I have returned from a year's maternity leave to find discussions gong on about becoming an alternative office.

We are a small (one full time post, two officers) welfare advice unit based in a housing association. We only deal with one local authority for HB / CTB purposes and one JC+ office. We have a welfare benefits general help with casework Quality Mark.

We help a range of tenants with benefits but predominantly deal with older people.

So, my question is, is it worth it? Would we really be compromising our independence for the sake of greater convenience in the application process? Or is it more complicated than my post maternity brain can cope with?

Welcome back.

There was a recent discussion on this issue alternative office thread although wba who kicked off the discussion doesn't appear to have come back since - I'm not sure whether that's a comment on Alternative Offices or the pesky RN contributors!

Wed 02-Nov-05 11:37 AM by Paul Treloar

There was a Parliamentary Question yesterday on Alternative Offices and Joint Teams Hansard record

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claims for (a) pension credit and (b) attendance allowance have been processed by citizens advice bureaux staff; and how much has been paid to the citizens advice bureaux for (i) the use of their offices and (ii) the work of their staff in processing claims for his Department. <19632>

Mr. Timms: DWP recognises the important role the citizens advice bureaux play in helping people with benefit claims. The alternative office has been developed to allow a member of a voluntary organisation who is accredited, to collect information and verify claims. Training is provided by the Pension Service to support these organisations to carry out these tasks.

The number of pension credit and attendance allowance applications that are verified specifically by citizens advice bureaux staff is not recorded.

There are currently two joint teams operating that include citizens advice bureaux partners. Under the joint team agreement each of the parties is responsible for funding all costs incurred by them in respect of the provision of the services, the premises and the information technology and systems. The Department therefore does not provide funding to the citizens advice bureaux for this purpose.

The pension service also provides local service information points within 30 citizens advice bureaux offices around the country, working together for the mutual benefit of the customer. These arrangements are with the agreement of the local office and no funding is provided for the use of accommodation. 1 Nov 2005 : Column 922W

So it is clear that there is no immediate financial gain as such from entering into these arrangements.

Thanks Paul.

no monitoring and evaluation either. that's probably a relief for any 'partners', but also means there's no proper public accountability either.

jj

Well, we're not in it for the non-existent money, thank goodness. In fact we don't rely on any external bodies for funding at all. My employer offers benefits advice as a service to tenants and although I need to show the results of what we do, this is done in terms of additional income for tenants rather than as reduced rent arrears or some other measurement.

We are a small service and we mainly exist to help people claim benefits and try and make the process as easy for them as the system allows because in most cases it is the administrative process that puts older people off claiming. At this moment (and I am willing to be proved wrong) I can only see the benefits of being able to date forms, verify original documents etc so that I'm not spending half my working life running original documents for people to various benefit offices and back again because they wont put them in the post.

I do understand all the social policy implications but the reality of my work with older people is that being an alternative office would make ours and their lives easier.

Anyway, we do the training this month so no commitment is made yet. I promise to report back on what happens.

JJ - each of the members of staff are individually accredited to be an alternative office and they are monitored - initially 100% of cases are monitored and then reduced over time - any monitoring that reveals problems is dealt with by training or if that does not work by ending the accreditation -

there is also a rumour (mainly spread by the Pension Service) that anyone who is an alternative office cannot represent any client they have dealt with as an alternative office in any appeal hearing - I do not agree as all that the person does is to verify documents and submit claim forms - they do not make any decisions regarding entitlement - the only issues where this would be a difficulty would be where the issue at the tribunal was connected with the alternative office eg date of claim, etc

hope this helps

Shabir

re the representation issue - this is the very reason why there has been such intense discussion amongst the fraternity over Alternative offices and joint teams etc - the ethical issues over representing a claimant that a colleague may have helped to make etc - One way of reducing your wages and overheads, in addition to redundancies, is to get someone else to do the work for you - besides which, if there is no money on the table, who is working for whom - free of charge?

Mike is right - it is a way of the department cutting costs and getting rid of staff. But you have to consider the alternatives.

