Work and Health Programme (WHP): Provider guidance published

[WHP Jobcentre staff guidance]

The DWP has finally published it’s WHP provider guidance.

Workfare lite?

Draft guidance did include sanction based referrals to forced-labour (workfare), the DWP has now backtracked and the ‘final’ version now says:

“You cannot mandate to work experience for this programme”
Source: Work and Health Programme provider guidance – Chapter 5a Mandation (pdf) – Page 7 V3.0 – 1/2/18

DWP workfare obfuscation?

However, Chapter 5a Mandation, does make a reference to “compliance conditions” (sanctions based activity), which includes a “placement”. Clarification is needed as whether the term “placement” is for a WHP ‘work-placement’? If so unpaid work can be mandated on the WHP and or whether someone referred to the WHP could already be undertaking a mandated work placement and must continue with when referred to the WHP? An example of language use is Section 16 (3)(e) of the Welfare Reform Act (2012) which includes mandatory ‘Work preparation’ that includes “undertaking work experience or a work placement” (emphasis added).

Past draft guidance

‘Chapter 8 – Compliance Doubt, concerning benefit sanctions’, stated:

“Work placement (community benefit)
95. When a LTU participant is undertaking community benefit work placements they will have been mandated to do so using the normal mandation process. If they fail to take part in community benefit work placement you must take compliance doubt action. “

‘Chapter 5a Mandation‘ also said:

“27. DWP has pre-approved a list of compliance conditions for providers to use. These compliance conditions are: …Agree a date for future attendance at an appointment/placement with a third party (i.e. college, work placement, skills training course)”

Workfare is alive and well

It is worth remembering that nothing stops a WHP provider arranging ‘voluntary‘ unpaid work experience (workfare). And Universal Credit claimants may have already undertaken mandatory work experience prior to starting the WHP, as well as  Youth Obligation conscripts

No manifesto for the June 8th 2017 general election included a promise to repeal ‘work for your benefits’ forced-labour workfare or promised to abolish all benefit sanctions.

.

.

.

.

Advertisements

UK Sick Pay, levels of the Employment Support Allowance (ESA), incapacity and unemployment benefits breach legal obligations.

“United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article 12§1 of the 1961 European Social  Charter on the grounds that:

  • the level of the Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) is inadequate;

  • the minimum levels of the Employment Support Allowance (ESA) are inadequate;

  • the level of long-term incapacity benefits is inadequate;

  • the level of unemployment benefits is inadequate”

Guardian report: ‘UK sick pay is found to breach international legal obligations

Fuller details:
https://www.coe.int/en/web/turin-european-social-charter/-/several-states-parties-to-the-european-social-charter-marked-by-a-high-levels-of-poverty-in-2017

“Article 12 – Right to social security

Paragraph 1 – Existence of a social security system

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the report submitted by the United Kingdom.

As regards family and maternity benefits, the Committee refers to its conclusions on, respectively, articles 16 and 8§1 (Conclusions XX-4 (2015)).

Risks covered, financing of benefits and personal coverage

The Committee refers to its previous conclusions (Conclusions XX-2(2013), XIX-2 (2009) and previous ones) for a description of the separate but corresponding social security schemes operated in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The report states that reciprocal arrangements between the two ensure that the schemes operate as a single system with contributions and benefit rates and dates of commencement maintained in parity. The Committee notes that the system continues to cover all the traditional risks (medical care, sickness, unemployment, old age, work accidents/occupational diseases, family, maternity, invalidity and survivors) and continues to be based on collective funding: it is funded by contributions (employers, employees) and by the State budget.

