WCA - A call for evidence - Year 3 Independent Review

The Work Capability Assessment – A Call for Evidence: Year 3 Independent Review – Questions

Question 1

a) Have you had more than one WCA?

YES

b) Was your most recent WCA:

(Please select only one)

·         A reassessment of an existing Incapacity Benefit (IB) award?

·         A new claim for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)?

·         A repeat (second or third) WCA having already been awarded Employment and Support Allowance?

If you answered YES to Question 1a), please go to Question 2

If you answered NO to Question 1a), please go to Question 9

Question 2

Please tell us where you live in Great Britain

(Please select only one)

1.    South East England

2.    South West England

3.    North East England

4.    North West England

5.    Midlands

6.    Scotland

7.    Wales

Question 3

Were you assessed for:

(Please select only one)

1.    A mental, intellectual or cognitive condition or disability

2.    A physical health condition or disability

3.    Both

Question 4

What was the outcome of your award?

1.    Found fit for work (for the 3^rd consecutive time)

2.    Work related activity

3.    Support group

 

Question 5 (communications)

a) Thinking about the start of your claim, were there any changes in the telephone contact between you and DWP between your first and your most recent WCA?

(Please select only one)

·         There has been an improvement

·         It was not as good

·         There was no change – equally disinterested.

b)  Between your first and your last WCA, did you notice any changes to the written communications which DWP sent you?

(Please select only one)

·         There has been an improvement

·         It was not as good

·         There was no change – certainly not of any consequence.

c)  The ESA50 form has been amended; please can you tell us if you think:

(Please select only one)

·         There has been an improvement

·         It was not as good.  Changes to descriptors were completely unjustified and were simply intended to cut points.

·         There was no change

Please use this space to tell us anything that is relevant to communications during the WCA process

Frankly dreadful.  The DWP notification that my ESA had been stopped was slow coming and arrived AFTER I had obtained a copy of the ESA85, so I knew what was coming.  It effectively stopped my ESA retrospectively – i.e. 3 weeks before the date of the notification.

There was no phone call to explain the decision at any point and I had to chase DWP around to find out what was going on.  They admitted receiving but completely ignoring the detailed letter of complaint I had sent to Atos when making their decision.  It was only through pressing during these phone calls that I unearthed the “hypothetical wheelchair” deception used to assess mobility and the inconsistencies around it.  I was and still am staggered that this trick is deemed acceptable.

Question 6 (face to face assessment)

a) Was there a notable difference between your first and your most recent face to face assessment?

·         First was better – still not good, but better than the two that followed, primarily because it was a doctor not a nurse.

·         Last was better

·         There was no difference

Please use the space below us to tell us anything else that you think is relevant to the face to face assessment

For my last WCA, the HCP could not have been less interested.  She made not note of the information I had taken with me, had clearly not completed the file-work thoroughly and was not at all conversant with the consequences of my condition & treatment.

Through minimal research it became apparent that this was not her main source of income, which perfectly explained her overall approach and attitude.

She made no attempt to follow even the most basic instructions in the WCA handbook.

Question 7 (decision making)

a) Since your last WCA, did you notice a difference in the way in which the outcome of your WCA was communicated to you by a decision maker?

(Please select only one)

·         There has been an improvement

·         It was not as good.  Although the message was broadly the same, DWP staff were far more aggressive and dismissive in dealing with my challenges.

·         There was no change

b) If you provided additional evidence in support of your claim (e.g. from a GP, consultant or support worker), was this evidence taken fully into account by the decision maker?

(Please select only one)

·         Evidence was considered and it changed the original decision

·         Evidence was considered and it did not change the original decision

·         Evidence was supplied but not reconsidered.  She ignored it completely and did not even record that I had brought it with me.

·         Not applicable

Please use the space below us to tell us anything else that you think is relevant to the decision making process

See below.  You have to start by working out what the REAL decision points are and who is best qualified to make them.

There is not one single area where DWP claims to have made improvements that they can support with any hard evidence whatsoever – it is all just intuitively wishful thinking.

Question 8 (Organisations) – N/A

This section should only be completed if you are responding on behalf of an organisation. The call for evidence has been designed specifically with the experiences of the claimant in mind but the Department is aware that organisations may also want to contribute to the call for evidence. Please use this section to comment on the experiences that people you represent have been experiencing since the introduction of Professor Harrington’s recommendations. You are asked to describe each part of the process, using bullet points to summarise the individual parts of the process. Any further evidence should be given at question 11.

