Rich, famous, jobless, and not as bad as I expected
By Will Horwitz | March 10, 2010
Rich, famous, and jobless sounded awful – the worst kind of them-vs-us portrayal of poverty. When we were approached last year by the production company, asking if we’d help find unemployed people to feature, we turned them down. But the programme, shown over the last two days, has actually been quite impressive in illustrating some of the issues we come across every day.
In the first show the four ‘celebs’ (let’s be honest, we’d only ever heard of Larry Lamb), were given 4 days of Jobseekers Allowance (about £35), and told to find a job. In an incredibly artificial situation – followed by a camera and with only 4 days to work – they still learnt some important lessons. Not least the cruelty of the way wages are deducted from benefits, leaving people working for what seems like nothing. Neither of the two who found work were very keen to give back their ‘benefits’. They also realised quickly the difficulty of living on £65 a week, and the seemingly-small but almost insurmountable barriers that such low income presents – not being able to afford the bus fare to the interview, for example.
In last night’s show, they were packed off to various areas of the country to spend a few days living with people who were unemployed for a variety of reasons. It threw up some incongruous moments – Larry Lamb as marriage counsellor particularly stuck in my mind – but also some instructive lessons. The biggest of which is that each unemployed person, in their different ways, seemed to benefit hugely from a bit of personal attention from someone who cared. It wasn’t something they were getting at the Jobcentre.
The middle class elbows of one ‘celeb’ managed to get her host some work experience in a zoo (although where that’s leading is another matter). The dangerously severe approach of an Irish landscape gardener towards his hosts – a couple with 5 children living on benefits – betrayed his cringing lack of understanding of the barriers many people face, but even they seemed genuinely moved by his austere concern. And when Noel Gallagher’s ex-wife accompanied ex-offender Nick to the Jobcentre, she admitted their hostile approach towards him had almost turned her violent. No wonder Nick was struggling to find work, when that’s the kind of support he was getting.
At Community Links we have talked many times before about the importance of building meaningful relationships with individuals to really achieve change. These programmes illustrated well the two main problems with the benefits system. Its perverse financial disincentives to work in many situations, and the lack of personal support it provides to individuals for whom that could make all the difference. If these programmes have gone some way towards making that more obvious to the public, that can only be a good thing.
One point of concern – the way they seemed to leave the unemployed people they featured. The farewells were presented as emotional and final. I sincerely hope the television company wasn’t heartless enough to severely disrupt people’s lives for four days and then leave them high and dry.
Topics: Attitudes, Benefits, Informal Economy, Welfare | No Comments »
More support for increasing the Earnings Disregard
By Maeve McGoldrick | March 5, 2010
Last last year we launched a campaign for government to increase the £5 earnings cap for people moving off benefits into work. It means that people getting part-time jobs as a first step back into work often end up worse off than had they stayed on benefits – a huge barrier to finding work, say the jobseekers we support every day.
Our campaign was backed by a huge number of grassroots charities working with unemployed people, as well as big names like Oxfam and the TUC. And it was nice to add another name to the list of people calling for the same this week, when Policy Exchange released a report calling for the earnings disregard to be raised to £92 (more generous than our £50 ask, but we won’t quibble about that).
Since we launched the campaign, government announced a ‘better off in work credit’ ensuring that someone taking a job over 16 hours a week is at least £40 better off than had they stayed on benefits (even though DWP’s own analysis of the pilot project concluded it wasn’t very successful). Crucially however, this doesn’t hold for people working less than 16 hours a week.
Meanwhile we have met with Jim Knight MP, Minister for Welfare Reform, who expressed an interest in the idea of increasing earnings disregards, and asked us and a coalition member OSW to put together a proposal for raising the Earnings disregard to £50 for people on Jobseekers Allowance. We looked at what the qualifying period should be: 6 months, 9 months or 12 months? And if there should be a time limit on this. Aware that there is great resistance in the Treasury it is unlikely that we will get an increase for all Jobseekers Claimants immediately, however by asking for it for the most vulnerable people – those further away from the labour market – we hope that it will be a gradual process to changing the rules around a disregard that has not changed in over twenty years! We really welcome Policy Exchange’s report as it raises the debate on the need for change, however, if we get it then the devil will be in the detail.
Topics: Benefits, Informal Economy, Welfare, Working age poverty | No Comments »
Building relationships is the key to tackling poverty, in London and elsewhere
By Will Horwitz | March 3, 2010
The Evening Standard is running a powerful series of reports on poverty in London this week. They rightly identify some of the failures in government policy, but they’ve missed one of the most important ingredients in achieving change – building respectful relationships between individuals and communities.
