want to stop benefit fraud? A: As quickly as possible. Q: Do you want to wheedle out those lazy so-and-sos who just don’t want to work? A: Yes, it’s high time they pulled their weight. Q: Do you want to see more efficient DWP administration? A: What do you think? Q: Well we have a plan that will do all of this, so do you want us to implement it? A: With all possible speed! But there will be consequences, which even if not thought through initially, are more than apparent now. So an open & honest supplement to the above would be: Well, unfortunately the plan is a bit rough and ready so, Q: Are you happy that we will make tens of thousands of decision errors and stop benefit payments whilst they are sorted out by HMCTS at huge cost to the taxpayer? This will create many months of financial hardship for those affected. A: Hang on a minute; I don’t like the sound of this. Q: Do you mind that in thousands of cases these errors will directly result in people’s health deteriorating and quite a few will die. A: In that case, no sorry the plan is not good enough – think again! I wonder how much of the support would fall away if he just told the whole story and made it clear what “price” he regards as acceptable – just how many deaths does would it take for him to change his approach? He really should be made to address this matter or state clearly that he thinks it is irrelevant. The end DOES NOT always justify the means.

WCA Audio Recording latest correspondence

From Job Centre Plus: “Thank you for your e-mail of 3 August. We have asked Atos to provide facilities for recording assessments when requested by a claimant and will make reasonable endeavours to meet all requests. Claimants should make their requests for recording to Atos directly. This is so that Atos can make an appointment when the necessary equipment is available. ln order to accommodate the request within a reasonable timescale a claimant may be asked to attend a Medical Examination Centre (MEC) that is not the one nearest to their home address. Claimants would not be expected to travel to a MEC where this involves a one way journey of more than 90 minutes. Requests for recording of assessments can only be agreed with the prior consent of the healthcare professional (HCP), and when approved recording equipment is used. This is to ensure that stringent safeguards are in place to produce recordings that are complete, accurate and that the facility provides for simultaneous duplicate copies to be made available to both the claimant and the HCP. lf a claimant wishes to record an assessment using their own equipment the HCP will offer to reschedule the assessment for another day when Atos recording equipment is available' lf claimants refuse to cooperate and continue to record the assessment the HCP will terminate the assessment. The assessment will also be terminated if it is discovered that covert recording is taking place. We are currently looking at ways to improve the availability of audio recording in the short term. I note that your next assessment is scheduled for September 2013. Should any further information regarding recordings be available prior to that date I will ensure that you receive details. Yours sincerely”

In Response: Dear JCP I have received your letter dated 14th August and it is hard to know what to say as it does not address the issues that now arise from this sudden change in approach.  It contains new policies that will affect me personally which you do not publicise and it is important that they are as widely known about as possible.  Clearly in raising the possibility of an “indefinite” delay, DWP has no confidence in Atos’s ability to effectively manage a really quite simple operational requirement.  It likewise has no confidence in its own ability to make sure that it does.  What exactly do you mean by “reasonable”, who will decide and exactly what steps will DWP take to make sure Atos achieves it?  I cannot see why this is so difficult – each MAC already has a range of equipment from stethoscopes to PCs that are in regular use and require maintenance and repairs from time to time.  This is just one more such item.  The NAO has recently heavily criticised DWP’s management of the Atos contract and we have yet another example here. Given the seriousness of these issues, I would like to give you the opportunity to perhaps “clarify” some of the statements you have made here before passing this information on.  The main issue is that you are legally bound to treat all claimants equally and not exercise any form of discrimination, so when I ask for a recording and Atos says “sorry, no equipment available” how will they be able to prove they are not discriminating against me personally, particularly as I have already been singled out for “special” treatment?  This requirement is echoed in both the DWP Service Charter and the Civil Service Code and you simply cannot ignore all 3 mandates. A commitment to no more than “reasonable endeavours” is a recipe for wholesale abuse by denying the facility for no good reason and introducing inconsistency from one claimant to another.  You cannot promise that this will not take place as you will have no evidence one way or the other.  Chris Grayling himself promised in the HoC that recording would be available to anyone asking for it and I do not believe you are at liberty to countermand his assurance.  If he has done this himself, please point me to where this is recorded. 1)        You talk about “approved” recording equipment – approved by whom (presumably the claimant as well as DWP/Atos) and to what standard? 2)        My own digital recorder has a USB socket.  What is wrong with uploading a copy of the audio file to an Atos PC immediately after the WCA?  This is no different in practice to dual recording. 3)        It is a little rich for you to accuse claimants of refusing to “cooperate” if they are in a position where they requested audio recording but no equipment was available and Atos will not delay the appointment until it is.  Their choice would be to go ahead with no recording or risk having their ESA payments affected because they are deemed to have caused the delay.  Does that sound fair to you? 4)        A three hour journey for someone in poor health is an outrageous suggestion and most certainly not reasonable.  5)        You cannot have it both ways by not explaining all of the nuances to claimants in advance and then penalise them for falling foul of a rule they knew nothing about. You have judged all 3 of my WCAs wrongly initially.  In each case, most of the problem was due to the fact that the HCP did not record or interpret what I said accurately which was subsequently proven.  In each case both Atos and DWP refused to consider any information that they considered to be a difference between my recollection and the HCP’s recollection of events that could not be substantiated.  Recording has the ability to eliminate all such disputes.  If you will not provide the equipment to record a session and will not allow me to use my own, what other arrangements will you make?  If you refuse, I will insist on transcribing the entire session verbatim in long-hand and asking the HCP to sign it.  Presumably they can have no objection, please confirm.  Note that they themselves are effectively making a transcript through LiMA and do not offer me the facility to check it prior to circulation.  What basis do you have for trusting the HCP more than me? Please address this point by point – I have highlighted key questions for your convenience. Yours sincerely