Since they are going to cut the staff anyway the choices are:

1. No one helping someone make a claim and making them send verifying documents through the post.

2. Someone starting an agency to make money out of helping someone make a claim (the client would be made a charge).

3. Advisers becoming alternative offices.

Whether I like it or not - if a choice has to be made I know which way I would go.

The intense discussions among the advice fraternity is regarding representation and independence. Again perhaps reality should be considered. Whilst I would dearly like to be pure in terms of independence I have to accept compromise. Whilst it might be heresy to say it I do not think it is as important as many in the advice fraternity. After all we see every day other discplines where independence is not absolute.

Both Doctors and Lawyers get into situations where their theoretical independence could be questioned but they do not lose sleep over it. Either their professionalism (to wear different hats) is accepted as unquestionable or they develop systems to deal with it.

Furthermore why ignore the positive opportunities that becoming an alternative office could bring. Such as being able to talk to assessment staff directly on casework instead of having to waste everyone's time and money by appealing.

I think that there needs to be some further discussion over what independence really means. Of course it would be naïve to think that there exists independence in some sort of pure sense, in that there are no attachments or conditions to working practices or funding arrangements. Derek is right, there will always be compromises some relatively harmless, others, uneasy.

The real issue is the ability and willingness of an organisation (whether it is a CAB, LA WRU, law centre, etc) to assist an individual, without fear or favour, to the best of its ability, to enforce his/her legal right against a public authority, whether that is the DWP, IR or whatever, without that public authority being able, whether through overt pressure or understood compliance, to influence, interfere with, intimidate or threaten that organisation.

An example of weakening an organisation’s ability to act without favour is a restriction on legal aid funding where CAB’s in our area feel unable to take non-legal aidable cases on due to pressures on achieving their output hours.

An example of weakening an organisation’s ability to act without fear is the pressure for joint teams, where the LA may welcome a joint team as it eases its own funding pressures. Such a WRU may then become compliant under pressure from the DWP to becoming no more than a take up team, an important WR function, but only a part of a WRU role.

Thus the interference and influence of a WR organisation becomes a matter of threatening to withhold or re-distribute funding to achieve the required compliance. These kinds of pressures must be fiercely resisted. There will always be strings attached to funding and this is natural and should not be too problematic, all things being equal.

But all things are not equal and we have to deal with government’s political agendas.
None of us should forget the cold brutality of the Thatcher government or the cynical corruption under the Major administration but the current government is the most control freakish I have ever seen. The Tories might kick you into the gutter but they usually gave you a bit of breathing space, basically because you were not a threat anymore.

But this government is trying to neutralise any opposition to it whatsoever. To that end it has enacted more legislation than Parliament can barely cope with, mainly with a view to regulating every aspect of individual life. Pressures on individual’s rights and the ability of those who seek to champion those rights are only going to increase and the independence of WR organisations is going to top the agenda for a while to come.

Independence is not compromised by working with the DWP in order to maximise take up. Independence is compromised however, when that joint working is used as a crow bar to manipulate funding arrangements that diminish the ability of WR organisations, in whatever capacity, to challenge without fear or favour decisions of the DWP or which leads to a diminution of advice services which are in a position to mount those challenges.

Can I just say what a good and thought provoking post I found this, Nevip.

Nevip- isn't it also important that advisors appear as independent (ie to the chapette on the street)? That is what worries me about these mixed up deals.

In relation to your point 2, Derek, there was a thread a couple of years ago here, when the Guardian ran features about "advice sharks" that may be of interest advice shark thread.

See also the Guardian stories:

- Cut me in 13.08.03
- Benefit sharks prey on vulnerable clients 13.08.03
- Watchgod raps rights wrongs 04.02.04

There's also a mathematical element to this debate.

If the organisation doesn't currently have the resources to meet customer demand for core services, will this help?

The cash may help provide more staff/opening time... but:

If it reduces availability of interview rooms,
If real staff availability is reduced
If admin support is diverted etc.

There's some very detailed modelling that should be done here to establish the business case for this kind of work, let alone the political & social cases.