There are some poignant stories of individuals – 18 year old Vincent who has applied for 32 jobs, would love to go to university, but can’t afford the £19 for a UCAS application form. 21 year old Jaydine, who has had an incredibly difficult start to life, movingly describes how her 11-month old baby “has taught me not to give up.”
At Community Links we know a lot of people with similar experiences to Vincent and Jardine, and we’ve spent 30 years supporting them. And the key to our success? Building relationships – treating people as individuals not problems, as people not targets.
Take our employment project, which helps people like Vincent into work. Despite running out of two slightly shabby offices in Newham and Tower Hamlets, we get more of our people into work than any other provider in London. We invest in people before furniture – our advisors really get to know every person, finding out what jobs they want to do, and supporting them to overcome problems. And then we get to know all the local employers, finding the right job for the right person.
Or look at our Ofsted registered school, for young people excluded from mainstream education. Youth workers, many of them who had difficulties at school themselves, get to know every young person, finding out what each individual needs and doing their best to support them.
And the main thing we’ve had constantly reinforced over all these years is that people in Newham, as in London, are and always have been hopeful, resilient, ambitious, generous, and honest. London might be a city divided by wealth, but not by the qualities that people possess.
Topics: Child Poverty, Council on Social Action | No Comments »
Applying for JSA online – would it work?
By Will Horwitz | March 3, 2010
Matthew Taylor at the RSA has proposed an incentive (£30 online shopping voucher) to encourage people to claim for Jobseekers Allowance online. In many ways it seems sensible for many of those on JSA who are happy on the internet. However, our practical experience working with unemployed people suggests there will be a substantial number for whom it just isn’t appropriate, and should not be used as a substitute for the good-quality individual support that can really make a difference to people’s lives.
A couple of years ago we discovered that 70% of forms submitted to our local Jobcentre were being filled in wrongly and rejected. It took up a lot of staff time and meant delays of 6-8 weeks before people started receiving their benefits. People were struggling to fill in the forms correctly because they spoke English as a second language, or struggled with literacy. A simple solution – installing volunteers in the Jobcentre to help people fill in the forms – reduced the rejection rate from 70% to 1%, and waiting times from 8 weeks to 3 days. We calculated it saved over a year of staff time, and the Jobcentre became one of the best performing in the country.
You’d have to be careful that an online system didn’t end up costing more, in the extra staff time needed to chase up incorrectly submitted forms. Certainly have it for those who are comfortable with it, but don’t forget about all those for whom it’s just not appropriate.
Topics: Benefits, Welfare | 1 Comment »
Over to you – what are the most important issues around working age poverty?
By Will Horwitz | February 24, 2010
Did you know that of the seven million people deemed ‘economically inactive’ in the UK, two million would like to work? Or that last year 22% of women were in jobs earning less than £7 an hour? Or that many people moving off benefits into work end up no better off?
There are all sorts of reasons why people of working age end up living in poverty. Community Links and our partner Church Action on Poverty have won funding from the DWP for a project to uncover, raise awareness of, and begin to tackle, some of these issues. It’s part of the European Year Against Poverty.
At Community Links we’ve always believed that people who experience a problem understand it best, so we’re going to spend the next few months asking people experiencing poverty what needs to change. Once we’ve agreed on the most important issues, both perceptions that need challenging and policies that need changing, we’ll set about doing just that.
And we’d like to hear what you think.
Topics: Working age poverty | No Comments »
“Your plans are too ambitious for a lone parent”
By Guest | February 23, 2010
On the day Gingerbread launch their Lose the Labels campaign, Zoe Hannam tells us about the reality of being a single parent. Zoe has set up Maisonentersurprises, supporting people to set up their own small businesses.
I am a white middle class woman in my forties with two children, I have been rebuilding my life after a divorce 4 years ago.
The three of us form a family unit. I do not label nor think of myself as a lone parent – I am an entrepreneur carving a career for myself in order to provide for mine and my children’s future, and hopefully create opportunities for other lone parents
I had never experienced discrimination before, but over the past 5 years making the transition from a self-sufficient traditional family unit to a ‘lone parent on benefits’ has presented me with many barriers and traps. I have overcome these obstacles but my children and I suffer the consequences – from debt to lost homes.
I was once told that ‘my plans were too ambitious for a lone parent.’ My immediate response ‘why?!’
We are all unique and individual in our own right, yet we give up our identity and ambition to fit society’s definition of single parents. In my opinion this could have a major impact on our children, who miss out on opportunities because their mum was ‘only fit for certain jobs, as a lone parent.’
Topics: Attitudes | No Comments »
New campaign tackles stigma against single parents
By Guest | February 23, 2010
Kate Bell is Director of Policy at Gingerbread, whose Lose the Labels campaign launches today.
