Response from Citizens Advice Cymru to the Welsh Affairs Committee Inquiry: the Work Programme in Wales December 2012

_______________________________

1

Summary of recommendations Poor administration of sanctions is a main area of concern for the Citizens Advice Cymru service and we recommend:

Improved administration to ensure that sanctions do not arise because of, for example, failure to record sickness or inability to attend where this has been notified.

Robust safeguards to protect claimants from inappropriate sanction

must be put in place. When drawing up the claimant commitment and considering sanctions, guidance must ensure that Jobcentre Plus advisers consider:

whether there is any long-term health condition or impairment for

which reasonable adjustments need to be made with clients permission a summary of claimants health record to

be checked by Jobcentre Plus prior to claimant commitment being drawn up or sanctions being imposed (see further information under General welfare reform/health heading below)

whether there is suitable childcare available for the claimant’s children

1. Introduction 1.1 Citizens Advice Cymru welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to

this inquiry. In the 12 months to September 2012 Citizens Advice Bureaux in Wales saw 153,482 clients and helped with 458,513 issues. Benefits/tax credits and debt are the two biggest areas of advice and account for just over 75% of issues advised on.

1.2 Between October 2011 and September 2012 Citizens Advice Bureaux in

Wales have responded to 1,607 employment enquiries of which 118 were specifically about schemes for the unemployed representing a 51% annual change comparing the last 4 quarters with the previous 4 quarters.

1.3 Groups at risk of poverty are over-represented among Citizens Advice

Bureaux clients in Wales1:

44.5% of clients are disabled or have a long term health problem 16.3% identify as permanently disabled 15.8% are lone parents with dependent children 1% are either homeless or living in hostels

1.4 The following qualitative evidence is for the most taken from bureaux

across Wales. However, we have also included some pertinent evidence

1 For the period to September 2012

_______________________________

2

submitted from a small selection of partners including Swansea Social Services, Swansea Community Mental Health, and a small selection from our Bureaux in England.

1.5 Whilst our case recording system does not specifically provide data for the number of CAB clients seeking advice in relation to a problem with the Work Programme itself, we have been able to extract some pertinent evidence and case studies which we submit are illustrative of the core issues that our clients have with the Work Programme and other related issues.

1.6 Our main findings demonstrate that there are issues in regard to the

administration of Work Programme related sanctions. Therefore, this will contribute to the larger part of this submission.

1.7 Specifically, evidence demonstrates issues with regard to the

administration and application of the sanctions regime on claimants that suffer from mental ill health and/or learning disabilities.

1.8 Our evidence is in respect of clients who have had problems with their

engagement with or access to the Work Programme and we do not have evidence of the positive effects of the Programme in terms of its effectiveness in assisting people to return to work. However, there was a recent press release and you can view the latest figures from the DWP here2.

1.9 From an operational point of view, Conwy CAB has a role as a provider

of CAB telephone advice and casework to Working Links participants across Wales. This makes the CAB service a small part of Working Link’s supply chain and we are classed as a specialist provider. Some bureaux in England are in similar relationships with other Prime Contractors; this will briefly be discussed.

2. CAB service partnership with Working Links in Wales 2.1 In our agreements with Prime Contractors CAB specified the following:

CAB were not prepared to be on the receiving end of any mandated activity (i.e. participants should not be required to seek our advice) and

with all Primes, CAB retained the right to carry out any social policy work on the Work Programme, as and when required by our evidence.

2 27 November 2012 – Work Programme is getting people working/ available @

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2012/nov-2012/dwp128-12.shtml; and Work Programme statistics (general)available @ http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=wp

_______________________________

3

2.2 We are happy to report that in general, Conwy CAB confirms that this partnership works well. However, it has been noted that referrals from Working Links into the CAB service are quite low.

3. Problems administering Work Programme-related sanctions 3.1 Bureaux across Wales and the UK have seen similar patterns of issues

arising from Work Programme-related sanctions. In particular, there are a number of cases where claimants have not been advised that they can dispute a sanction decision within the given “five working day” window if they wish to claim ‘good cause’. Consequently, according to our evidence, sanctions are, in many cases, being applied inappropriately. Claimants are then left with very limited options. We have found that often these sanctions unnecessarily contribute towards a deterioration in the personal health and wellbeing of our clients.