Communications

Face to face assessment

Decision Making

Fairness and Effectiveness

 

Question 9

Overall, how fair do you feel that the assessment was?

The latest was totally unfair as shown by a successful appeal, now three times over.  They did not even take the trouble to check my WCA case history and learn from previous mistakes.

Question 10

Overall, how effective do you feel that the process was?

Totally ineffective.  Setting aside whether or not the WCA is fit for purpose, it application and control is poor, which is why there are so many mistakes.  Everyone talks about right-first-time decisions, but nobody troubles to measure it – ridiculous.  HCPs don’t follow the handbook. Atos managers/auditors are unable/unwilling to see when this is the case.

Looking forwards

Question 11

What one thing (if any) would you change about the WCA to make the system better for people claiming ESA?

You have to look at a person’s ability to survive in employment and hold down a job, NOT just their ability to do random pieces of work.  All employers depend on staff reliability and this is precisely the thing that many disabled people struggle to guarantee.  The concept of “general work” is meaningless. Change the name WCA to J(ob)CA.

Please use the space below to give us your comments.

Question 12

Is there anything else, relevant to the WCA, that you would like to tell us about?

Please use the space below to give us your comments.

Much of this is simply good management practice.

·      If GPs haven’t provided quite the right perspective on capability to work, retrain/re-educate them so they do, don’t take it out of their hands altogether, if only on the grounds of cost.  What better place could there be to conduct my assessment than at my GP’s practice – he has EVERYTHING to hand – even a second opinion if he needs it.  10,000 practices, 40,000 GPs – you do the math – a handful of WCAs per week on average:  Barely noticeable in relation to workload.

·      DWP should at least be open and honest with claimants.  Their whole approach is born out of the belief that we are all benefit scroungers and are intent on fraudulently obtaining money.  They therefore have to employ a variety of underhand tricks and subterfuge to establish the ”truth” – or the truth as they would like it to be.  The hypothetical wheelchair scenario when assessing mobility is shameful.

The picture here appears in a DWP publication and says it all.  The document contains 8 images with 17 faces portrayed, which carefully ensure all races are represented.  Given the high correction cost, documents like this are always very diligently proof-read and checked in great detail prior to mass production.  Of the 17 faces, the one on the left here is the ONLY one with a sad expression.  It was not therefore an accident or oversight, but done this way for a reason.  There are only two possible interpretations of the message they are attempting to convey:

1.    All claimants are on the fiddle and this one knows they have just been found out

or,

2.    This claimant knows the assessment is wrong and they will now have their benefit stopped and will have to fight for a year to get it back.

DWP would hardly promote its own errors, so option 1 here is the logical interpretation

The fact that I occasionally visit a supermarket does NOT prove I can repeatedly walk 800m and the fact I can drive for 15 mins does NOT mean I can propel a wheelchair.  They suggest that there is scientific evidence to support both propositions, but this is a lie.

·      Why on earth does nobody measure the right-first-time rate when it is by a long way the most important performance measure?  What would you prefer – a wrong decision communicated sensitively, or a right decision communicated a bit abruptly?  It’s all about priorities!  The old cliché “if you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it” is true.

There are standard statistical techniques to measure the success of any discrimination process, most of which have a valuable place here with the WCA.  It is a long way from rocket science – just good management practice.

·      What is regarded as an acceptable error rate – 1 in 10? 1 in 100?  We need to know and agree what we are aiming for.  Until we do, we cannot be sure that current process is capable of delivering it and even if we do, we’ll never know and there is no point in continuing to seek something that is unattainable.

·      You cannot proactively manage anything if you have to wait 9 months to be sure your data is correct.  Quickly get the Tribunal queue down to see more clearly where the problems are and be in a position to act quickly and see the results of any changes quickly.

·      The Paralympics recognises that in many cases sports have to be modified or indeed created to allow disabled people give of their best.  What’s so different about the job market?  We must place the horse before the cart – be sure that suitable jobs are available first.

·      If DWP can legitimately countermand my GP’s recommendation it MUSTR accept full responsibility for my health and well-being thereafter, which includes the consequences of a wrong decision whatever they might be.  Authority without corresponding accountability is a well know recipe for disaster.