I wonder how many organisations do any kind of formal evaluation of this sort?

Martin

You are of course right. Perception is vey important. Public confidence in the organisation is vital.

Personally, I would prefer not to have any organisational contact with the DWP at all. My views on how the benefit system has been historically set up to discipline the working class are fairly well known, even though there are some well meaning individuals who work there.

However, there are some things that I can live with if I have to, like joint working.

However, there are some things I will never live with - joint teams.

Nevip,

My argument could be sumarised as the advice community will have no choice but to accept alternative offices so we might as well make the best of it!!

Found your post very thought provoking.

You have, bless you, found the fault in this argument. The DWP, egged on by this government, will manipulate and try to bully any advisers that it can - it's in their nature.

It will occur to some faceless person that the DWP's disastrous record in decision making and appeals can be helped by neutering and removing "opposition".

Joint working could well create that opportunity.

So you are right - from experience - I cannot trust the DWP either.

Still think alternative offices will happen though - whether we like it or not!

My objection to so called alternative offices stems from the thought processes that thought them up in the first place - which must have gone a little like this:-

1. We've got to save money
2. we can make 30000 redundant....
3. so, how do we then manage our business efficiently ?
4. I know, we'll ask the voluntary sector if they'll take claims and verify documents for us, but we won't pay them any monies for doing so - they'll leap at the chance, particularly if we offer limited access to our computer systems ....
5. We can also make it known (one way or another) that they should'nt provide representation at the same time -

OK, so it's a simplistic way of looking at it, but I should imagine that it's not that far off the mark - it probably took them a number of committee meetings to arrive at the same conclusion.

Other than the fact that they will get work done for them free of charge, which obviates the need for many of those that were made redundent, I can't see any other objections to these alternative offices - as long as Welfare Rights Advisers who do representation work are kept as far away from them as possible.

Nice one mike in 5 points you have summed up the whole problem exactly as I seen it as well.

The main issue for greedy CAB's at this time must be the "We wont pay them" part and the comments of the CAB Chief Executive when he said earlier?

"David Harker, chief executive of Citizens Advice, touched upon this issue in a recent speech when he stated: "Bureaux have built up a reputation for independence and confidentiality, and our clients trust us – we cannot undermine that. Access to e-services needs to be secure, but CABs cannot undertake to verify client identity, income or other matters by confirming the validity of documentation, such as passports."

Wait and see if the £ signs appear and how quick the Chief Executive of CAB's changes his minds?

Like they do in CLS Contract Work?

Mike, I can't see that your objection, contained in the five bullet points, is an objection at all - isn't just a cynical criticsm of the reasons behind the move?

Not that I object to cynical criticsm mind you, but there is serious issue here. The benefits system is in a mess, 30,000 staff are on the way out and thousands of peope are suffering needless financial hardship, debt and physical and mental ill health at the hands of a benefits and tax credit system that's moving backwards faster than Jules Vernes 'Time Machine'. To be cyncial and critical, I don't think the government gives two hoots about all this, and when a staff member of our DWP office told me that there is an unofficial policy to end state benefits, I laughed. Now I'm not so sure... (from what I've heard, there's a policy to do over as many of their own staff as possible too...).

It seems obvious why the Government are going down this line now, but I have no ojection in principle if it is well managed. It does worry me that the work is not paid. This has potential to mean that local tax payers will be paying for benefit adminstration and generalist advice services could suffer? Also, what if a LA cuts funding for an advice agency doing this work and they can't do it anymore?

Indpendence too (the original question) is important, but I don't think it's going to have a serious impact. There doesn't seem to me to be any breach of independence any different from many other areas. I have to means-test for the LSC, my organisations funding is affected by whichever political party has control, and we have politicians on our trustee board. I attend regular meetings with the JC+, DWP and LA benefit offices and share and receive information - will I really be compromising my independence by verifying original documents? After all, how many times have we all wished that the benefit office would just take our word for it when claimants are suffering badly because the system starts with the assumption that everyone is a lying cheat? I wouldn't believe any benefits adviser that says the thought never happened.