In response to the Committee’s question, the report confirms that 100% of the population ordinarily residing in the United Kingdom is covered by the universal Health Care system. As regards other branches, the Committee notes from the report under the European Code of Social Security that in 2015 some 47% of the resident population was covered in respect of Sickness (30 512 000 individuals), Old-Age and Survivors benefits (30 527 000 individuals) and that 90% of employees (28 299 000 individuals) were insured for unemployment benefits (Job Seeker Allowance). The Committee previously noted (Conclusions XIX-2 (2009)) that all persons residing in the United Kingdom were eligible for old age, disability and survivors non contributory pensions; that all unemployed jobseekers meeting the qualifying conditions were eligible for unemployment benefits and that all employed persons were covered in respect of work injury risk. It asks the next report to indicate what categories of persons (i.e. employees, self-employed, unemployed, all residents, etc.) are covered under each branch. The Committee furthermore recalls that, in order to assess whether a significant proportion of the total and/or active population in the United Kingdom is guaranteed an effective right to social security with respect to the benefits provided under each branch, States parties are required to provide figures in percentage indicating the personal coverage of each branch of social security. The Committee requests that the next report provide updated detailed information concerning the personal coverage of social security risks during the relevant reference period. For unemployment, sickness, old-age, disability, work injury and survivors’ benefits, the report should provide the percentage of insured individuals out of the total active population.

Adequacy of the benefits

According to Eurostat data, the median equivalised annual income was €20 945 in 2015, or €1745 per month. The poverty level, defined as 50% of the median equivalised income, was €10 473 per year, or €873 per month (€218 weekly). 40% of the median equivalised income corresponded to €698 monthly (€174.5 weekly).

The Committee previously found (Conclusions XX-2 (2013)) that the minimum levels of short-term and long-term incapacity benefits, of state pension and of job seeker’s allowance were manifestly inadequate. The State contests this finding in its report, arguing that the benefit rates are considered in isolation, without taking into account the safety net of other benefits and credits available. According to the report, contributory benefits are supplemented by a range of non-contributory, means-tested benefits such as income-related Employment and Support Allowance, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Housing Benefit, Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment. Therefore, according to the report, the overall income of households should be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of benefits. The report points out that 88% of adults in families/benefit units in receipt of contribution-based ESA or JSA in the UK are in households with equivalised incomes above 40% of median income in 2014/15 (as regards households in receipt of less than 40% of median income, the report explains that this could be because they possess large sums of capital or are not taking up their entitlements to income-related benefits). The Committee points out that when social security benefits are income-replacement benefits, their level should be fixed so as to stand in reasonable proportion to previous income and it should never fall below the poverty threshold defined as 50% of median equivalised income and as calculated on the basis of the Eurostat at-risk-of-poverty threshold value. Supplementary benefits, including social assistance, are taken into account only when an income-substituting benefit stands between 40% and 50% of median equivalised income as defined above. Where the level of an income-substituting benefit falls below 40% of median equivalised income, it is manifestly inadequate and its combination with other benefits cannot bring the situation into conformity with Article 12§1.

As regards Sickness, all employees earning at least GBP 112 (€158) per week are covered by the Statutory Sick Pay (SSP), a contributory benefit which is paid from the fourth day of incapacity and up to 28 weeks. Workers, including the self-employed, who do not qualify for SSP or have exhausted their entitlement to it can claim Employment Support Allowance (ESA). ESA can be awarded on the basis of either National Insurance (NI) contributions (contributory ESA (ESA(C)) or low income (income-related ESA (ESA (IR)). Both elements can be paid at the same time. To be entitled to contributory ESA, a claimant must have paid or been credited enough NI contributions in the previous two tax years (at least 26 weeks paid contributions or contributions paid/credited for at least 50 times the minimum threshold). Since 2012, this benefit can be paid for up to one year for those capable of work-related activity. Income-related ESA is on the other hand a means-tested non-contributory benefit payable without a time-limit. In 2015, SSP amounted to GBP 88.45 (€120) per week. ESA is paid at different rates depending on the individual’s age, circumstances and the stage of the claiming process. In 2015, during the first 13 weeks of incapacity, the rate was GBP 57.90 (€82) or GBP 73.10 (€103) per week, for beneficiaries under 25 years of age and those over this age, respectively. As from the 14th week of incapacity, the rates were GBP 102.15 (€144) per week for those capable of work-related activity or GBP 109.30 (€154) for those requiring support. Those in the support group and on income-related ESA, were also entitled to the Enhanced Disability Premium at GBP 15.75 (€22) a week. In addition, according to the report, claimants may qualify for additional support such as Personal Independence Payment, Housing Benefit, Child Tax Credits, or Child Benefit. The Committee notes that the rates of SSP, as well as the minimum levels of ESA, are lower than 40% of the median equivalised income. Accordingly, regardless of the additional social assistance benefits which might be available, the Committee considers that the level of these benefits is manifestly inadequate.

