Tuesday, 8 November 2016

The Work, Health and Disability Green Paper: Magical thinking or evidence-based policy?

“To own the discourse is to win the argument”

The Green Paper on Work, Health and Disability  was published online late afternoon of Monday 31st October.  The DWP had been briefing since the Saturday before, that a major reform was proposed to the Work Capability Assessment and that all the evidence was that work is good for people’s health.

Newspapers and television news highlighted the proposals but no-one actually saw the document until news media had been running the DWP storyline for almost 48 hours  The BBC initially intended to film some interviews at a London disabled people’s organisation on Monday afternoon but cancelled it as by then the story was no longer news.

The consultation on the Green Paper is running until 17th February, long enough for individuals and organisations to get to grips with what is really being proposed. 

I’ve focussed in this blogpost on three important contentions made in the Green Paper, on which some of its proposals are based.  I’ve tried to get behind the spin which accompanied its launch to see what exactly is being proposed.

Contention No 1:  There is a causal relationship between work and health, such that if someone moves from unemployment into work their health will improve.

The Green Paper opens with the statement that “The evidence that appropriate work can bring health and wellbeing benefits is widely recognised”. The reference for this is the major review of evidence, published by the DWP in 2006.

On the face of it, this is a fairly uncontentious statement.  The word ‘appropriate’ recognises that not all work has a positive impact and the phrase ‘can bring’ indicates that this is not a claim of a unilinear causal relationship.  Indeed, early on in the Green Paper the complexities of the relationship are acknowledged: 

…….whilst work is good for health in most circumstances, the type of work matters. Many factors such as autonomy, an appropriate workload and supportive management are important for promoting health at work.

This reflects the conclusions of the 2006 review.  The Green Paper could also have drawn on more recent longitudinal research from Australia which found that low paid, insecure jobs, characterised by a lack of control, were associated with poorer health than that found amongst those people who remained out of work. 

Getting a high quality job after being unemployed improved mental health by an average of 3 points, but getting a poor quality job was more detrimental to mental health than remaining unemployed, showing up as a loss of 5.6 points.

This is an important finding, particularly bearing in mind the conclusion of the DWP’s 2006 literature review that: “After leaving benefits, many claimants go into poorly paid or low quality jobs, and insecure, unstable or unsustained employment. Many go on to further periods of unemployment or sickness, and further spell(s) on the same or other social security benefits”.

Unfortunately, the tone of the rest of the paper and its proposals assume a straightforward unilinear relationship between being in paid employment and good health, as illustrated by what the DWP calls an ‘infographic’ on page 4 of the Green Paper.  This shows two circular relationships, good health and work on the one hand and worklessness and poor health on the other. 

The Green Paper would have been more accurate if it had concluded that, while paid employment can increase your standard of living, social interaction and self-esteem, it can also be bad for your health and can create or worsen illness or impairment. Whether work is good for your health will depend on your state of health and the nature of the job. As, according to the DWP’s own evidence, people leaving benefits often go into poor quality jobs, they are less likely than the average person to find that paid employment has a good impact on their health. 

Contention Number Two:  Withdrawal or reduction of income (or the threat of withdrawal) will increase entry into employment.

The payment of out of work benefits has always been conditional but since 2010 the conditions have increased and withdrawal or reduction of payment can now last from four weeks to three years.The assumption is that this threat of, or the actual experience of, withholding income will make it more likely that a person will take steps that increase entry into employment.

The recent decision to reduce, by almost £30pw, the money paid to people who have been assessed as being unfit to work but able to take on work related activity (the ESA Work related activity group) is based on the same assumption: the DWP claimed it will “remove the financial incentives that would otherwise discourage claimants from taking steps back to work”.

In an earlier blogpost I examined the evidence that DWP relied on to make this claim.  It’s worth reiterating that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between a reduction in benefit levels and an increase in employment amongst disabled and sick people.