A serious thing that does worry me is liability. Who will be responsible for mistakes and errors and resultant over or underpayments?

There are some definite positive aspects to this type of working and some definite negatives, but we live in a progressive society and change is crucial to development. What's important, I feel (which cynically I know won't happen) is that's it's dealt with openly and fairly and the government listen (if they had ears) to experience and reason and be prepared to compromise and change for the good of the claimant.

Finally, I think the criticsm of the CAB in this thread is harsh and unwarranted. Are not all voluntary sector agencies 'greedy'? They all want their share of the cake and they all want to expand thier services - and it's not only CAB's that have LSC contracts. If this is one way that the voluntary sector can see of expanding the beneficial impact of their existence, why shouldn't they jump at it?

Hi Tony

Paid or unpaid the voluntary sector should stay well away if they wish to remain independent.

30,000 redundant and now looking to the voluntary sector to replace them for free?

Instead of waiting to fill their bank accounts the CAB should have been up in arms over this drastic drop in DWP front line public services?

However just like the predictable WTC fiasco they did almost nothing.

voluntary sector organisations, especially registered charities, were founded generally, to meet an unmet need. they have constitutions setting out their aims and objectives, and the sector is extremely diverse. some organisations became involved in advice provision at various levels, as an _indirect_ means of acheiving their aims and objectives. the primary objective might be anti-poverty, or social justice, or overcoming disadvantage...

(LA's and i guess housing associations are in different positions to most vol.orgs, but there are plenty here can speak from those points of view.)

any organisation deciding to get involved with the DWP needs to consider carefully the impact on their primary aims and objectives, and how the organisation might be changed by it, as well as how it would work in partnership.

funding is the Achilles heel of the voluntary sector. reliance on core funding can kill off or enslave the 'vibrant' (adjectives are cheaper to give than grants) voluntary sector. the attraction of the voluntary sector for government is the idea that there are all those volunteers who do work for free. hah! okay, they may not be as ignorant as all that, but still, it's hard to dislodge ideas sometimes, and maybe some first impressions from the name stick...?

alternative office...what's that all about? really?

dating claims and verification sounds innocuous enough, and, as people have pointed out, it helps people out, and the voluntary sector likes helping people, it's what it exists for. and access to computer records would be jolly useful for welfare rights advisers, where is the harm...?

quid pro quo, as hannibal lector would say...

why is there this uneasy feeling that dating claims and verification could be just the thin end of the wedge?

the point of this debate, as far as i can see it, is to determine whether or not we should assist HMG in inserting the thin end of the wedge into our sensitive voluntary sector orifices...? i appreciate that not everyone sees it quite that same way.

'there is no wedge' might be one position. 'i'm not letting you put that wedge anywhere near me' might be another. 'there is no evidence any wedge exist and until presented with it (ouch!) i will assume it does not' - perhaps?

my position, at the present time, is that it is reasonable to assume there is a wedge, and any insertion of the thin end is dependant on being shown the size of the other end so that i can make an informed decision as to whether i think i would like it or not. and no hammers.

why reasonable? there's more going on than alternative offices...CAB piloting 'assisted self-help kiosks' for the DWP...its e-gov. involvement...the proposed hiving off of JC+ to the private and voluntary sector...the vision of central government as a commissioner of public services but not a provider...30,000 job cuts in the DWP...the need to consider the possibility that the voluntary sector could be harnessed to deliver public services under the lash of THE CONTRACT MANAGERS FROM HELL - the DWP!!! my informed opinion is that they would make the LSC, who i at times suspect of trying to kill me, look like mother teresa. if you know what i mean.

not forgetting that the unplugged gap in provision that alternative offices are filling, was a fait accomplit with a sham consultation.

so i think adverse inferences ARE justified, and the onus is on the authorities.

so far, so selfish - thinking about how we can best do our work, and what's best for our sector, which we think is valuable, (i'm speaking for myself and imagining some people agree with me, btw : ) - a sort of collective we rather than a royal we is intended ), and our jobs and our own survival chances, lets face it.