ESA - further insight into DWP's philosophy

The less obvious manifestations of DWP’s exemplary approach to customer service.

Unless you fall foul of DWP’s sensitivities there is much that goes on of which you would be blissfully unaware, so the purpose of this posting is to warn you that all may not be as it seems based on my own (albeit limited) experience.

Firstly, there is the little known acronym “UPC” – Unreasonably Persistent Customer, which is a status attributed to anyone who in DWP’s view is making a nuisance of themselves.  It is a totally unilateral designation which although it has certain consequences, you are not told directly that you have achieved this accolade.  I only found out about mine by chance through an unrelated SAR (Subject Access Request under the Data Protection legislation).

One of the upshots is that you are assigned a single point of contact within DWP, which means that any communication you attempt with anyone within DWP is funnelled through this one person – this even applies if you are following one of their published procedures – your mail is still intercepted.  You are at least told who this person is.  It is hard not to get the impression that you are being treated as a pariah, with a degree of contempt and are presented with every obstruction imaginable.  I was recently told that through the programme to improve customer service, my responses would now take up to 3 weeks rather than 2.  Nobody has yet been able to explain how this represents an improvement -but hey, remember that DWP has its own dictionary.

There is at least an internal application procedure which has to be justified and approved before this status is designated, but my impression is that it goes through pretty much on the nod.  My SAR also provided some insight into the degree to which one might be investigated by the DWP “police”, which can be well beyond what might be regarded as necessary and clearly both an infringement of privacy rights and an overt attempt at persecution/intimidation.  DWP of course not only has its own extensive IT resources but also has Atos in the wings, so I doubt there is little they could not unearth if they had a mind to.   There is no reason to assume that their own internal controls will prevent this “Big Brother” heavy-handedness continuing.

Secondly, there is the “Customer Compliance Department” – an innocuous title but with a powerful and imprecise remit.  Manifestly it is there to investigate potential abuse on the path to accusations of fraud.  It does claim to also investigate cases of possible underpayment, but one has to wonder what proportion this forms of the overall workload.  There is some information available on the internet and it is clear that their style is deliberately aggressive taking the form of an interrogation rather than an interview, with a clear presumption of guilt over innocence despite protestations to the contrary.

My introduction came through a short, totally unexpected letter demanding my attendance at my local JC+ office a few days hence, with the usual thinly veiled threats if I did not instantly comply.  It contained no explanation or information either in general or specific to my referral, which in itself was highly intimidating and clearly intended to be so.  So I immediately rang the Compliance Officer involved.