Since 2008, ESA covers not only short-term incapacity but also long-term incapacity (disability). Since 2011, recipients of the former Incapacity Benefit have been reassessed for ESA, taking into account their work capability. The report indicates that, with the progressive introduction since 2013 of the Universal Credit (UC) (see also Conclusions on Article 13§1), ESA will remain as contributory benefit and UC will be the non-contributory benefit. The Committee understands from the report that, during the reference period, long-term incapacity benefits were still paid in some cases, at a basic amount of GBP 105.35 in 2015, i.e. €143 per week, to be increased if the disability started before the age of 35 or between 35 and 44. As regards ESA rates, the Committee refers to its remarks above and notes that increased rates are paid in case of enhanced or severe disability (respectively GBP 15.75 and GBP 61.85 per week, i.e. €22 and €84). As the minimum rates of long-term benefits and ESA remain lower than 40% of the median equivalised income, the Committee considers that the level of these benefits is manifestly inadequate.

According to the report, the Welfare Reform Act 2012 simplified the way industrial injuries benefits are claimed. Several old schemes were abolished, and all remaining claimants on those schemes were moved to the existing Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) scheme, thus establishing a single claiming option for all claimants. All employees are compulsorily protected against employment injury and disease and the level of benefit depends on the incapacity level (which should be at least 14%), whether temporary or permanent. In 2015, the level of benefit in case of 100% disablement was GBP 168 (€237) per week. The Committee considers that the level of this benefit is adequate.

The Unemployment scheme was amended in 2013, with the introduction of the New Style Job Seeker Allowance (JSA), a contributory benefit granted for a maximum of 182 days in any period of employment. The contribution conditions that a claimant needs to satisfy to be entitled to new style JSA are the same as for old style JSA (at least 50 minimum weekly contributions paid or credited in the last two years, of which at least 26 weekly contributions paid in one year). In addition to the contributions requirement, new style JSA claimants are also required to be available for work and search for work for up to 35 hours a week. Failure to follow the work related requirements will result in a benefit sanction (suspension of benefit payment for one to 26 weeks). The Committee recalls that there must be a reasonable initial period during which an unemployed person may refuse a job or a training offer not matching his previous skills without losing his unemployment benefits. It refers to its Conclusions XXI-1 (2016), concerning Article 1§2, where it noted that the recipients of unemployment benefit is, in principle, entitled to reject a job offer that does not correspond to their customary occupation during an initial 13-week period (“permitted period”), but that decisions on this issue were made on a case-by-case basis, depending on circumstances. The Committee asks the next report to provide details of the sanctions applicable in the case of a refusal of a job offer not matching the claimant’s profile, as well as on the judicial remedies available. Regardless of whether a jobseeker is entitled to the contributory JSA, a non-contributory benefit (Universal Credit (UC)) is also available to persons whose total income is below GBP 16 000 (€22 583), whose partners do not work more than 24 hours/week and who have been resident in the United Kingdom for at least three months before the claim. The income-related assistance is provided for an unlimited duration, as long as the entitlement conditions continue to be satisfied. In 2015, the rates of the New-Style JSA amounted to GBP 57.90 (€82) per week or GBP 73.10 (€103) per week, depending on whether the claimant was aged between 18 and 24 or was older. The Committee notes from MISSOC that the basic level of non-contributory unemployment benefit for single people was the same as for contribution-based JSA. The Committee understands from the report that the contributory and non-contributory benefit can be combined, and that additional benefits might apply such as the ESA and Personal Independence Payment, in case of work incapacity, as well as Housing benefits, Child benefits and Child Tax Credits. It notes however, that the minimum levels of the unemployment benefits (New Style JSA and non-contributory benefits) are both below 40% of the median equivalised income, and that at least for people younger than 25 this remains the case even when both contributory and non-contributory benefits are taken together. It accordingly considers that the levels of (contributory and non-contributory) unemployment benefits are manifestly inadequate.