Community Links hosted a great debate here a few weeks back about the portrayal of people on low incomes in the media. With half of single parents living below the poverty line, they often end up on the sharp end of negative coverage. We think there’s an additional stigma though that goes with single parenthood – one that, although it’s changed, hasn’t gone away since Gingerbread launched back in 1918 as the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child.
Topics: Attitudes | 1 Comment »
Should Parliament move to east London?
By Maeve McGoldrick | February 12, 2010
MPs have put forward a suggestion that Parliament should move its premises to east London’s ExCel centre. This is just a few minutes away from our base in Canning Town so we asked our staff what they thought, 80% of our staff live locally or are ex-service users.
Here’s what they said:
‘Not sure why ExCel would be considered a location more in touch with real life. It is in many ways more isolated than Westminster.’
‘I think that’s a great idea, especially as Newham, even though the host borough for the Olympics is still one of the poorest boroughs, and the politicians would get a better insight to the area and its problems.’
‘I would strongly disagree due to the strain on local roads, facilities etc. Also, with the constant threat of terrorism I do not like the idea of such high profile figures at the end of my road.’
‘I think it’s a great idea for Parliament to be located in the heart of East London, especially with a backdrop of the recent tarnished media image of Westminster politics & expenses scandals over the last year. The areas of regeneration immediately surrounding the ExCel Centre, such as Canning Town and Newham in general would provide a daily reminder, and accurate snapshot of the array of challenges facing people today. Westminster Palace can be seen to be a location that can often be seen to be its own detached and removed world. In addition there could be marked cost reduction benefits to the tax payer also, and potential to make such a site a sustainable one, perhaps helping to restore some faith in the public that politics and voting is a system one should try to engage with in order to help address society’s problems.’
‘My experience of the Excel centre is that it is a place full of ’suits’ on dubious expenses!!!!!!’
‘I really don’t want them in east London. We already have enough agro when the biannual DSEI exhibition is held at the Excel. Then we will have the massive inconvenience of “heightened security” from about April 2011 until the end of the games. We have permanent armed cops in Royal Docks because of the airport!’
I personally think instead of the Excel centre perhaps some of them should move in with us to see how the real day to day to life is like, see what we have to put up with, I bet half of them would be scared to go out after 6pm. Most of them don’t know what real life is like, with all their pampering up at Whitehall.
There we go again, they want the accommodation in the Olympic village and to be in for 2012……..
“Once the Olympic athletes have left the Village how about turning it into dormitory accommodation for MPs right next to a new Parliament – that way nobody would need to apply for a second home allowance and the security and official transport could all be pooled making a financial saving.”
Apart from the obvious benefit, the creation of a local food outlet other that one long standing bakery to swarm to for lunch, we would have MPs at our doorstep. Would local east London people get more involved in governmental affairs as a result? Would the cynicism and lack of trust that has increased since the MP expenses scandal in the summer gradually disappear (that is why MPs are suggesting this surely?!), probably not.
The Canary Wharf development is a stones throw from Canning Town and has had very little impact on local residents in all the years that is has been there. When asked what impact Canary Wharf has had, our community development team replied that ‘most locals say it is for rich people, there is a stigma to it as it cost millions and it has no place for them, the shops are lovely but far too expensive so its just somewhere some feel them can go for a nice wander around’
If government is trying to find ways to reconnect with the public and be in touch with real life issues to win back that trust they have completely lost then it will take more than packing up and moving location. That is a mis-diagnosis of the problem. We have had political apathy for a long time; in the 2005 election there was an overall voting turnout of 61.4% in the UK, a slight rise in an overall declining trend from previous decades. Last summer’s revelations fed ammunition to turn that apathy to resentment. Parliament needs to changes its practices; get out, listen and take action, not relocate to what is considered less attractive dwellings and adopt exactly the same customs as before. The geography isn’t the problem; it’s the lack of listening to real people. Not just listening for the sake of an election but to take action and do something about it. That will win the hearts and minds of local people and make it worthwhile to plan a trip over to Westminster.
Topics: Communication, Community Engagement, Regeneration | No Comments »
Welfare Commission: humanising decision making and appeals in the benefits system
By Maeve McGoldrick | February 9, 2010
Today the Department for Work and Pensions Select Committee publishes its report on decision making and appeals in the benefits system, the headline press coverage reports that overpayments due to error had soared from £400 million in 2000, while overpayments due to fraud and mistakes by claimants dropped. As part of the solution the select Committee is calling for a Welfare Commission to be set up to simplify the benefits system. We welcome this news and believe that any redesign should place a one-to-one service to claimants at its heart; ensuring efficient and humanised service delivery. We have a few specific recommendations for the Commission to consider
- Reduce the complexity of claim forms,
- Make crisis loans more accessible and immediate,
- Addresses the inconsistency of the earnings disregard across all benefits to ensure accidental fraud is not committed resulting in benefits being automatically stopped.