In a quite lengthy phone call he would not explain the basis of my referral, pointing out that very many of their leads come from the members of the public calling their “Hotline”, as a result of which they HAVE to instigate an investigation.  This is evidently the case no matter how vague and unsupported the call might be and the fact that the caller will not disclose their identity – even if they do, DWP’s promise of anonymity would prevent them passing the information on.  He didn’t quite say it, but there was a strong inference that this was the source of the information.  I’ll come back to the credibility of this later.

DWP has assessed my work capability wrongly three times in a row on its own admission.  In the most recent sham, the FFW decision was reversed before reaching formal appeal and involved senior members of staff from both DWP and Atos, so one would have thought the decision was well considered and robust.  However it appears it can be completely undermined by an anonymous phone call containing an accusation with no substance whatsoever.  This is either complete bollox or DWP really needs to recruit more competent senior staff if it has so little faith in their judgement. 

Compliance-Man also explained that my interview would not be under caution and he was only seeking to clarify certain matters, but would not say quite what they were or why he had any reason to doubt that the information he already had was anything other than wholly accurate. I would be expected to sign a statement of some kind but with no indication of what it might contain.  Also, there would be no medical questioning or examination - again, all very intimidating and a bit scary.

I decided to write to him in the strongest possible terms objecting fiercely to the implication that I was being in anyway dishonest over my ESA claim and demanding to know the reason(s) why he thought this might be the case – OK I wasn’t to be under caution and had not been accused of fraud per se, but I had already been accused of non-compliance which is only one small step away from criminality.

I received a fairly prompt reply stating that an interview would not be necessary after all evidently as my letter contained the information he needed – I still do not know what this might have been.  I have also asked what this information was not requested by post in the first place (it is quite perfectly acceptable for them to do this), but have not received an explanation.

So I am left wondering what the hell it was all about . . . . . . .  My conclusions are as follows having done a bit of background work.  I have never been diagnosed as paranoid, nor am I a great proponent of conspiracy theory, in fact rather the opposite preferring sound evidence, which rather speaks for itself here.

·         In reality, only a tiny proportion of compliance investigations stem from calls from members of the public.  By contrast, 3 in 4 arise from within DWP [confirmed through FoI request].

·         Nobody other than DWP & me knows I receive ESA.

·         Why haul me in for an interrogation, when a far more subtle and sensitive exchange of letters would have done the job just as well?

So it is pretty obvious, at least to any reasonable person, where the referral truly originated from and the motivation behind it.

As regards “Big Brother”, of course DWP denies any suggestion of discrimination, intimidation or persecution but will not confirm that my treatment has been “normal”.  It insists it has remained objective and impartial, but cannot explain why it has collected data that on its own admission has no bearing on my ongoing complaint with them.

This is all just another manifestation of the underlying ‘benefit scrounging scum’ philosophy that permeates every aspect of DWP welfare reforms.

The Reconsideration Process in DWP – what is the point??????

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ib_initial_ffw_decisions#comment-27732

The absence of information in response to this FoI request is staggering in the context of effective management.. DWP does not know:

• How many of its initial decisions are appealed
• What the impact (if any) of its internal reconsideration process is, so it cannot possibly determine if it offers value for money, so why not get rid of it?

It is in contrast pushing ahead with a proposal to make reconsideration mandatory rather than (as it is now) optional. It claims to have undertaken a comprehensive impact analysis, which is impossible without this information, so it has no idea of what the effects will be on DWP itself or the Tribunals service and therefore no idea what effect it will have on claimants. This of course means that none of these factors matter, notably the last.

Worst of all, it has no targets – notably the accuracy of right-first-time decision making. How can you possibly manage a process to an end point without knowing what it is? The expression “couldn’t run a heavy drinking session in a brewery” comes to mind.

No wonder the economy is bust

Important ESA payment decision

An important ESA tribunal service decision to note acheived by someone far cleverer than me.