The Committee notes that the levels of the contribution-based ESA and JSA, as well as of the SSP, have also been found too low to comply with the requirements of ILO Convention No. 102 (Observation (CEACR) – adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017) concerning Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention 1952, No. 102) and the European Code of Social Security (Committee of Ministers’ Resolution CM/ResCSS(2016)21 on the application of the European Code of Social Security by the United Kingdom, Period from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015).

As regards old-age pensions, the report describes the new State Pension scheme adopted in 2014, which applies to people reaching state pension age on or after 6 April 2016. As the implementation of this reform falls out of the reference period, the Committee will examine it when it will next assess the UK conformity to Article 12§1 of the Charter. It asks the next report to provide all relevant and updated information in this respect.

The old-age pension system which applied during the reference period was a two-tier system that consisted of the basic state retirement pension (basic flat-rate benefit) and the second state pension (earnings related additional pension) which was paid to men aged 65 and women aged 63 with at least 30 years of paid or credited contributions. A non-contributory pension (Pension credit) was furthermore available for people who were not entitled to the contributory pension. According to the report, the full basic (contributory) pension for a single person was GBP 115.95 (€164) in 2015, and the average amount paid in November 2015 was GBP 130.71 (€186). This basic amount would be increased under the Graduated Benefit scheme and the Second state pension scheme, depending on the duration and level of contributions. According to the report, the average amount paid in November 2015 was GBP 136.03 (€193) when considering also these increases. The Committee notes that the basic State Pension rate, taken alone, was lower than 40% of the median equivalised income and that there is no defined minimum as regards the graduated benefit and second pension increases. However, it notes from the examples indicated in the report that, conditional upon resources, the basic amount is topped up with the non-contributory pension, the level of which was, in 2015, GBP 151.20 (€214) for a single person, to which a number of additional benefits, depending on personal circumstances (age, disability, winter weather…) might be added (such as the Housing Benefit, the ESA, winter fuel payment of GBP200, i.e. €283; the Christmas bonus of GBP 10, i.e. €14 etc.). The Committee asks the next report to clarify whether a recipient of the minimum state pension whose income would be lower than the legal threshold, even when adding the graduated benefit and second pension increases, would be entitled to receive as a supplement the non-contributory pension. It also asks under what circumstances a person might only receive the basic state pension, without any increases. In the meantime, it reserves its position on this point.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in the United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article 12§1 of the 1961 Charter on the grounds that:

Work and Health Programme, 6 providers named and shamed!

[Related: Draft WHP guidance]

6 providers for the new Work and Health Programme (WHP):

Area Successful provider
Central England Shaw Trust
North East Reed In Partnership
North West Ingeus
Southern Pluss
Home Counties Shaw Trust
Wales Remploy

Local government partners in London and Greater Manchester have been given funding under devolution deals and are selecting their own providers.

In Scotland, funding for employment programmes for unemployed and disabled people was devolved in line with the Scotland Act.

The Work and Health Programme is not available in Northern Ireland.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/touchbase-dwp-news-about-work-working-age-benefits-and-services/october-2017-touchbase-edition-122

.

.

.

.

 

Youth Workfare exploiters in England, Scotland and Wales to be named and shamed… #YOBSS

The DWP has disclosed a full list of Jobcentres* that are organising zero wage forced-labour workfare for young people aged 18 to 21 on it’s Youth Obligation benefit sanctions scheme (YOBSS).

The names of employers, including charities, third sector and public authorities, exploiting the YOBSS forced-labour can be named and shamed by making a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, which could focus on likes of a specific Jobcentre. Workfare conscripts are also free to name and shame their exploiters.