There is, in fact, a more convincing case to be made that reducing or withdrawing income will make people less able to gain employment. An evaluation of the impact of benefit reduction found that the more benefit was removed the less likely they were to move into employment.  A study which carried out four ‘natural’ experiments in the US and in India concluded that poverty undermined people’s ability to think clearly, carry out tasks and to make good decisions (a conclusion which is perhaps obvious to anyone who has experienced the pressures that come with even short-term financial difficulties):

The poor must manage sporadic income, juggle expenses, and make difficult tradeoffs. Even when not actually making a financial decision, these preoccupations can be present and distracting. The human cognitive system has limited capacity. Preoccupations with pressing budgetary concerns leave fewer cognitive resources available to guide choice and action.

The widely disseminated conclusion from this study was that, because people living in poverty expend more of their mental capacity on managing with a low income, government programmes aimed at helping them should not impose what some called a ‘cognitive tax’ - such as complicated forms, frequent monitoring systems, onerous requirements to prove eligibility.  As the Behavioural Insights Team argue:

The worries involved in making ends meet every day already deplete [cognitive] bandwidth so government services aiming to tackle disadvantage – such as savings schemes, employment advice and parenting programmes – should be required to pass a cognitive load test to ensure these services do not make it harder for people on low incomes to make good decisions for themselves.

The Behavioural Insights Team is an organisation originally set up by the government (the ‘Nudge Unit’) and still partly owned by them. This study was carried out in partnership with the Cabinet Office.  We would normally expect their conclusions to be treated seriously but that does not appear to be the case in this instance.

Contention Number Three: ‘Employment support’ will reduce the numbers of people on long-term out of work benefits

The Green Paper indicates an intention to reduce the numbers of people in the ESA Support Group. These are people who have been assessed as having limited capability for employment and also limited capability for work-related activity - meaning that they are exempt from complying with requirements to take ‘steps back to work’.  Concern that there are ‘too many’ people claiming this type of benefit dates back to the 1990s when Invalidity Benefit was replaced by Incapacity Benefit.   A series of changes since then in the method and process of assessment have not had the desired effect of reducing numbers qualifying for long term sickness and disability benefit.

The Green Paper proposes yet another change in the assessment regime and an extension of ‘employment support’ to people who have been assessed as not able to either work or to engage in work-related activity.  Instead of one assessment (the Work Capability Assessment) there would be two: the WCA would assess financial entitlement and then everyone on ESA, whether in the Support Group or not, would be subject to a “separate process” which would decide whether “someone should engage with Jobcentre Plus or specialist programmes”.

People would be required to have continuing contact with a ‘Work Coach’ who: 
could have full discretion to tailor any employment support to each individual claimant. This approach would be truly responsive, allowing the work coach to adjust requirements and goals dependent on changes in a person’s condition or circumstances.

While Damien Green previously announced that those in the Support Group would not have to undergo repeated WCA assessment, this new system could potentially require repeated and continuing ‘discretionary’ assessment by a work coach as to what a person should be required to do.

So let’s look at whether there is any evidence that the ‘support’ to be offered by this new system is likely to increase employment amongst disabled people or people with long-term health conditions.

The first thing to point out is that the assumption underpinning the Green Paper’s proposals is that people who are unfortunate enough to experience ill health and/or disability and unemployment are not capable of - or are not to be trusted to - make decisions in their own best interests.  Instead it is the role of a State employee or contractor to do this. 

So the Paper proposes that “trained work coaches could have discretion to make case-by-case decisions about the type of employment support a person is able to engage with” (para 132).  

The second thing is that anyone entering this system gives up all right to privacy about personal information held on them by the “NHS, the adult social care system or through other benefit applications, such as from a Personal Independence Payment application” as the assessment for financial support (the current WCA) and the work coach would draw on these sources of information (para 135). 