3.2 Sanctions: The rules for sanctions have changed recently on 22nd

October 20123. They have been revised to be considerably more punitive with new ‘escalation’ rules punishing claimants with sanctions for up to three years if they repeatedly fail to participate4. However, as most of the evidence provided in this submission relates to issues arising prior to October, the older rules are worth a brief mention. Further, much of the old rules with regard to ‘good cause’ (now called ‘good reason’) remain intact and the DWP have said that they will apply ‘good reason’ in the same way as ‘good cause’ has historically been applied5. However, the new rules are less generous and do allow more discretion for the DWP in terms of interpreting ‘good reason’6. This will likely have the effect of working against claimants in terms of their options to claim ‘good reason’, although this has yet to be demonstrated in practice.

3.3 Good Cause: There are a number of things that must happen prior to the

DWP being able to impose a sanction. Firstly, a claimant must fail to participate in a mandated activity without ‘good cause’7. Secondly, a claimant must have previously been notified in writing what was expected of them and what would be the consequences should they fail to participate8. Further, a sanction may not be imposed within “five working days” of the notice of failure9; this gives the claimant a vital opportunity, within this five day window, to demonstrate whether or not they believe they have ‘good cause’ within this five day window prior to a

3 The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

4 As outlined in the Welfare Reform Act 2012, s46 (which replaces s19 of the Jobseekers Act

1995) 5 Explanatory Memorandum to The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Sanctions)(Amendment)

Regulations 2012, para 7.18 6 ibid

7 The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011,

reg 6 8 Ibid, reg 4

9 Ibid, (reg 7 (1))

_______________________________

4

sanction being applied10. Importantly, the DWP must take account of all the circumstances of the case, including and in particular a claimant’s physical or mental health or condition11.

4. Evidence: failure to allow for ‘Good cause’ - case studies 4.1 Below are some case studies, to serve as examples where sanctions are

being applied irrespective of whether claimants have had an opportunity to demonstrate ‘good cause’. These have been subdivided and sub-headed for ease of reference.

Case A – Sanctions/ failure to allow for ‘good cause’ (conflicting mandatory appointment) 45 year old male who sought advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau in the South Wales, has had his JSA stopped (joint JSA with partner) because he did not attend a Jobcentre Plus interview. He was actually attending a Work Programme job-search appointment at the time and could not be in two places at once. An adviser from the Work Programme provider had phoned the Jobcentre Plus office and testified for the client, but they refused to withdraw the sanction despite ‘good cause’.

Case B – Sanctions/ failure to account for ‘good cause’ (conflicting mandatory appointment) A man who sought advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau in South East Wales, had a Working Links interview on the same afternoon as he was due to sign on JSA. He said the Working Links advisor told him there was no problem and that he did not have to sign on that day. As a result of not attending the interview at the Jobcentre Pls office, he was sanctioned. He appealed this decision and made a complaint. He was then interviewed regarding his JSA. He was asked if he continued to look for work during the sanction period and he said that he had looked for work during the sanction period, but not to the usual extent as he had no money to keep his internet on at home and no money to travel the four miles to the nearest library to access the internet. As he admitted that he was not able to fully look for work, the Jobcentre Plus officer applied another sanction to his benefits. He states he has not had any money for the past eight weeks. The man has had an application for a crisis loan refused because he was sanctioned. He is surviving on food parcels and has had to borrow money from his family to pay fuel bills. His daughter used to

10

ibid 11

Ibid, (reg 7(3)

_______________________________

5

stay with him from time to time but this has had to stop as he cannot feed her or keep her warm.

Case C – Sanctions/ failure to allow for ‘good cause’ (mental health) 48 year old male who sought advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau in South East Wales has been sanctioned for six months for failing to attend his Work Programme appointments. He was also refused hardship payments as he is not classified as being in a ‘vulnerable group’. He relies on his daughter to remind him of appointments and she has been trying to establish contact with him and has found this very difficult. This is why he failed to attend. Case D – Sanctions/ failure to allow for ‘good cause’ (mental health) 20 year old female who sought advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau in the South Wales, missed four appointments and the Jobcentre Plus office has now sanctioned her until January 2013. She suffers from periodic depression and memory problems and was previously on anti-depressants; she no longer takes them as she says she feels better without them. She does rely on her social services support worker to remind her of appointments but on this occasion they failed to support her. She could not apply for a crisis loan because she has been sanctioned and has no money whatsoever. She is also worried that she will lose her accommodation as a result of these sanctions. Case E – Sanctions/ failure to allowt for ‘good cause’ (mental health) 47 year old man who sought advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau in South West Wales, has been in receipt of JSA for the last two years. He suffers from anxiety and depression but has not visited the GP about this because he does not want to acknowledge it. He does not want to claim ESA because he wants to find work. His mental health problems have been particularly bad recently to the extent that he could not leave the house, and so he missed three Work Programme appointments. His JSA has now been stopped. He was not given any advice by the DWP on how he can appeal this decision, and so he missed the five day period in which to demonstrate ‘good cause’. He has no money and is currently living on food vouchers. Case F – Sanctions/ failure to allow for ‘good cause’ (learning disability) Claimant with learning disabilities was working under an ESF funded training programme and was then mandated into the Work Programme; he was forced to abandon the former course – even though he was doing well on the course as it was highly personalised.