Recent FOI workfare disclosures

*More jobcentres will offer YOBSS when they start the Universal Credit full service. (UCFS)

Workfare definitions

DWP – “workfare activities are sometimes referred to as ‘unpaid work experience’, ‘community service’ or ‘work for benefits’”
Source: DWP Research Report No 533 ‘A comparative review of workfare programmes in the United States, Canada and Australia’ – (2008)

Boycott Workfare – “a UK-wide campaign to end forced unpaid work for people who receive welfare” (website) – “Campaign to abolish forced unpaid labour” (twitter)

Keep Volunteering Voluntary – “Workfare is the name given to government schemes where unemployed and disabled people have to work in return for their benefits.” (website) – “Keep it Voluntary Promoting the Keep Volunteering Voluntary agreement in the voluntary sector. For volunteering, against workfare” (twitter)

Welfare Reform Act (2009)
“Work for your benefit” schemes etc.

Welfare Reform Act (2012) – Universal Credit
Section 16 Work preparation requirement

(3) (e) undertaking work experience or a work placement

Charter Against Workfare: A Statement of Principles

For any workplace based scheme for benefit claimants

“First, it must be entirely voluntary.

Secondly, there should be real training so that people go away at the end with skills that are relevant to their future employment prospects.

Thirdly, those concerned must have employee status so that they are protected by health and safety and equal opportunities legislation.

Fourthly, they must be paid the rate for the job—not benefit-plus—and,

finally, projects must have trade union approval.”

Hansard: Clare Short MP – 14th December 1987

Workfare States

“Contemporary workfare policies rarely involve job creation on any significant scale, along the lines of the old-fashioned public-works programs; they are more concerned with deterring welfare claims and necessitating the acceptance of low-paid, unstable jobs in the context of increasingly “flexible” labour markets. Stripped down to it’s labour-regulatory essence, workfare is not about creating jobs for people that don’t have them; it is about creating workers for jobs that nobody wants. In a Foucauldian sense, it is seeking to make “docile bodies” for the new economy: flexible, self-reliant and self-disciplining”

Source: Jamie Peck in Workfare States (2001)

Download: https://refutedarchive.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/the-future-of-workfare-in-england/

.

.

.

.

DWP says Universal Credit Journal not mandatory for your Work Search records or CV. Why?

[Related: You must use a Universal Credit journal to provide your CV or Jobsearch record?]

After numerous queries on Jobcentre Work ‘Coaches’ requiring Universal Credit (UC) claimants to use their online UC account Journal to upload CV and Work Search records onto, the DWP says it is not mandatory.

It is not a mandatory requirement for the claimant to provide the required work search evidence via their journal. The claimant must be able to provide written evidence of their work search.

It is not mandatory for the claimant to upload their CV onto the journal, the claimant must however be able to show a completed and up to date CV. ”
(emphasis added)
Source: ‘Using a netbook or digital screen device to provide evidence’ – DWP FOI reply 4201 – 20 October 2017

However, claimants will need to ensure that they do not get bullied by a Work ‘Coach’ to use their Claimant Commitment (CC) to ‘agree’ putting their CV or Work Search records on the UC Journal . The CC can be used to ‘agree’ to provide the CV and Work Search records using one’s own/non DWP ‘netbook or digital screen’ or shown as printed paper copies.

Showing a printed record of Work Search records

The DWP confirms that the overarching UC claimant obligation is to show “written evidence of their work search”, the CC can be used for this to be the likes of a printed diary of Work Search activity.

Showing a printed CV

The DWP reply also says “the claimant must…be able to show a completed and up to date CV”, which suggests a claimant can just ‘agree’ “show” a printed copy of their “completed and up to date CV” using the CC.

Jobmatch and Journal contradiction

A central contradiction is why DWP requires claimant permission to view Universal Jobmatch account users CV and Work Search records, but no equivalent ‘rules’ exist for the UC Journal? The DWP can’t even be bothered to write Journal guidance.