"I have just won at the First Tier Tribunal in Norwich on the 15th March 2012 with regards a decision about ESA that may have consequences on a national level. I argued that applicants who have not had an ATOS medical assessment within the 13 week assessment period are entitled to the work related activity component (“WRAC”) from the end of week 13 up until a Decision Maker finally finds the applicant fit for work (if this being the case) as a result of finally attending an ATOS medical. The conditions for payment of the WRAC are in Section 4(5) of the Welfare Reform Act 2007. Firstly my client had not been deemed to have limited capability for work related activity under Reg 30 ESA Regs as he merely supplied a GP’s sick note in order to claim ESA.The assessment phase is described in Reg 4(1)&(2) of the ESA Regs. The DWP argued the assessment phase continues indefinately (past 13 weeks) until an ATOS medical is carried out and a decision is made. I argued Reg 4(1) needed to be followed (13 weeks only) as reg. 4(2) was not engaged as my client had not attended an ATOS medical within the 13 weeks and was deemed to have limited capability for work under Reg 30 ESA, therefore 4(2)(a)&(b) were not engaged! The Tribunal found in my favour and instructed the DWP to make the WRAC payment from week 13 onwards even though my client had not attended an ATOS medical. Quite simply the DWP cannot keep clients waiting month after month for an ATOS medical and therefore be financialy penalized through no fault of their own. Obviously we await the posibility that the Sec of State will wish to appeal this decision"

Exposing the WCA charade (1)

Although its failings are pretty clear to anyone who has experienced a WCA, DWP still insists it is fine and doing the job for which it was intended, which from their point of view (rather than ours) is perfectly true.

They claim their ‘model’ is objective and fair, whereas it is based on little more than political dogma and a dim view of pretty much anyone claiming benefits – we are scroungers first, deserving second, likewise obvious to anyone close.

It is important to continually expose their pretence for what it is and how better than in their own words.  I have therefore tried to use assorted FoI requests to extract if not a clear admission, an admission by inference – often what they will not say is as informative as what they will say.

This is the first of probably many and relates to the FoI request at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fit_for_work_decision_dm_or_hcp#incoming-269396

Who ACTUALLY decides what and how well qualified they are to do it is a pretty key issue in relation to duty of care over the claimant/patient. As a result, DWP has to apply “post-decisional justification”, i.e. construct an argument that justifies what it has already done, regardless of the logic, or lack of it, involved. If it does not, its entire policy is undermined. This is what we have here.

However DWP attempts to disguise the fact, the KEY issue in this process is my fitness to work – if I am not, I will automatically be paid ESA, if I am, I will not receive a payment. Note that there are no recorded cases of an individual being deemed fit to work, but still awarded ESA or vice versa.

DWP DMs cannot decide fitness to work because they are not medically trained. Atos HCP cannot decide on ESA payments as they are outside of the public sector, so DWP has to juggle with words that suggest clarity and a clear demarcation to show all of the power sits with DWP and Atos is wholly subservient, when in fact the decision is in effect made by the Atos HCP. Remember too that what HCPs do is totally dictated by DWP, so they must be working in complete harmony.

The charade is further maintained by the claim that DM’s consider more information than HCPs – mmmmmm!

Firstly, as the decision should follow the WCA promptly, there is very little opportunity for anything new to arise. Secondly, if it did, chances are it would be medical, which a DM is not qualified to interpret and assess. Thirdly, according to the WCA Handbook, an HCP MUST have ALL relevant medical information to construct the WCA to best effect, so again what extra would a DM have?

DWP does nowhere near enough to coach claimants towards and through a WCA and one has to ask why. Could it be that they have a vested interest in HCP “errors” to further justify the valuable role a DM has to play? You can work that out for yourself.

The WCA - DWP exposed in their own words (as it were)

This is constructed from a series of FoI requests of DWP.  The main thread is referenced below, but there are a few others.  The first part of this blog is the final annotation left on that thread.

I have closed this FoI Act request, but will leave a summary here to hopefully save other people time.

This is actually a very important issue and the reality is self-evident to anyone who has been through a WCA.  The difference here is that the indictment is based on DWP’s own responses to a series of connected questions.

1)      Although DWP “has no recorded information”, it is still insistent that GPs are not equipped to assess capability to work.  It can produce no evidence to support this and cannot see that it is at best ‘opinion’, certainly not fact.

2)      It has now to maintain this unsubstantiated position otherwise it undermines the whole outsourced HCP/DM concept.  It is not well known for admitting mistakes.

3)      It says this despite the fact that GP training includes this very subject and the BMA promotes the occupational health skills of its members to industry, the result being that many GPs are retained by companies for exactly this purpose.

