Community Links

Community Links blog

Posts Tagged ‘welfare reform’

Refugee and Migrant Justice – a dangerous sign of things to come in welfare reform?

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Tuesday’s news that Refugee and Migrant Justice has gone into administration is devastating for tens of thousands of asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants who rely on their expert services every year, and a chilling taste of what might be to come, unless the new government quickly learns some lessons.

Under reforms introduced to the legal aid system, providers are not fully paid until a case is closed. In complex asylum cases this can take several years, but in the meantime charities like Refugee and Migrant Justice still have to pay their 300 expert staff, cover their rent, and keep going. Since charities rarely have assets, they find it very hard to secure commercial bridging loans in the way a business might, leaving them incredibly vulnerable.

RMJ says they are owed over £2m by the Ministry of Justice, £2m that they cannot find from other sources, and £2m that has forced them into administration. They are the largest supplier of vital legal assistance to asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants, they have done excellent work, they’re just not getting paid for it in time. And the victims, alongside RMJ’s staff, will be those who have already suffered the most, those who are often fleeing victimisation in other countries, the most vulnerable. The most vulnerable, who all governments pledge to protect, but who are often those most cruelly let down.

Fast forward 2 years, and there is a dangerously similar story emerging in welfare reform. Government is planning to move to a ‘payment by results’ model whereby providers of back-to-work services are only paid in full once someone has in a job for a year. Community Links is the most successful back-to-work provider in London and the South East, but we certainly couldn’t afford to be £2m out of pocket. We specialise in helping those who have been out of work for a long time, often among the most vulnerable, those who government has pledged to protect.

Iain Duncan Smith has indicated that he’s aware of the importance of ensuring charities like ours can take part in the new system, but until we see the details of how that will happen, we remain worried. That’s why earlier this week we sent this short briefing paper to Duncan Smith and others, outlining how we felt the new Work Programme should be structured.

RMJ’s plight is a disgrace, and government should be doing all it can to ensure RMJ can continue its vital work. But as importantly, government must learn from the experience, so other charities are not forced into the same situation in the future.

First thoughts on Frank Field’s review on poverty and life chances

Monday, June 7th, 2010

http://comlinks.beepweb.co.uk/linksuk/wp-content/images/FrankFieldMP.jpgWe were  pleased to hear the PM announce plans for a new review on poverty and life chances, led by Frank Field, and considering, amongst other aims how to develop services that “nurture children”.

He will:

  • examine the case for reforms to poverty measures, in particular for the inclusion of non-financial elements
  • generate a broader debate about the nature and extent of poverty in the UK
  • explore the effect of a child’s home environment
  • recommend potential action by government and other institutions to reduce poverty and enhance life chances for the least advantaged.

We will be blogging on other aspects of the review in the weeks ahead but note now Fields specific commitments to consider how grass roots groups can transform children’s lives, to learn from others and to producing an action programme.  He told the BBC: “I hope we will have a programme of action, …which the government can actually act on. ……I don’t think we need lots of brilliant new ideas, lots of people have done work, we now need to bring that together and shape it in a way which leads to action.”

With the right community interventions at an early stage we could be doing much more to enable all children to fulfil their potential.   We know some of what works. We do it everyday at Community Links across a network of more than 60 projects in East London and it isn’t rocket science.  Its warm and friendly places where young people can be safe and free to play and learn and grow. Its committed and empathetic staff  that children can trust and respect and it’s the deep value relationships that grow from reliable and constant understanding between service user and provider.

When we were reviewing the Council on Social Action’s unfinished business  before the election we suggested to party leaders  that  a national community support strategy for children and young people, rooted in such approaches,  should be a priority for the new government.  We advised that an effective independent  contribution to developing such a strategy would learn from the successful working process of the Council  and would combine advice and recommendations to government with  concurrent, cross sector action on the ground.  Above all it would seek to understand and, where appropriate, support and develop existing good practice.

The brief for the Field review is not quite the same and as yet we don’t know exactly how it will work but there are clearly many connections. We particularly welcome  the positive commitment to learning from what works and to generating a practical action programme.

We look forward to contributing to the learning and, especially, to the action.

Welfare reform proposals get a mixed reaction from the most successful New Deal project in London

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

New Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reform announcements today (and his simultaneous Guardian charm offensive) get a mixed reaction from colleagues around Community Links who, amongst other things, run the most successful New Deal project – supporting long-term unemployed back into work – in London and the South East.

On the one hand, we’ve been calling for wholesale reform of the benefits system for many years, so it’s good to see him demanding it too. His recognition of the problem of work incentives in the benefit system – whereby people can end up worse off and less secure on taking a low-paid job – is welcome.

The benefits system needs to be designed so people can take stepping stones into well paid and secure work, rather than leaving them high and dry as soon as a temporary and low-paid job appears. Equally, it must be ready to pick them up again quickly if the job ends, both to prevent the cycle of debt that often begins in that few weeks between the last pay cheque and the first benefit cheque, and to give people the reassurance that taking the job in the first place won’t jeopardise their situation further down the line. Whether he can get these large and expensive reforms through the Treasury remains to be seen.