·      DWP’s standards of integrity can be demonstrated by its approach to the audio recording trial.  Never have I seen such a poorly managed project progresses under such obvious sufferance.  Clearly DWP doesn’t want it and has been doing its level best to scupper the idea since ‘Day 1’.  The present tactic it to deliberately suppress demand so that it can kick the idea out on the basis that there isn’t any and the whole thing is not cost effective.  Even Atos could see the reality, but let’s not forget that this need is a result of justifiable mistrust which needs to be eliminated NOT accommodated.

·      Where is the original risk analysis – the one that examined in detail the potential consequences of making wrong decisions?  There is not one – again shameful.  The ends DO NOT always justify the means and the level of collateral damage we have seen is simply not acceptable – people have died.  Imagine the outcry if the same cavalier approach was taken in the justice system – the huge downside risk is the very reason we do not have capital punishment – we do not say that killing the odd person wrongly is the price one has to pay . . . .

The best processes achieve consensus early on, so everyone has the same objective thereafter.  Being borne out of mistrust, the current WCA process is highly adversarial which inevitably generates conflict, misunderstandings, errors and cost.  It the HCP has done a fair and thorough job and can genuinely say that their recommendation is in my best interests, why can’t we discuss the result BEFORE I leave and sign it off?  Of course not as easy as it sounds, but worth thinking about. 

Any suggestion that it is not in my best interest raises a whole host of questions . . . . .

·      The confusion over quite who can & should do what between an Atos HCP & DWP DM in itself causes errors through confusion.  The DM decides if I am to receive ESA or not – on the surface purely an administrative decision.  But, it is a direct result of me being deemed fit for work or not, so who makes that decision?  It can’t be the DM as the DM has no medical training and the assessment is largely medically based.  It can’t be the HCP otherwise they are in reality determining my benefit entitlement.  So who?  The current attempt at job definitions fudges the issue and creates a DM role that is not really necessary if you have trust and confidence in the HCP – easier if they are public rather than private sector employed.  Sadly, in 2008 we through the baby out with the bathwater.

·      Outsourcing is hardly a new commercial concept, but DWP does not yet understand that whilst you can outsource the service itself, you cannot outsource or side-step the accountability for successful delivery.  It cannot even guarantee that at the time of a WCA the Atos HCP’s qualifications are wholly up to date, despite stating that this is an absolute prerequisite for approval.

There are many other side issues too numerous to list here.  Everything I have said is (unlike the equivalent DWP claim) genuinely evidence-based, largely through the use of FoI requests.  What DWP cannot say is often as revealing as its confessions.

More Grayling Duplicity - quality measurement

It is always worth reminding ourselves of the duplicity and double-standards within DWP. 

The Government demands from the organisations it says it consults evidence to back up issues they highlight as needing to be addressed.  Often, without this evidence the recommendations are ignored as being unsubstantiated and therefore purely speculative.  It is however in complete contrast quite amenable to deploying precisely the same tactic itself – making claims and stating intentions that sound laudable, but have no foundation whatsoever – as shown here.

Lots of impressive sounding words in these resoponses, but the fact remains that not only are there no accuracy targets (which there should be) there are no accuracy MEASURES, so Grayling’s “commitment” to improving accuracy means absolutely nothing as he will simply never be in a position to know one way or the other.  This is the perfect position for a politician as although none of his statements can be proved, nor can they be disproved, so he can pretty much make it up as he goes along.

There are two very basic questions that the Goverment continually chooses to ignore:

1)      What is the best level of first-time accuracy we can expect of the current WCA process?

2)      It that good enough?

Or the other way round:

1)      What level of accuracy do we demand of a WCA process?

2)      Can the current process ever achieve it?

If you doubt any of this, have a look at the responses to this FoI request

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

It is equally worrying that the enigmatic Professor Harrington has not latched on to this serious omission and not made an appropriate recommendation to resolve in either of his first two reviews.

Added 18/06/2012 in response to Anonymous comment:

I’m guilty here of committing the sin for which I often criticise Grayling et al in not being clear about my assumptions.  Mine here is that the appeals rigmarole gets it right eventually, so the answer to your question is kind of both rolled together.

I could not agree more with what you say and it is very common for DWP to rely on and quote evidence that at best is not what it seems and at worse does not exist at all.  If there is a conspiracy here, organised or not, the venerable Professor Harrington has allowed himself to become part of it, possibly without realising (giving him the benefit of the doubt is becoming more and more difficult).  Continually telling us to be patient without any indication of what to ultimately expect is a complete cop-out.