4)      The clue is maybe in the DWP phrase “according to legislation”, which tends to imply that it has been drafted to sit outside of a GP’s expertise.  Firstly, I do not think this is the case – GP’s are perfectly well qualified.  Secondly, if you can teach it to an HCP in a few weeks, you could teach it to GP’s too in probably less time with must better results.

5)      GPs engaged for occupational health advice will become very familiar with the working environment of their clients and be able to meaningfully compare individual capabilities with known work situations.  By contrast DWP believes that there is something called “general work” although it cannot define what it is or define its characteristics.  It can however deem people fit to do it without knowing what “it” is.

6)      DWP still disingenuously maintains that a DM only makes an administrative decision over ESA payments.  It has to say this because DMs have no medical expertise.  It also cannot allow Atos to be seen to be making benefit decisions, so it has created a hole for itself.  The ESA decision is a direct result of ability to work – once you have established the latter, the former is obvious.   So who decides fitness for work – DM? (not medically equipped) or HCP? (outside of the public sector).   DWP talks around this question, but cannot/will not answer it.

7)      It (DWP) will not state that its overriding priority is patient well-being.  This is a grave concern.  It tries to suggest that the ESA decision means the same thing, but of course it does not.  This is precisely the difference vs. The NHS.

8)      It will not admit it has a duty of care.  In countermanding my GPs opinion, the DM must assume the responsibility my GP accepted and never contested i.e. for my health & well-being.  If my health suffers as a result of the DM’s decision, he/she is culpable, without doubt.7

9)      It also disappears up its own backside over the issue of clinical expertise.  Depending on what question you ask, an HCP need it or not.  Physios (with all due respect) have limited clinical expertise, so DWP has to say that its process doesn’t need much.  If you ask about complicated conditions, medication cocktails and side-effects, HCPs suddenly become qualified to make assessments comprehensively.  Sorry DWP, again, you cannot have it both ways.

In conclusion, the fact that DWP will not make clear statements speaks for itself.  The ONLY interpretation (they cannot suggest another) is that they are driven to reduce welfare costs come what may and will continually manipulate the rules to achieve whatever £  maximum it has in mind.

It knows that working from the bottom up with patient health as top priority might exceed its spending target, so it has to construct a process under its own control that it can be sure will not.

It will no doubt continue to try to convince us all otherwise in the same transparent manner.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_role_of_gps_in_the_wca_proce

WCA – Surreptitious gathering of information

As I’ve mentioned before, Atos (with DWP’s sanction) uses a number of heavily disguised questions to extract what they consider to be the “truth” from claimants during a WCA.   I have therefore been exploring other areas where other undeclared practices may be taking place, one of which is here.

It is about the use of Voice Risk Analysis (VRA) software, which supposedly is able to detect lies told in a phone conversation.  The innocuous name, is of course all part of the disguise.

In summary, DWP says

1)      It does not use it anywhere within DWP.  It was tested, but found to be too unreliable.  No doubt they will try again at some point.

2)      It does not require any of its business partners to use it.  As this does not mean they do not, I pursued this further with particular reference to Atos.  The response was:

3)      There is nothing in the contract prohibiting Atos from using it, nor penalising them if they do.

4)      If Atos wished to start using it, they would be obliged to seek authority from DWP (note only “obliged”).

5)      Atos could not be using it without DWP’s knowledge.

Unfortunately, because of 3), 4) & 5) presuppose complete trust in Atos to follow what looks like no more than a “gentleman’s agreement”.  Knowing what I know about them (including the way they have chosen to apply LiMA, I could not muster enough trust to disregard this possibility.  Likewise with DWP itself – I would not put it past them to say to Atos: “If you start using VRA, just don’t tell us”, the consequences of which would be:

·         No threat or risk or retribution to Atos from DWP

·         DWP can “legitimately” say ‘not to our knowledge’ whenever they are asked through FoI or any othger route.

