Dear Claire,
Yes, It’s the Iain Duncan Smith show. Again!
Actually, taking one of your quotes from
yesterday:
I have to say that I profoundly disagree with
you (on this issue re: DWP). Your assertions are, I’m afraid, not backed up by
the facts.
I would just like to put a bit more meat on
the bone as to why your comments are “not backed up by the facts”.
We closed yesterday’s letter with this quote
from a benefits advisor, secretly filmed saying “The whole idea is
punishment, they’ve got to suffer.”
Managers at
Jobcentres were found to be putting pressure on their staff to deal harshly
with claimants. If staff did not sanction enough claims, they were subjected to
performance reviews and even lost pay.
Whistleblowing
former DWP employees like Angela Neville have spoken of the pressure they were
under to refute and block benefits’ claims.
“Staff were
subjected to a constant and aggressive pressure to meet and exceed targets,”
Neville told a newspaper last year. “Colleagues would leave team meetings
crying. Things were changing all the time. The pressure was incredible.
Advisers were actively encouraged to impose sanctions to contribute to the
points system that ranks Jobcentre offices. It was often for stupid reasons.
And it was happening all the time.”
Disallowing
someone’s benefits claim is the DWP’s kill figure. And it seems that,
increasingly, they don’t care how they get those numbers up. Many other ex-DWP
staff have spoken of the dirty tricks, loopholes and “by any means necessary”
culture that dominates the system.
At every turn, the
burgeoning culture of cruelty in the DWP is aided and abetted by the wider
culture outside it – a world where “benefit scroungers” are seen as some sort
of plague or curse, where people are urged to shop their neighbours if they
suspect they are on the fiddle. A world where small-minded clowns like Irritable
Duncan Smith think you should feel nothing less than rage if you see your
neighbour’s curtains are closed as you go to work.
“I got brownie
points for cruelty,” Neville said, before going on to say you could pretty much
pinpoint exactly when the system changed and things started becoming far more
vicious. That’s right – the moment the Coalition came into power.
Let’s say that
once more for effect: “The moment the Coalition came into power was the same
point at which the system changed and things started becoming far more
vicious”.
The cruelty and
viciousness of Cameron and Osborne, trickling hatefully down to Iain Duncan Smith,
then down to his subordinates, then down to the managers of the Jobcentres and,
finally, down to the frontline staff – staff who probably think themselves
lucky to have a job.
Staff who, if
things go just a little bit differently, if they don’t do their jobs properly
(i.e. cruelly), might well find themselves sitting across the desk from someone
like themselves, answering questions rather than asking them, praying they’ll
look into the eyes of the person who has replaced them and find something they know
has been missing for a long time; Something that is patently missing from any
member of the Coalition cabinet: Humanity.
I’m going to finish tonight’s letter with an
interview with a Jobcentre advisor.
Interview
1 – April 2014
Jobcentre
Adviser: Sanctions are “generating the impression that unemployment
is falling.”
How long have you worked in the Job Centre?
“I don’t wish to
be specific about the actual length of time I’ve worked for the DWP (Department
for Work & Pensions) in JCP (Job Centre Plus) but it is less than 10
years.”
What are your thoughts and experiences of welfare reforms and rules since
the coalition came to power? How have they changed? What are they aimed
towards? What have been the effects on the people you serve?
“The easiest
response to this is to say that JCP services have gotten worse. As an example,
we used to have support schemes in place for jobseekers who took up
employment and who would have to wait until they were paid. Most jobs now are
paid monthly and the return to work credit was one way of supporting people who
were moving from benefit into employment.
“Another example
is the loss of the crisis loan (CL) service. This was part of the “social fund”
and was a very useful service for both jobseekers and surprisingly, us. Let me
explain, if there was ever a problem with a jobseeker’s claim, through
maladministration or another error, the CL service was a really good way for
jobseekers to be able to receive at least a partial payment of their benefit.
Now, if a payment is delayed or a jobseeker is without money there is the short
term benefit advance or they can make an application to the hardship fund. More
hoops to jump through and more levels of bureaucracy to climb.
“The most
significant change has obviously been the changes to DMA or decision making and
appeals – the sanctions. These reforms were introduced in Autumn 2012 and have
been quite significant. They are mainly targeted at jobseekers. The main
components, or what jobseekers are mainly sanctioned for, are Actively Seeking
Employment and Refusing Employment.
“There has been a
significant increase in jobseekers being sanctioned and I must say now,
here, that some jobseekers need sanctioning as they have the attitude that
they should be paid benefits for doing nothing. I am not going to give an
opinion one way or the other about this only to say, what do you do with a
group of people who will not look for a job? Do you say ‘it’s okay, you don’t
have to as you are a special case,” but how do you justify this to the
jobseekers who are genuinely looking for a job and meeting the conditions for
benefit? There are lots of justifiable critics of sanctions, but I have yet to
see any alternative suggestions to them.”
Have you ever experienced any use of target culture for sanctioning? If
not, what are you told about sanctioning? If yes, how are you told to sanction
and by who?
“At all staff
meetings DMA is always mentioned. DMA is basically the sanction process. The
two main reasons a claim has a sanction imposed are Actively Seeking Employment
(ASE) and Refusing Employment (RE) A typical scenario could be this: a customer
would typically have an ASE sanction imposed if they hadn’t shown enough
evidence of jobseeking activity.”
“Numbers of
actively seeking referrals to a decision maker or the number of refusing
employment referrals are always mentioned at team meetings. We are also
constantly being told that our off flow targets are going through the
roof. I’m sure senior managers think we are incapable of reading blogs and
social media output thinking we can’t make the connection that it is DMA
which is generating the impression that unemployment is falling and employment
is rising. Anyone sanctioned still has to attend to sign as they have to
sign for their National Insurance contributions.”
What have been your experiences of the success/failure of the Work
Programme?
“Very limited
really due to the job I currently do. I can say with confidence that it is true
the providers have been “parking” harder to help jobseekers. When the claimants
were returning to the Jobcentre after the 2 year participation on the Work
Programme, there was a very mixed set of experiences. Some jobseekers had multiple
meetings with the advisors employed by the providers, some of them were
reporting hardly having any contact with them. Also, some customers were coming
back to the Jobcentre without even a CV. You have to ask yourself how they had
been looking for work.”
What one policy would you change to help jobseekers?
“I would give each
jobseeker a guaranteed maximum number of hours help from a member of the
Jobcentre on a 1-2-1 basis. Give a more personal service. As it is there is a
one size fits all approach and it does not work for everyone.”
That’s all for
today. There’ll be more interviews tomorrow, maybe on Wednesday as well.
I’ll just leave
you with some bits, repeated from above. This in light of the fact that IBS,
sorry IDS, repeatedly stated that there were no such things as sanction
targets. He lied, repeatedly. He lies as a matter of routine. He has
perpetuated so many lies that I believe he is now unable to recognise whether
what he’s saying is true or not.
“Staff were subjected to a constant and aggressive
pressure to meet and exceed targets,”
“Colleagues would
leave team meetings crying. Things were changing all the time. The pressure was
incredible.”
“Advisers were
actively encouraged to impose sanctions to contribute to the points system that
ranks Jobcentre offices. It was often for stupid reasons. And it was happening
all the time.”
Can you sleep
knowing you’re part of a political party that has visited this chaos and
cruelty on the most vulnerable?
I couldn’t.
Kind regards
Polly
No comments:
Post a Comment