but there's more...tony bowman rightly asks questions about responsibilities, and there is also, for me at least, the suspicion that the 'ideas' have not been thought through beyond anything but a superficial level. the fact is that the social security system is a statutory scheme, and it is not nearly as simple as uninitiated policy peeps think, to abdicate legal responsibilities to any tom dick or harry on a compulsory work placement in a registered charity, or even give out access to confidential data.

the questions for responsible organisations is how damaging might it be to the wider interests of the public, for the statutory scheme to wither or hit the rocks. with the best will in the world, the voluntary sector cannot substitute for the statutory authorities in delivery of service as it is - we only ever see a fraction of the whole of the potential beneficiaries, and are resource limited. i hope i do not ever see a commissioner's decision along the lines of ' Mr. X stated that he had no idea he could have obtained advice on claiming from Upton on Piddle Haemmorhoid Action Centre and since he does not have haemmorrhoids, good cause is allowed.' oh i don't know.... : )

would we be collaborating with the demise of the scheme which grew out of voluntary self-help long before, and turn full circle, with needs again being most detrimentally unmet? do we want to keep smashing wheels for the 'fun' of re-inventing them>

no substitute, but change then? life is change, and it's not as if the current state of the system is so great it might not be the best thing for it...and the not- for -profit sector has a lot to contribute (as opposed to a lot to exploit).

but we're not children to believe in santa claus cos our parents told us to. we're adults and can behave as such.

i see no possibility of voluntary sector co-operation while the premise of entitlement is 'prove you're not scum'.

i think what bill says about the CAB really applies to the DWP trade unions, another story. i'm not up enough on CAB to want to comment, except that it has some very good people working for it...
but bills very important point can be put to the test very soon, i should think...

but on mike's point no. 5 - i'm not at all convinced that this starts from the DWP at all, and think they are repeating what the sector has said to them. i don't think we should spread the rumour that it originates with the DWP, (i'll stand corrected if there is evidence), much less argue with it. independence is compromised by involvement in claims processing.

jj

Nevip 'the benefit system has been historically set up to discipline the working class' - as you say these are your own views - presumably not those of the service/Council you represent or employed by.

Joint teams? would suggest you speak to your fairer chargings team or anyone involved in charging and get their views on the current practice across the country of customers, many of them vulnerable, getting 2-3 visits from various orgainstions all asking the same or simmilar questions/information - why not ask/consult these customers about the services they recieve and want - rather than the services welfare rights advisers says should be provided (these are my own personal views and not those of my employer or service)

What a ridiculous thing to say. Of course these are my own personal views. Do I have to put out a disclaimer every time I open my mouth. Historically, the benefit system has grown out of the poor laws and the workhouse, underpinned by the theory of less eligibility. Better minds than mine have formulated these views in the past (social policy researchers, for instance) so I think I'm in fairly good company. Others may take a different view. That is their right.

As for the second point. I'm not even going to dignify that with a detailed response. Other contributors to these forums have already made the arguments against joint teams very clear. Again, others are free to take a different view. But to presume we do not have our clients best interests at heart or that we do not know how they feel about these issues or that we think we know better is, guite frankly, an insult and does not do a serious, complex debate, with strong genuine feelings on both sides, justice.

The nature of welfare rights work means that advisers get feedback daily from customers about which agency they'd prefer to deal with and the waiting lists for appointments at independent advice agencies also speak volumes about what customers want.

The reason why DWP started thinking about joint teams, alternative offices, etc was because their research on the Better Government for Older People Pilots in 2001 showed that older people did not like dealing with the DWP. DWP never made a secret of this point in their discussions with external agencies.

Some other research in 2004 by the Regional Centre for Neighbourhood Renewal commissioned by the DWP about the Pension Service and which I obtained under the FOI Act showed that the PS is the preferred point of contact for just 41% all older people. This includes the majority whose contact will be non-problematic dealings about RP, one can therefore reliably assume that the percentage will be even lower among pensioners on PC.