My (slightly paranoid) advice as always would be to plan around the worst scenario – assume anything could be going on until you can categorically prove it is not.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vra_software_use_by_dwp_business_2

WCA - Underhand questions - be on your guard

The answers given to a variety of seemingly innocent and innocuous questions posed within a WCA can have a very precise interpretation by Atos and/or DWP. Some examples are:

Visiting a supermarket	ability to walk unaided, without pain or exhaustion for 800m+
Driving a car for 10 – 15 minutes	ability to self-propel in a wheelchair 200m+ without pain or exhaustion
Walking 30m	ability to walk 60m on the basis of 30m outbound + 30m return journey
Use a bus	ability to stand in a queue for 30+ mins
Watch films on TV	ability to sit continuously for 90+ mins
Watch soaps on TV	ability to sit continuously for 30 mins.
Holiday to Cornwall	ability to sit for 3 hours at least
Appointment 30 mins late	sat in the waiting room continuously for 30 mins

DWP will not confirm or deny if there are any others

A reasoned and coherent way forward - stage 1

The Tory Government is simply doing what Tory Governments do – no surprises there.

If the intention is to unseat them at the next election, the first thing to consider is what would come next, but that’s a thought for another day.  Just be careful what you wish for.

There needs to be a plan, which I think starts with unravelling all of the spurious claims they are making and exposing their policies for what they are.  Personally, I believe the step by step, logical approach will be more productive than “Nazi bastard” vilification.  Whilst this usefully winds up some emotion, it is at risk of alienating the very large proportion of people who are prepared to be sympathetic if than can see the issues in a clear and honest light.

The view of disability that causes greatest upset is the one that regards it as just another form of unemployment, or perhaps more accurately, under-employment.  This is clearly part of the Government’s thinking.  It suggests that there is an absolute formula that can differentiate between those that can work and those that cannot.  It has been allowed to drift and all they are doing now is resetting it to where it should be.  They imply that this new level can be independently and scientifically determined, so their approach is unchallengeable.

This of course is not true.  The cut-off is part of one’s dogma – religious, political, whatever.  The Coalition believes that the bar should be set considerably lower (so fewer are allowed past it) which is their ‘prerogative’, but let’s not lie about its basis.  One way or another, it has formulated an estimate of how many people need to be moved from one side of the line to the other.

Closely linked to this is the “Arbeit Macht Frei” philosophy, so not only is working good for society, it is good for you individually too – it will broaden your outlook, enhance your self-esteem, and improve your health and probably your longevity too.  It will do this both directly and indirectly through you being financially better off.  It is a little vague on how all the wealth created is distributed, but at least everyone gets some.

With such a strong belief in the work panacea, not surprising that one would accept a fair degree of collateral damage as undoubtedly the ends justifies the means.   The horrendous fit-for-work errors that crop up frequently are not personal, nor particularly deliberate: they are just seen as part of the price one has to pay.  The points to get across therefore are firstly that this is not the case and secondly if it were, this price is too high.  The current process is flawed on two counts:

1.       It produces  too many errors

2.       It produces far too many extreme errors

The consequences of both are massively compounded by a very long and convoluted remedial process that has no feedback loop to generate at least some progressive improvement.

They claim their approach is based on need rather than financially driven (bottom up, not top down), but this is splitting hairs if they continually redefine “need” to fit a financial target, which is precisely what we have now.  Cleverly, if WCAs are not producing the required ratios, they manipulate WCA content to make sure they do. Proof is through the descriptor changes made in March 2011

The complementary side of this is of course is the nature of work itself – not how much of it is available, but what characteristics it has.  Quite obviously, if you move the bar downwards, you need to re-specify what work is so that it can accommodate people with what is now a wider range of abilities.  The Government in effect argues that it has already done this and is now just catching up by modifying descriptors accordingly.

This claim is based on the way in which employers of all types have positively responded to equality legislation over the years, to the point where in the typical workplace, disabled employees are no longer at any disadvantage when compared to fully able employees.  This is not just about wheelchair access, but literally every aspect of every work environment.

This is the argument DWP used to substantiate its descriptor changes in March 2011.  It argued that the changes were legitimised by clear scientific and impartial evidence which is simply untrue.  The report on which they mostly rely was indeed commissioned by DWP.  However, its results are far from conclusive and in places diametrically opposed to the Government’s proposition.  Also and somewhat absurdly, the report includes a disclaimer whereby DWP points out that it does not necessarily agree with the authors.  I can only assume that when they quote evidence to support their strategy, they hope that nobody will ever check it out.