However, his continuing adherence to the idea of sanctions for ‘those who won’t work’ is worrying. We know that even the long-term unemployed want to work, but some face many and complex barriers – lack of training or education, lack of support at the Jobcentre, health or family problems. For some, it takes several cycles through our six month programme before they’re in a position to accept a job. Cutting their benefits after the first cycle will plunge them further into poverty and further from the job market, costing more, and stigmatising where government should be supporting.

Finally, the Work Programme model – whereby charities like ours (and private contractors) take on more of a role in supporting people into work – has good aspects, not least the ‘black box approach’ that would let us design bespoke programmes for individual jobseekers. Yet the signs are that, by making the contracts so big that only large multinational companies can apply, they will lose the unique contribution a charity like ours can make to supporting the long-term unemployed. The system will need to be carefully designed, and properly funded, to make sure this doesn’t happen.

Overall, much of the rhetoric – punishments and stigmatisation aside – sounds promising, but the detail is still not there. At the launch this morning Duncan Smith said he wanted to work with charities like ours to hammer out the detail over the next few months. If this is a genuine offer then we are very willing to help him shape the system so that it best serves the needs of the two thousand jobseekers we see every year, the tens of thousands in Newham, and the millions nationwide.

Guest post – welfare reform isn’t rocket science

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

Jeff Mitchell is director of Clean Slate Training and Employment, supporting people back to work. Before the election he asked candidates from five parties about their plans for welfare reform, and wasn’t impressed with their answers. The challenges he outlines are ones the new government must start grappling with. This was first published on Jeff’s blog

I only had two asks: invest in workless people and deconstruct the benefits trap. I must have been speaking Japanese. There was no response to my points from any of the 5 candidates who took part in the event.

Is this rocket science?

Last year, Clean Slate opened a centre to help job seekers from one of Bristol’s most disadvantaged wards. I figured – and this betrays even my prejudices, and I’ve worked with unemployed people for the past 18 years – that we’d have to drag people in kicking and screaming. But even while we were still measuring up, with just the shop front in place advertising that we would be “Working With You Towards Employment”, people starting coming in looking for help finding work.

Once up and running, Sue, a woman who’d spent the previous 20 years raising a family told me she’d been on a Job Centre Plus programme for 13 weeks and still didn’t have a CV. She hadn’t even known what she wanted to do but once she’d sat down with a Clean Slate worker, she said, and talked about the skills she’d used in bringing up her children, she realised she’d make an excellent carer. Sue felt she’d done her time with kids but set about, there and then, looking for work caring for older people. Once she knew what she wanted to do, the CV followed quickly and it took only two sessions with our staff to leave with one fully completed.

By contrast, I’ve heard that the Department of Work and Pensions desribe unemployed people as “stock”. It’s easier to dehumanise people and treat them as a single entity when it comes to policy. But in Clean Slate’s experience, it’s the opposite that works on the ground.

Numerous job seekers have come to us complaining they’re sick of being assumed to be benefits cheats. They don’t blame the press, they don’t expect any better. But they do resent the fact that that’s how they’re made to feel by Job Centre staff. They feel demeaned, depressed and unworthy of any opportunities to get themselves off the breadline.

Clean Slate is not interested in being yet another sausage machine, churning people through a one size fits all system. Nor are we interested in skimming the cream, helping those needing least help, so we can grab the juiciest financial kick backs from Job Centre Plus. We believe the best hope for overcoming unemployment and worklessness starts and ends with each individual, so we start there. It’s far more rewarding when people like Sue, who have been deactivated by the unemployment system, get switched back on.

So, is it rocket science? Absolutely not. How we make this vital work pay is a harder question. Especially when those who are clamouring for our votes cannot comprehend how a personalised service can be delivered to a mass of 3 million people.

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…)

Let’s change the entire benefits system

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

There are so many people who are entitled to benefits but don’t claim, either because they don’t know they are entitled, or because they find the system complicated and impenetrable.”
Jo, aged 27

There isn’t one policy I’d change about the benefit system. I’d change the whole thing. The UK’s benefit system is simply not working: for claimants, administrators and the tax payer. The system has mutated into a beast which is complex, confused, contradictory (in impact and intent), frequently changing, sometimes well, but at other times, poorly delivered, bureaucratic, non-strategic, not joined-up, and sometimes welcomed but mainly mistrusted. We cannot continue with more piecemeal, ‘tinkering at the edges’ type reforms but need a fundamental re-think.

(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.

Welfare Commission: humanising decision making and appeals in the benefits system

Tuesday, February 9th, 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.

Negative language on welfare reform isn’t working

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

David Coats is Associate Director of Policy at the Work Foundation, and this post has been reproduced with the kind permission of the Open Left blog. In addressing how the Left should renew its fight against poverty, he cites the problem of the current rhetoric around welfare reform, promoted by politicians and picked up by the media.

Tim Horton is right to point to the need for more aggressive redistribution. Unless the centre-Left wins this argument the gap between rich and poor is likely to widen. Declining support for such policies could be seen as an insurmountable barrier and therefore cause for political pessimism.

I remain more optimistic.

(more…)