_______________________________

6

He was then sent to a Job Club where he was asked to complete a CV. When he explained he didn't know what to do the adviser told him that he would have his benefits stopped. This young person is unable to read or write and was totally incapable of complying with the request.

Case G – Sanctions/ failure to allow for ‘good cause’ (illness) 47 year old female who sought advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau in South Wales, did not attend a Work Programme appointment in Cardiff because she was ill. She was also concerned for her daughter and did not want her daughter going home to an empty house. Her ESA was stopped for this reason. She now has no money to pay for bills or to purchase food for herself or for her daughter. Case H – Sanctions/ failure to allow for ‘good cause’ (bereavement) Ongoing case where a man who recently sought advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau in South East Wales, failed to turn up for WP mandated training. The reason he failed to attend was that a member of his family had died. He was sanctioned. When the Training Company discovered the reason for the no show and contacted the Jobcentre Plus office with a request to withdraw the sanction, the Jobcentre Plus office still declined to withdraw the sanction even though it was clear that the claimant had ‘good cause’. Case I - Sanctions/ debt and mental health deterioration A 22-year-old woman with mental health problems who sought advice from a CAB in Derbyshire in September 2012 had been sanctioned for six months in May, due to failures to attend Work Programme appointments. As a result, the client had no income and had been forced to move to live with her partner’s parents. She reported that she had now fully re-engaged with the Work Programme, and had tried repeatedly to contact Jobcentre Plus to try and get her JSA re-instated, to no avail. She was now heavily in debt and this was exacerbating her mental health problems. Case J – Sanctions/ excessive demands / mental health problems A 31-year-old woman with severe, long-term mental health problems who sought advice from a CAB in Cambridgeshire was in receipt of ESA and had been placed in the WRA Group. She was determined to return to work, an ambition supported by her doctors, and had recently found herself a part-time job. However, her Work Programme provider was requiring her to actively seek work and attend training appointments. The client and her doctors were concerned that the combined level of work and Work Programme

_______________________________

7

attendance was detrimental to her mental health, and that her (permitted) work should have priority. 12

5. Work Programme provider guidance - An opportunity missed? 5.1 Official DWP guidance actually advises Work Programme providers

(WPPs) not to ask claimants whether they have ‘good cause’ prior to referring them for a sanction:

“Do not ask the participant for a good cause reason to determine whether or not to raise a WP08. You have no option but to raise a doubt once the participant has failed to participate in a mandated activity, irrespective of whether or not they have offered an explanation afterwards. The LM DM will consider the reasons given and must make the good cause decision.”13

5.2 Although we understand that it may not be appropriate for WPPs to offer

advice on definitions of ‘good cause’, we are concerned that an opportunity is wasted to provide information on claimants’ rights with regard to their opportunity to demonstrate ‘good cause’ – particularly as the timescales for disputes on this basis are so narrow. Often, by the time a claimant seeks advice from an independent source (such as CAB) it may be well beyond the five day time limit for a ‘good cause’ defence, even when it is clear that in many cases they can indeed demonstrate ‘good cause’.

6. Limited financial safeguards once sanctioned 6.1 Further, according to our evidence, claimants are almost always

financially destitute after a sanction and have very few choices in terms of financial support. Once sanctioned, claimants will only have access to Crisis loan support if they are experiencing a ‘disaster’, defined as “a sudden calamitous event or great misfortune causing loss of, or damage to possessions or property”14. Claimants under sanctions are in some cases also very fearful of losing their residential security and often get into debt with, for example, council tax or fuel arrears, priority debts.

