+ Harrington Mark II – CAN’T WORK or WILL WORK
So the second Harrington Report is published – and the government accept it in full. What can we say?
Below is the executive summary.
It is all over in the first sentence
1. The Work Capability Assessment (WCA) was designed to assess an individual’s eligibility for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). It aims to distinguish between those people who could work; those people who could work at some point with the right support; and those people who cannot work and, therefore, need State support.
Those three groups are JSA – ESA WRAG – ESA Support Group
The problem lies in the last two ESA groups. People with long term disability do not fall in to these two groups. No allocation can fix this.
Young people with learning disability are sadly being allocated to the Support Group which is safe but a life sentence of doing nothing.
On the other hand while allocation to the WRAG is supposed to mean those people who could work at some point with the right support - people tell us that, as soon as they get allocated to the WRAG, they feel threatened with sanctions and time limits – and it is assumed they WILL work.
CAN’T WORK or WILL WORK – these two options aren’t fair. People with long term disability don’t fall neatly in to these two groups. However much Harrington polishes up the test – the groups aren’t fit for purpose.
Executive Summary
1. The Work Capability Assessment (WCA) was designed to assess an individual’s eligibility for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). It aims to distinguish between those people who could work; those people who could work at some point with the right support; and those people who cannot work and, therefore, need State support.
2. The first Independent Review, published in November 2010, found that the WCA was the right concept for achieving this aim but that it could be impersonal and mechanistic and that there was a lack of transparency in the process with poor communication between the various parties. This led to poor decision making and a high rate of appeals, many of which were successful.
3. A series of recommendations designed to improve the fairness and effectiveness of the WCA were proposed and were immediately accepted by the Government.
Implementation of year one recommendations
4. I am pleased to say that all the year one recommendations have been, or are being, implemented. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) moved swiftly to make the recommendations Departmental policy and DWP Operations (From October 2011 the formal agency status of Jobcentre Plus ceased to exist. For clarity and consistency throughout this document the work of Jobcentre Plus before October 2011 and anything after then are both referred to as DWP Operations. ) and Atos Healthcare have enacted these policy changes.
5. The WCA has, in my view, noticeably changed for the better. However there is still further to go. Some of the improvements from my first Review have not reached all parts of DWP Operations.
6. To those who feel nothing has happened, I say: be patient. It is happening. The process is not yet perfect, but it is improving and will continue to do so over the course of the five Independent Reviews.
Key findings and themes from this Review
7. Whilst the year one Review, and associated recommendations, considered the WCA process and how that could be improved, the year two Review has focussed on a number of more specific issues which the first Review did not have time to consider in detail and which will support the recommendations from year one.
8. In this Review I propose a number of more detailed recommendations to improve further the process of the WCA and the criteria used to determine eligibility for ESA.
9. This Review sets out a series of recommendations which complement – and build on – the recommendations from the year one Review. They aim to improve the fairness and effectiveness of the assessment by:
Better communications and sharing of information between all parts of the system This will mean that everyone involved knows their roles and responsibilities and that the purpose of the WCA and the reasons for decisions are better understood. This is particularly the case between Decision Makers and Personal Advisers within DWP Operations so that reasons for reaching a decision and what that decision actually means are clear. Although there is no clear evidence that ‘employability’ should feature in the WCA, Decision Makers and the Work Programme providers should liaise more closely so that the latter are better able to help people back into work. Whilst the First-tier Tribunal President considers it to be outside the remit of the Review, better communication between the First-tier Tribunal and Decision Makers so that reasons for upheld appeals are clear would also considerably add to the fairness and effectiveness of WCA process.
Increasing and improving the transparency of the assessment DWP and Atos need to engage with representative groups and their clinical advisers to ensure that Decision Maker and healthcare professional guidance used during the WCA process is up-to-date and clinically sound; and the regular publication of Atos data will ensure consistency and that standards are not allowed to slip.
Ensuring quality decisions are made Regular audit of Decision Maker’s performance is needed to ensure they are making consistent, robust and evidence-based decisions and that – as newly empowered Decision Makers – they are accountable for their decisions.
Monitoring the impact of recommendations from the Independent Reviews This will help ensure, and provide evidence, that the changes are having the desired impact. This could be achieved by collecting indices for change on the rate and amount of progress made; and carrying out research into what happens to people who are placed in each group over time.
Further decisions need to be made on the proposals for new mental, intellectual and cognitive descriptors once further research has compared the proposed descriptors with the current ones. I hope that it will be possible to consider similar research for the recently submitted proposals for refining the fluctuating conditions descriptors, or for them to join this process.
Costs and benefits
10. I recognise that, if adopted, these recommendations will have a cost implication attached to them.
11. However, as with the year one recommendations, seen in the wider context the proposed changes are likely to be cost saving or cost neutral in the medium- to long-term by ensuring that decisions are right first time and by ensuring that all parties understand why a particular decision has been reached and its implications.
Did anyone think that there would be some change course from Harrington?
Its not fit for purpose
If employability isn’t taken into account and employers have no reason to take on disabled people in the current climate even those who all they need is a ramp and a lift will only be taken on in places that already have them. Those who need ongoing support like people with Aspergers Syndrome won’t stand a chance and yet they will be punished because the government hasn’t provided them with a chance to work that allows them to avoid the penalty and because they need support employers won’t want to provide as it cost money as they can just employ someone without a disability instead. Disabled people will have to try to hide their disability to get a job and hope they can manage to do it without support and risk being sacked because they can’t. What happens to any children they have when the inevitable happens and they get sacked because they need support and were forced to hide their disability? Its not just the disabled person themselves they are condeming but their dependents too.
I didn’t think ther was going to be any change to be honest. For those with disabilities it is a shame that thei are been put with the wrong people.