Last year the Community Links advice services were used by a total of 12,400 local people. At our drop-in advice sessions 37.8% were benefits related cases, of which 73% were a result of DWP error. Our advice services continue to be in high demand, services cost several hundred thousand pounds per year – funded by local authorities and the Legal Services Commission. This cost to the tax payer could be dramatically reduced by the simplification of the benefits system and increased competency with the administration process.
Research by AdviceUK in Nottingham reveals that 42% of the demand at advice agencies in the city is ‘failure demand’ – demand caused by failures in the system of public administration. Reducing this would save significant amounts of money and free up advisors to carry out valuable work with clients, supporting them to resolve their long-term problems.
Many of our clients have used our advice services in the past; some have had their benefits mistakenly stopped on more than one occasion. The knock-on effects are increased borrowing and debt, eviction problems and in many cases people falling into the informal economy, working cash-in-hand to cover costs as a last resort. Debt related advice has doubled, and our advisers believe this is in part due to the recession-related rise in claimant figures, and benefits being stopped or delayed as people struggle to find formal work.
Our campaign, Need NOT Greed has been calling for a simplified benefits system. A system which is easier to navigate could help prevent the rise of informal economic activity caused by people struggling to survive poverty. At the launch of the Need NOT Greed campaign in February 2009 Terry Rooney, chair of the DWP select committee said
“There is a treadmill of being in the informal economy out of Need NOT Greed. The striking thing is that the national benefits system is geared up to serve millions, but everybody is an individual – it’s how you can recognise everyone’s needs and requirements. You need a totalitarian system and there are enormous challenges – but ones that need to be faced and met.”
A local campaigner and user of our advice services said
“the system wears you down, I am constantly just surviving. Every time you pick yourself up and try to move forward the system lets you down again. It’s the same old problems for everyone and none of us round here trust it anymore. How can something you don’t trust be able to help you?”
Rising unemployment is increasing demand for welfare benefits at a time when public funding is under severe pressure. Spending time building productive relationships with people using services is time well spent; not an extravagance. These relationships are instrumental to efficient delivery of public services. We hope that a Welfare Commission is established as it is evident that change is necessary – but change must put the needs of the service user at the heart of the system.
Topics: Benefits, Communication, Informal Economy, News, Regeneration, Research, Welfare, debt, employment | 2 Comments »
£16bn of benefits go unclaimed every year
By Maeve McGoldrick | February 3, 2010
Community links is one of the 27 charities challenging government today over the £16bn in benefits that go unclaimed every year. The campaign, coordinated by Citizens Advice, wants government to set targets to improve the take-up of means-tested benefits, ensuring that money earmarked for some of the most vulnerable people actually reaches them.
It’s an issue we’ve been aware of for some time. About 12,000 people visit Community Links’ advice service every year for support with benefits, housing and debt. Last year we helped them claim over £1.3m in benefits they were entitled to but not receiving.
Last year’s Benefit Take-up Task Force, which we sat on, looked at the issue and some progress was made as a result. Targets for housing benefit take up have now been included in the Audit Commission’s Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE) for local authorities, and there is support from the Treasury to push this.
However the difficulty lies in the fact that, as always government departments do not work together very well. As different departments issue different benefits – HMRC for Working Tax Credits, DWP for out of work benefits, local authorities for housing benefit – it makes it very difficult to create and impose targets for benefit take up as a whole. There is a concern that targets will deter agencies, acting as a barrier to encouraging them to do more. This complexity is also one reason why people don’t access them in the first place.
Nevertheless it is clear something must be done. Citizens Advice highlight that four out of five low paid workers without children (1.2bn households) miss out on tax credits worth at least £38 per week, a total of £1.9 billion, and as many as half of working households entitled to housing benefit do not claim it. There’s a similar story with council tax benefit, pension credit, and child tax credit.
Access to these extra benefits could take households above the point of desperate struggle, into a situation where they’re able to look forward and plan for the future. There are many reasons why people don’t claim everything they’re entitled to – we frequently meet people who just don’t know about them, people who think they could get them but are left baffled by the complexity of the system, and those who want to but don’t know how.
Targets will ensure that local authorities, job centres, and other offices make active efforts to ensure people access all their benefits – better advertising, more support, more accessible information. Therefore we fully support Citizens Advice on this benefits take-up campaign.
Topics: Benefits, Child Poverty | 1 Comment »
