Community Links

Community Links blog

Archive for the ‘Welfare’ Category

Pre-election karaoke

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

Amid the din of election coverage, it’s nice to be reminded that most of the world is carrying on as normal – working, volunteering, even dancing. Today, for example, is Community Links’ annual pensioners’ tea dance and karaoke party, organised by a group of volunteers from one of our corporate supporters. The hubbub emanating from the hall, right in the middle of our office, is a nice if distracting reminder that the good society is being supported every day, and no doubt will continue whoever makes it in to government.

Something that might not make it through the election period, however, is our proposal for a Community Allowance, which has been sitting with DWP for months, and is in danger of disappearing completely. After the election, expect to hear much more about it, as we try and persuade whoever’s in government of its obvious merits.

Until then, however, it’s sobering to remember that for many of the pensioners downstairs, the people coming through our doors for advice, or the young people we support into work, the next few years are going to be pretty tough, irrespective of tomorrow’s result. The recession hits the people we work with hardest and longest, and it’ll take more than some karaoke to sort that out. Proposals like the Community Allowance, which rewards work that strengthens communities and supports people back into work, could be crucial.

DWP’s mixed messages on benefits

Friday, April 9th, 2010

Following on from our earlier post on benefit fraud, it’s worth noting an interesting debate on the subject in the Lords last week. In 2009 James Purnell’s Welfare Reform Bill was passed and in it was the controversial ‘one strike and you’re out’ amendment; section 24 of the new Act. After the first caution or administrative penalty, let alone conviction, a claimant will have their benefits stopped for a four week period. If this happens twice (two strikes) in a five year period their benefits will be stopped for thirteen weeks.

(more…)

Benefit fraud crackdowns drive people further into poverty

Friday, April 9th, 2010

It’s dispiriting to see the Conservatives today follow Labour’s lead in proposing even harsher sanctions for people accused of benefit fraud. As we’ve pointed out before, there are several problems with this increasingly punitive approach.

Firstly, from our experience giving advice to over 12,000 people each year in Newham, we know that almost all those defrauding the system do so out of need, not greed. They need a few hours work to tide them over – to pay a surprise bill, or replace the microwave. Declaring it to the Jobcentre would mean any earnings are deducted from benefits, leaving them with no extra money. Punishing these people is unfair, but also destructive – they need stepping stones to a job and higher income, not sanctions which push them further into poverty. The occasional extreme case of greed you read about in the papers does not reflect the lives of those coming through our doors.

Secondly, benefit fraud is not as big a problem as either party might have you believe. Less than one percent of benefit claimants commit fraud (56,000 out of 5.8m), and more money is wasted each year on error (around £2bn) than is given to people claiming fraudulently. Meanwhile, about £1.2bn is underpaid, meaning people desperately in need of benefits do not receive them. Advertising campaigns that flame the public perception that everyone on benefits cheats the system are actively stigmatising and harmful.

Thirdly, while both parties would argue that sanctions act as a deterrent, they don’t seem to have considered the fate of those they sanction. These, by definition, are not people with wealth to fall back on. Denying people benefits, for 13 weeks or 3 years, is going to force them further into debt and eventually destitution. It’s hard to see how this is addressing the causes of poverty.

In short, politicians might be surprised to discover how much fraud would go down if they sorted out the benefits system so it worked better for the people it’s meant to serve. In the meantime, don’t drive people further into poverty by imposing heavy-handed sanctions on people who, in the main, are just trying to get together enough money to get by.

Benefit fraud crackdown will plunge more people into poverty, not tackle its causes

Friday, April 9th, 2010

Our press release reacting to today’s Conservative proposal. More thoughts later.

Most benefit fraud is committed out of need not greed, and harsher penalties will not work, says leading grassroots charity Community Links reacting to Conservative proposals to further penalise benefit fraud.

(more…)

Charlotte’s story – unemployment and the Jobcentre

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Charlotte is 19, lives in East London, and is currently unemployed.

“I left school at 16, with 10 GCSEs. I’ve worked since I was 14, doing cash in hand jobs – waitressing mostly – and I also have an NVQ Level 2 in hair dressing. When I was 17 I had to go on income support because I broke my leg and smashed a vertebra in my back. The Jobcentre was good about that, and they gave me advice, but that was because I wasn’t allowed to work. When I was about 18 I started working formally as a market researcher, but I lost my job in September last year.

I tried as long as possible not to go on benefits, and lived off some savings for as long as I could. But I couldn’t find a job after so long that I had to sign on.

(more…)

The Young Person’s Guarantee and some hidden bits of the budget

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

Since everyone with any political interest whatsoever has commented on the budget in the last 24 hours, we thought it worth picking out a couple of the more hidden bits of good news. It’s no coincidence they’re also bits we’ve been involved in.

The first is some more detail on Social Impact Bonds (pg 101, box 6.2, if you’re feeling keen). The first pilot of this innovative new funding mechanism, which has been hugely influenced by our Co-founder David Robinson, was announced last week. In the budget, government announces the potential for some more work with Leeds and Bradford Councils. We hope the bond will develop into a powerful new way to fund social change, particularly the innovative preventative work that is currently so hard to fund.

Secondly is an update on the Hidden Economy Advisory Group (pg 80, 5.74), on which our Policy and Communications Manager Aaron Barbour has sat for the last few months. Although it doesn’t reveal many details, this budget report does highlight the lack of support for people – particularly those running small informal businesses like gardening or decorating – to move into the formal economy. The group will be looking at exactly how to provide this route in more detail over the next few months, and we look forward to being part of those discussions.

Finally, we’ll join many others in welcoming the extension of the Young Persons Guarantee. However, since it’s so new, it has got us wondering how well it’s working. The manager of our New Deal service gives a mixed review – it has certainly been valuable to some of the young people we work with, but its effectiveness – in terms of getting people into something useful – has varied dramatically depending on which Jobcentre the individuals are dealing with. This cuts to the heart of a problem we come across all the time – provision at a Jobcentre can vary from excellent to appalling, and there are very few ways to hold individual staff or centres to account.

We’ll be looking into both these issues – the effectiveness of the Young Person’s Guarantee, and the performance of Jobcentres – in the near future.

How to tackle poverty – ideas so far…

Friday, March 19th, 2010

Tackling poverty and unemployment are going to be dominant themes of the upcoming election. This week we’ve asked a group of experts – not just academics and policy staff but also people experiencing these issues for themselves – what change would make the most difference in reducing poverty amongst adults.

The 12 million people living in poverty in the UK are split roughly half and half between those in working households, and those in households where no one works.

(more…)

The Giants who wouldn’t die

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

Moussa Haddad is Oxfam’s Sustainable Livelihoods UK Policy Officer, and also blogs at the UK Poverty Post.

What single national policy change would most reduce poverty amongst working age people? That’s the question I’m being asked to address; but before I do so, it’s worth taking a bit of a reality check. There are 13.5 million people who live in poverty in the UK, and of those, there is a pretty much 50/50 split between those in working and in non-working households. So the solutions are not and cannot be clear-cut or one-dimensional. We need more than just one change.

That said, Oxfam works and has worked with a diverse range of people and groups up and down the country, and through all the individual characteristics and unique experiences, one common denominator keeps rearing its head. Designed in particular to tackle want – ‘one of the five giants’ – the social security (or benefit) system is neither particularly effective at this (living in a workless household gives a working-age adult about a 70% chance of being in poverty), nor at empowering people on benefits to improve their circumstances.

(more…)

Rich, famous, jobless, and not as bad as I expected

Wednesday, March 10th, 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.

More support for increasing the Earnings Disregard

Friday, March 5th, 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.