It is also worth considering causes and effects as they are often wrongly assigned.  The Government regularly falls back on the proportion of claimants initially found FFW following a WCA.  If they lump together FFW + WRAG, they can quote proportions of around 70%.  This, they say justifies the process they have set up.  What they conveniently forget however is that this is precisely what they have designed the process to do, so it is rather a self-fulfilling prophesy.  In fact, one could argue that given this, the results are actually quite disappointing from the Tory viewpoint – ONLY 75%, when they would like it to achieve something higher.

One final general point and that is over the meaning of “independence”, which in reality is often very hard to achieve.    Most commonly it requires features such as:

·         not controlled by another

·          free from the authority, control, or domination of somebody or something else, especially not controlled by another state or organization

·         able to self-govern

·         Financially independent, not forced to rely on another for money or support.

The prevailing view from most quarters, campaigners included is that much hangs on the infamous Professor Harrington – if they were only to implement all of his recommendations properly, everything would be ok.  NO IT WOULD NOT and this is why.

One of the biggest issues has been around decision making errors, subsequently corrected.  Logically therefore right-first-time decision rates would be an important KPI to monitor.  DWP has not, does not and will not however be using it.  Nor will they declare a target that they are aiming for.  This is just politicians for you – keeping the water muddy, but where is Malcolm setting the target and insisting they meet it sooner rather than later – all conspicuous by its absence.

Secondly, how independent is Malcolm?  Just run through the tests above and make up your own mind.  He has done little more since involvement began than “urge patience”. He has also said:

“My take on things is that [the Department for Work and Pensions] DWP and [Jobcentre Plus] JCP (in collaboration with Atos where appropriate) are energetically implementing all of my recommendations.” and

“In some cases I believe the JCP staff responsible have actually improved on what I had proposed in light of practical experience. I see real progress and am even more confident of improvements than I was in my interim report to the Minister in May. “

I would simply ask

·         What evidence does he have to support any of this?  A few examples would be really helpful.

·         Does anyone who has had repeat dealings with WCA/Atos over the past three years agree that things have changed very much for the better?

It is ironic to say the least that the venerable professor wants to “collect robust evidence about what is and isn’t working, moving, where possible, away from anecdotal reports.”,  when DWP does exactly the opposite.

If you go back to Professor Harrington’s first report in 2010, there are other things conspicuous by their absence, notably a comprehensive PDD (Project Definition Document).  This is very much standard management practice and can be constructively applied in almost any ‘change’ situation to define the scope of the work, its boundaries, its objectives, success criteria, assumptions, inclusions, exclusions etc.  It then provides the key reference point for subsequent work for the duration of the project and I would say it is impossible to manage well without one.  There were some general terms of reference at the outset, but all rather vague – unprofessional or deliberate – who knows?  There was no well-reasoned argument for example that explained why NHS services had been excluded from consideration.  Nothing of this nature has appeared since and his subsequent work just follows the same path.

So we need to reconsider Professor Harrington’s so-called independent role in all of this and if there is a conspiracy, judge if he is part of it.

WCA Improvement - no real measures after all

THIS SPEAKS FOR ITSELF:

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request of 13 March 2012

In your request you stated:

Messrs Grayling & Harrison are agreed that the overriding priority is to ensure that WCA decisions are right first time and it is normal business practice to establish the parameters through which progress can be objectively measured.

You requested the following information:

1) Long term, once the process has settled, what error rate does DWP regard as acceptable and by when?

2) What are historical and current error rates?

3) What milestone dates has DWP set itself to reach the long term acceptable error rate?

At present, DWP does not collect data in relation to WCA Decision Making. It is not therefore possible to provide current or historical information.

As part of a wider quality improvement programme, a Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) was introduced to monitor and improve standards of decision making. The QAF focuses on providing detailed feedback to decision makers to ensure that they give due consideration to all of the available evidence. In the longer term this may involve introducing a measurable error rate however there are no current plans to do so.

Inequality in the Welfare State? [CIRC Report]

Inequality in the Welfare State?

Report written and produced by Clydebank Independent Resource Centre, 627 Dumbarton Road, Dalmuir Clydebank G81 4ET 0141 951 4040: info@irc-clydebank.co.uk: www.irc-clydebank.co.uk:  Registered charity no. SCO37670. November 2011

http://www.oxfamblogs.org/ukpovertypost/wp-content/uploads/CIRC-Equality-Act-Report.pdf

A  few supplementary thoughts.