A third point is that the employment support programmes have not in the past been very successful at helping people on long-term out of work sickness/disability benefits to find and retain paid employment.  Only 12.5% of ESA new claimants on the Work Programme get a job outcome within two years. The equivalent figure for people moving onto ESA from Incapacity Benefit is 4.7%.  Work Choice, the specialist programme aimed at disabled people has a higher rate of success but less than 1 in 5 of participants are on ESA with the majority being on Job Seekers Allowance, so the programme has not proved its effectiveness with people on ESA.

As the government has previously announced, the Work Programme and Work Choice are being discontinued and replaced with a new Work and Health Programme.  However, this will only have 20% of the funding previously invested in employment support.

The Green Paper also proposes that the:

earlier engagement between an individual and a work coach in Universal Credit will also serve as a gateway to a wider, integrated system of support offered by the Department for Work and Pensions and other agencies, such as the NHS and local authorities. (Para 84)

This “wider, integrated system of support’ is called Universal Support and is intended to “assist people with their financial and digital capacity throughout the life of their claim”.

Through Universal Support we are transforming the way Job centres work as part of their local communities to ensure they more effectively tackle the complex needs some people have and support them into sustainable employment. (Para 85)

Unfortunately, this transformation is not borne out by the DWP’s own evaluation of Universal Support in the trial areas.  The evaluation, published in July this year, concluded:
the results suggest that participation in USdl had no statistically significant impact on either digital or financial capability…..Overall, the estimated annualised cost of the eleven trials was just over £4 million. Staff costs made up £2.7 million of the total.
So £4million was spent with no resulting improvement in claimants’ ability to engage with the UC system or with managing their finances.
(Incidentally, the Green Paper also holds up the Troubled Families programme as ‘another example of an integrated approach’.  It’s surprising that they infer that this programme makes any difference as the evaluation published recently “was unable to find consistent evidence that the programme had any significant or systematic impact”)
It is unlikely therefore that there will be sufficient assistance available through the specialist employment support programme.  And Universal Support is unlikely to be of much assistance in terms of helping people to navigate the complexities of the system. So what will be offered to people in the Support Group as part of the ‘claimant commitment’?  The Green Paper does not spell this out explicitly but it would seem that the intention is that Work and Health coaches will decide what kind of health-related intervention someone needs.

How long before part of the ‘claimant commitment’ includes a requirement to participate in a ‘health intervention’ of some kind and sanctions are attached to non-compliance?

It isn’t really employment support that is on offer - rather we are on the road to a situation where people who are too ill or disabled to work are required to subject themselves to health interventions that an employee (or contractor) of the DWP decides is good for them.

In summary….

It’s important that responses to the Green Paper home in on what is actually being proposed, rather than merely respond to the questions posed by the DWP.  The proposed changes are merely the latest in a long line of attempts to reduce the numbers of people qualifying for long-term out of work sickness/disability benefits.  If the assumptions on which the proposals are based are not backed up by evidence then they will be unlikely to have any more impact on reducing the disability employment gap than their predecessors.

And finally….. 

Magical thinking refers to the false attribution of causal relationships. In the context of psychology it refers specifically to the belief that one’s thoughts by themselves can bring something about - or that thinking something is the same as doing it.

Not only does this Green Paper ascribe a fallacious unilinear causal relationship between work and health, but it replicates a common feature of government policy - the assumption that saying something will happen makes it happen.


This is the fourth time in my engagement with social policy that a government has complained about the number of people ‘languishing’ on long term out of work benefits.  The fourth time that proposals are made which will supposedly reduce these numbers.  Any bets on how soon we will see a fifth?

8 comments:

  1. Really excellent. More evidence-free policies being put forward. I find the whole premise that people in the Support Group automatically need to be told what to do, about their health, financial management etc, a bit insulting. We are adults; some of us have worked for many years;some have managed on ESA for many years. Many have tried to continue to work,despite illness or disability, until forced to give up. Most of us have more knowledge of our condition than an assessor will ever have. I wish the Government would at least treat us with more respect.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent analysis of this Tory Government Green Paper.
    Shared
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great clear and concise article highlighting the doublespeak and deceptive trickery of this Government.