6.2 The main government source of help in these circumstances is Hardship

payments. Hardship is not clearly defined in the regulations. However, it is defined further in guidance as “severe suffering or privation”15. Nevertheless, although clients do have access to hardship payments in theory, as we have seen in practice, unless claimants are deemed

12

For further details about the service user experiences on the Work Programme across the UK, please refer to the ‘Submission by Citizens Advice to the Work & Pensions Committee inquiry’ (December 2012). 13

Work Programme Provider Guidance - Chapter 6 – Raising a compliance doubt, p1 14

The Social Fund Guide (October 2012) 15

DMG (JSA) Ch 35, para 35155

_______________________________

8

particularly ‘vulnerable’, they will not usually get hardship support and will be left to rely on charitable support instead – such as food vouchers. Further, most food parcel providers have a limit on how many parcels they can distribute to any one person within a given timeframe, so this support is very limited. For those that were already supplementing their housing benefit and rent out of their main JSA or ESA awards – the risks in terms of debt, homelessness and/ or deterioration in physical and mental health clearly are very real.

7. Evidence: Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) in South Wales 7.1 We also have reports that a Community Mental Health Team has noted

an increase in referrals for those needing mental health support due to Work Programme difficulties and stress.

7.2 Further, one Citizens Advice caseworker who runs a weekly drop-in

service at the local CMHT has stated that around 50% of her clients are on ESA and of those around 50% are in the Work-Related Activity Group (WRAG). Some of those in the WRAG are eligible for Work Programme referrals and mandated activity (depending on their ‘conditionality grouping’)16.

7.3 We have concerns that a significant proportion of those on ESA are in

the WRAG even though they have a serious mental health disorder, such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia and are at significant risk of self harm.

8. Conclusion 8.1 It is clear from the evidence that poor administration of sanctions is a

main area of concern for bureaux across both Wales and England. Significantly, sanctions for failure to participate in mandated activities are not always applied appropriately as claimants are not always made aware of the need to show ‘good cause’ within the relevant time scales – even when there is clearly a reasonable argument for a ‘good cause’ defence against a sanction. According to our findings, the DWP are applying sanctions inflexibly and are often not taking into consideration mitigating circumstances, such as conflicting mandated appointments, bereavement, mental or physical ill-health.

16

It is also worth noting that new regulations came into force on 3rd

December 2012 (The Employment and Support Allowance (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2012) which include a revised, tougher sanctions regime for ESA claimants in the Work Related Activity Group. For details on applying these changes to ESA claimants already under a sanction, please refer to: Work Programme Provider Guidance, Chapter 7 – From 3rd December 2012 - Re-compliance and Reviewing a Sanction

_______________________________

9

8.2 Moreover, we have presented evidence to suggest that there is also a causal link between the application of sanctions (often inappropriate) and deterioration in physical and mental health, even when (as is clear from a number of case studies) there are genuine efforts on the part of claimants to comply with directions and mandated activities. The DWP are in many cases applying inappropriate sanctions on the most vulnerable, such as those that suffer from mental ill health or learning disabilities. This group are also the least able to manage the conditionalities of the Work Programme (such as keeping appointments), or a crisis, without extensive support from family or statutory services.

8.3 The combined long term impact of sanctions, particularly those wrongly

applied on the most vulnerable, has a detrimental effect on claimants’ abilities to cope with their own personal health and well being. As has been demonstrated, claimants are increasingly excluded and in need of crisis support - which is in any case very limited. This has a profoundly negative impact on our clients. Further, there is often a prolonged and unnecessary pressure on local services and charitable support. In short, the evidence suggests that some vulnerable claimants are not receiving the necessary level of personalised, specialist support that they really need in order to move into sustainable employment.

9. Recommendations 9.1 Improved administration to ensure that sanctions do not arise because

of, for example, failure to record sickness or inability to attend where this has been notified.

9.2 Robust safeguards to protect claimants from inappropriate sanction must

be put in place. When drawing up the claimant commitment and considering sanctions, guidance must ensure that Jobcentre Plus advisers consider:

whether there is any long-term health condition or impairment for

which reasonable adjustments need to be made with clients permission a summary of claimants health record to

be checked by Jobcentre Plus prior to claimant commitment being drawn up or sanctions being imposed (see further information under General welfare reform/health heading below)

whether there is suitable childcare available for the claimant’s children