We do not have guidance on DWP staff and Jobcentre work coach access and claimant use of UC online account or to-do lists
Source: ‘Universal Credit claimant’s Journal, to-do lists and Claimant Commitment.’ – DWP FOI reply 3771  – 2 October 2017

.

.

.

.

Fair Start Scotland, employment scheme. “Participation will be entirely voluntary”

and

Fair Start Scotland – Successful  contract bidders.
Reminder: Scotland’s ‘Youth Obligation‘ no wage compulsory work or lose benefits workfare is not voluntary and workfare is integrated into Universal Credit. (Welfare Reform Act 2012, Section 16 (3)(e))

Contract area Local authority Successful Bidder Delivery Partners/Sub Contracted Estimated Value (up to £ million)
1 – Glasgow Glasgow

People Plus Group Ltd (Private)

  • Remploy (Supported Business)
  • Momentum (Third Sector)
  • The Lennox Partnership (Third Sector)
19.1
2 – Lanarkshire

N Lanarkshire

S Lanarkshire

Remploy Limited (Supported
Business)

  • ENABLE Scotland (Third Sector)
  • Routes to Work South (Third Sector)
12.6
3 – Tayside

Angus

Dundee City

Perth and Kinross

Remploy Limited (Supported
Business)

  • Rathbone (Third Sector)
  • The Wise Group (Third Sector)
  7.3
4 – Forth Valley

Falkirk

Stirling

Clackmannanshire

Falkirk Council (Public Sector)

  • Falkirk Council (Public Sector)
  • Clackmannanshire Council (Public Sector)
  • Stirling Council (Public Sector)
  • NHS Forth Valley (Public Sector)
5.0
5 – East

City of Edinburgh

East Lothian

Midlothian

Scottish Borders

West Lothian

Fife

Start Scotland Limited

(Private and Third Sector
Partnership)

  • Momentum (Third Sector)
  • Triage (Private)
  • Working Links (Private)
21.3
6 – Southwest

North Ayrshire

South Ayrshire

East Ayrshire

Dumfries and Galloway

Start Scotland Limited (Private and
Third Sector Partnership)

  • Working Links (Private)
  • Rathbone (Third Sector)
  • The Lennox Partnership (Third Sector)
  • The Wise Group (Third Sector)
  10.1
7 – Northeast

Aberdeen City

Aberdeenshire

Momentum Scotland (Third Sector)

  • Life Skills Centres Limited (Private)
  • ENABLE Scotland (Third Sector)
  • Aberdeen Foyer (Third Sector)
  • Scottish Association for Mental Health (Third Sector)
  • Enterprise Mentoring Ltd (Private)
5.6
8 – Highlands and Islands

Argyll and Bute

Eilean Siar

Highland

Moray

Orkney Islands

Shetland Islands

People Plus Ltd (Private)

  • Argyll and Bute Council (Public Sector)
  • Life Skills Centres Ltd (Private)
  • Lochaber Hope (Third Sector)
  • Momentum Scotland (Third Sector)
  • Third Sector Hebrides (Third Sector)
  • 2020 Clearview Ltd (Private)
6.2
9 – West

E Renfrewshire

Renfrewshire

E Dunbartonshire

W Dunbartonshire

Inverclyde

The Wise Group (Third Sector)

  • Scottish Association for Mental Health (Third Sector)
  • The Lennox Partnership (Third Sector)
  • Working Links (Private)
  • ENABLE Scotland (Third Sector)
  • Royal National Institute for the Blind (Third Sector)
8.8

Source http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=11129&i=101512&c=2028902 and http://www.employabilityinscotland.com/devolved-employment-services/employment-support-2018/

.

.

.

.

UC: Sanctions for refusing a 12.6 hour working day, 5 days a week?

Related: ‘Tory peer says Brexit is good because young people will be able [required] to work longer hours[under Universal Credit]’ and ‘Under 25? You must spend 48 hours a week looking for work on Universal Credit?

.

.

.

.