    It beggars belief that the Government would go ahead with such a destructive agenda. (or does it really) Probably not!

    Their aim appears to be to remove 'Disability' from the English Dictionary, reframing it as a personal failing, a character flaw, a behavioural problem in need of State Intervention.

    This is Conscious Cruelty in action.

    I have been following the DWP Select Committee hearings and the Government are fully aware that people in the ESA Support group are terrified of the DWP. They have been made aware that their policies are causing psychological distress and harm to the vulnerable, especially those already suffering from poor mental health.

    Its the constant threat of losing ones security that does it..... Its like living in a war zone, never knowing when they are going to pick you off again.

    In the last 5 years I have been assessed 6 times. Each time I receive notice of another assessment my mental health suffers.

    Between assessments I find myself living in the land of limbo, not able to make the most of my life. The only respite to the all consuming fear is through dissociation.

    This is no life!
    This feels like psychological torture.

    How can we/I plan?

    How can we breath?

    How can we find peace of mind when we live in the fear zone. A zone where you are constantly on red alert.

    I no longer feel able to share my concerns with friends or acquaintances through fear of stigma and prejudice. Emotional Isolation is then compounded by physical isolation.

    I recently had to apply for PIP. after reading your blog I realise I have signed a disclosure allowing them to share all that deeply personal and intimate details of my life with anyone they feel fit to hand it to.

    I find this deeply disturbing.

    This is stuff I dont share with my sisters, let alone strangers unknown to me. This is a humiliation too far.

    I read the United Nations report on the gov the other day and it was damming..... But what was more damming was the governments response.

    This is truly disturbing.

    Its times like this that the thoughts most upper in my mind is how to end the psychological pain and loneliness I feel.
    Its times like this that reality hits home yet again.

    I shall never be free to be me.

    I shall never be free to find my own path.

    And I know I am not alone in my despair, others like me feel the same....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for such a truthful comment & putting into words what I can't at the moment.
      (I'm applying for PIP at the moment after my lifetime DLA award has been taken away.) I'm in the exact place you're speaking of.
      I just want to send you love & support, I wish I could do more. Joo.
      xxx

      Delete
    2. Thank you for such a truthful comment & putting into words what I can't at the moment.
      (I'm applying for PIP at the moment after my lifetime DLA award has been taken away.) I'm in the exact place you're speaking of.
      I just want to send you love & support, I wish I could do more. Joo.
      xxx

      Delete
    3. Thank you so much Linda for sharing how you feel. You've given a voice to many others who are also affected by these policies. Your words are more powerful than any number of analyses such as the one I've tried to do in this blogpost. It's very important that voices such as yours are heard so thank you so much for sharing the reality which so many other people are also experiencing.

      Delete
  4. So as usual, leaving people with impairments on the scrapheap as a percussor to eugenics thinking shows the real bigotry amongst activists and those who enjoyed the good life while others are kept exclude from society. The death list keeps growing on those who must not permitted full inclusion, being seen as full citizens as opposed to animals to be warehoused on a scrapheap, the same views that existed in Germany 80 years ago.

    For someone I used to admire for her passion for inclusion, it is deeply saddening to see this betrayal and prejudices towards people with impairments you regard as unfit for society.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This Green Paper, in common with so much else that emanates from this Government, is chilling in its audacity. To be denied any dignity or choice over our health and our lives is the opposite of autonomy, well-being and inclusion. Yes, there is magical thinking involved, but there are much darker forces at play here. The Government's desire to control all, and I do mean all, aspects of our lives is quite frankly terrifying. UNCRPD Article 19 exhorts State parties to the treaty to enable disabled people to have "choices equal to others", yet this Green Paper seeks to further deny choice to anyone who has to claim benefits because they are unable to work reliably and sustainably to earn a living. This is the polar opposite of independent living, or even of inclusion. I see no positives in here...

    ReplyDelete