Prof Harrington has never challenged the basic premise that fit for work (FFW) decisions can be distilled into a set of parameters that can be adequately assessed by a DWP administrator, “supported” by no more than a lowly-trained medic operating under their direction. 

In addition the question of whether condition variability and task repeatability can ever be adequately assessed in a single short WCA has not been sensibly addressed.

Prof Harrington himself does not pass all of the tests to establish his “independence” from DWP & Coalition dogma and a cynic would argue that his vested interest in certain outcomes makes this impossible.

Although many WCAs are poorly performed by Atos, DWP claims to have rigorous quality and audit procedures in place and that Atos routinely achieves its contractual KPIs.  Either this is not true, or they do not work, at least to the standards most would assume.  The fact is that they satisfy only the standards DWP has set – DWP has not on thanking them for their efforts.

Without doubt and despite its protestations to the contrary, the Government largely subscribes to the “benefit scrounging” school of thought.  This can easily be seen in some of the imagery it uses in key publications.

The Government has singularly failed to offer any definition of the work it is glibly passing people fit to perform.  It relies on the concept of ‘general work’ (sic), without even describing its basic characteristics.

DWP has severely criticised the historical contribution of GPs to this process to the point where it has effectively challenged their professional integrity.  Rather than tackle this unsubstantiated proposition directly, DWP has adopted a costly strategy that progressively removes them (GPs) from the process altogether.  It still however claims they (GPs) play an important role to play, albeit from a remote and mistrusted position.  This is one of many contradictions within DWP’s assurances and it is both surprising and disappointing that their representative organisations have not taken great issue with this implication – or is it just a case of same money, less work?

The comments on p15 are not quite correct.  Whilst the Atos HCP does not have direct access to medical records etc, they are required to consider and log ANY evidence a claimant brings to a WCA.  What is missing is a comprehensive briefing for claimants (and their reps) to ensure that they present their situation at the WCA as comprehensively as possible.  The WCA invitation letter covers little more than being able to prove who you are!

The WCA handbook is quite clear (and reasonable) over how a HCP must deal with an apparent contradiction between claimant evidence and their own observations to produce an acceptable report.  It states that the HCP cannot simply rely on their ‘opinion’ and must support any conclusions with evidence of one kind or another – this could take the form of a specifically tailored examination and/or Q&A.  It is therefore vital that the claimant takes everything they can to the WCA or any contradiction might not be apparent – the HCP must not be left in the position where they can (legitimately) say that they were unaware of something relevant to the way the assessment should be performed.

The report rightly highlights DWP’s progressive tightening of descriptor definitions, notably in March 2011.  DWP insists that they are justified based on objective evidence, but this is not confirmed within the documents they themselves rely upon.  In fact in some cases, the reports contain explicit disclaimers where DWP states that it does not necessarily share the views and conclusions of the authors – how absurd it that?

In addition, the joint DWP/Atos process contains a number of surreptitious ‘correlations’ whereby very specific interpretations are placed on the answers to seemingly innocent questions.  A visit to a supermarket for example means being able to cover 800m comfortably and would attract no points.

Worse still, in Mar 2011, ‘walking’ was substituted with ‘mobilising’ again on the surface for legitimate reasons but has given rise to the “invisible wheelchair”.  This allows the HCP & Decision Maker to make the mobility assessment with the claimant in a wheelchair even if they do not normally use one, even if their GP has advised against it and they do not even have to declare that this is what they have done.  All the claimant sees is no points.   The invisible wheelchair can be deployed selectively in that it might appear for mobility assessment on level surfaces, but be abandoned when steps are involved.

DWP insists that a declaration of fit for work does not mean they do not believe you are ill, just that the illness is not severe enough to stop you working.  This is of course (as explained above) despite the fact that ‘work’ is not defined.  Furthermore, it insists that people who find themselves on the job market through this route are at no disadvantage relative to other fully fit job seekers.  It bases this assurance on reports in which it has incorporated a disclaimer (see above) and/or completely contradicts its proposition and universal compliance with long standing disability equality legislation.  The reality is that there is no real evidence to support any of this.