The appropriateness of the descriptors is not helped by the fact that there is no definition of “work” either in terms of content or the impact it has on lifestyle.  All employers need above all else reliability and this is the very first thing many conditions prevent – there might be a lot you can do, but only as long as you have total discretion over when you do it.  The WCA has two “variables” – the work itself as well as the individual and the current process only covers one of them.  Interestingly, the roots of Occupational Health (which contrary to one viewpoint is NOT a radically new branch of medicine) are more in adapting workplaces to ensure safety and generate comfort and productivity than assessing individuals in isolation.

Personally, I can accept that the line between people who could do something work-like and people who can’t do anything work-like has been allowed to slip too low and needs to be inched up a bit.  Like it or not and at least for the time being conventional work is needed to generate conventional prosperity and it all falls apart if there are more taking out than putting in.  I can also accept that the “test” is a bit tricky to design in such a way that true working can be effectively simulated, but it is perfectly possible to have a far better fit than there is now.

One of my main beefs is the dishonesty displayed by DWP, which is born out of the ‘benefit scrounger’ philosophy:  we are all cheats and do not want to work so the only way to get an accurate assessment is through deception and subterfuge.  All this does in reality is increase the initial error rate by introducing vague and inconsistent rules of thumb to translate surgery generated data into a meaningful and reliable assessment of capability.  As with everything else, these rules of thumb may sound reasonable & plausible but have absolutely no foundation, which may in other arenas be ok, but not when the consequences of error can be so devastating.  Risk analysis is another management tool that is often conspicuous by its absence here and elsewhere.

Your second paragraph is also spot on so we can add hypocrisy to the list of DWP failings.  It confuses the difference between “consultation” and “support” and tries to claim the latter when is has barely performed the former.  This is all part of the ‘evidence-based’ charade.   In March 2011, the descriptor relating to bending & kneeling was scrapped – not modified – totally removed.  DWP’s justification is that bending/kneeling is no longer a feature of the modern workplace, brought about by hugely effective anti-discrimination legislation.  You can ponder on this when you next visit a supermarket to find that the bottom two shelves are now empty and when you find only the top two drawers in your 4-drawer filing cabinet are now in use.  It was clearly a transparent ruse to cut points.  Even more dishonest is the selective introduction of the hypothetical wheelchair to assess mobility – I have never encountered something so outrageous in all my life!

Another wholesale change as you say is unlikely and the Government is so entrenched in ‘outsourcing’ it is hardly likely to dump Atos, but a lot could be achieved if approached from the right standpoint and with the right priorities, attitudes and compassion.  The true error rate looks to be about 10% - much too high given the potential consequences of an error, but equally not as horrendous as many would have us believe. 

The Greatest Indictment of DWP yet?

A fairly straightforward FoI request:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_risk_of_premature_death#incoming-278869

The fact that there have been some dire consequences of unnecessary WCAs and incorrect ESA decisions is bad enough in itself, but to say that it was never a consideration is worse and the fact that even now there is no interest is worse still.

Changing any process incurs a risk, so they cannot deny one existed however small it might have been perceived at the time and I cannot believe it did not cross anyone’s mind.  Clearly however not for long or as my Tory MP so compassionately put it, “you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs” – acceptable collateral damage it seems.

To my mind, the venerable Professor Harrington has a responsibility here and should have spotted this serious “oversight”.  At the very least he should now make it clear if he regards this situation as acceptable or not.  He is the only person I can think of that by stating the latter would have an almost instant impact.

 

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.

More WCA dishonesty - FoI confession from DWP

When assessing mobility within a WCA, Atos HCPs are allowed to recommend the use of a wheelchair to improve mobility (if they think it will do this) for someone who does not normally use one.  They can do this without any specific discussion with the claimant or their GP.  They are not however allowed to recommend treatment – make sense of this if you can, but as unbelievable as it is, it is true.  Decision Makers are allowed to do the same thing, without specifically declaring it to claimants – all the claimant is told is that for mobility, they have scored (say) zero points.

This methodology was introduced in March 2011, presumably with the approval of Professor Harrington and is dishonest to say the least, as the claimant is not made aware of this trick before, during or after their WCA.

Through appeals, the courts have seen the injustice and dangers of DWP’s approach and have issued guidance.  From this FoI request, it appears that DWP thinks it is outside of the law and can ignore the advice.

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

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.