The more that agencies become drawn into work which involves aspects of benefits administration, the more they will be tainted with the public perception of the DWP and potentially lose the trust of many claimants. Alternative offices can potentially start agencies on this downward slope (especially if one does not have transparency about what the agency is doing and on whose behalf). There is also always potential for a conflict of interest.

There would be no need for alternative offices if the DWP took a more customer friendly and reliable approach to verification - some might say that's pie in the sky but let's not lose sight of why people are reluctant to send documents to DWP and it's hardly efficient to have to go through an intermediary in order to make a simple benefit claim.

One of the problems with LAs in particular being drawn into joint teams is the concern about where it will end. We have already had examples of senior DWP staff proposing involvement of JC+ and in almost all the joint teams, their training and benefits knowledge is being dominated by the DWP's corporate perspective.

As a further sign of where all this might end, have look at the Rightsnet news story (10 Nov '05) link to the uncorrected minutes of the Work and Pensions Committee. At questions 54 and 62, Terry Moran, Chief Executive of the Disability and Carers Service suggests some worrying things about how LAs might become involved in administering aspects of AA or even pay AA (presumably not as cash but in services - now that's a nice way to cap expenditure!). The link is here:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmworpen/uc572/uc57202.htm

With respect, joint teams only benefit those over 60.
If a working age member of the public wants advice on possible benefit entitlement, the only possible official port of call they have, at least in this part of the world, is a JCP office. If our local office is any guide to the current situation, all persons entering the front door theoretically should have an appointment under the new regime. They are already stretched to the limit, having been shorn of staff as a result of redundancies etc.

However, If a client approaches a vol sector office then they will (or should) get a complete benefits check based upon their personal circumstances and proper indepth advice on how to claim, where to claim from and evidence that will be required etc.
If appointed as an alternative office, that agency subsequently will then be able to help the person make the claim(s), verify documents etc. If they do not normally carry out any representation work, then I can't see that as being a problem at all, if they want to carry out that sort of work without any additional funding.
The only problem I can see is where that same Vol agency has specialists who represent, either under a CLS franchise or otherwise. Do they, can they or should they then act in an appeal against a decision on a claim made by the same office.......?

Neil – as you know waiting lists may also reflect the lack of service provision in an area rather than customers thumbs up for a particular service.

I’m not too sure about the assertion that the nature of welfare rights work somehow lends us intuitively knowing what customers want - there are many potential customers who are unable to access services because of poor health, disability etc - who consults them – who asks them what they want? Many advice services are no different from other services with a poor track record of engaging in the wider community as to the services they want – the needs of customers/clients seems to be overlooked.

As regards joint teams and the slippery slope argument- the reality is that many welfare rights services are not even at the top of the slope – where joint teams are in place or being set up this is largely through financial assessment teams in local authorities – joint teams are happening albeit unevenly across the country – welfare rights services are in many cases not even at the starting gate (to continue with the analogy) the issues about DWP ‘domination’ could in part be resolved if welfare rights services were involved

Sorry Nevip - if you took offence at my comments - my point is that its all too easy to make assumptions - there appears to be an undercurrent of elitism among some welfare rights advisers which is reflected in this debate on joint teams and alternative offices - that somehow only we know best, a view that other services or providers - including the Pension Service - could not possibly match up to our own or deliver any sort of quality advice - the reality is far more complex. In many areas where there is minimal advice provision often the only way of people getting access to advice is through the Pension Service - who are we to say that people should not be getting advice through the joint team route or that claiming benefits should not be made easier through alternative offices? Welfare rights advisers do not have the monopoly on welfare rights advice (if you know what I mean).

Of course there are concerns/ difficulties with joint teams/alternative offices and fears from welfare rights services about loss of independence and loss of funding etc. But I’m not too sure that a blanket approach of opposition on this issue is viable or even desirable - there is a risk that at best some welfare rights services will become increasingly marginalized and sidelined. To my mind - welfare rights has to change and adapt, be more pragmatic – acknowledge that in some areas there are valid arguments for joint teams and alternative offices - to negate this really poses a more fundamental question - as to where welfare rights in its present form will be in 10 or even 5 years time?

(Speaking in a personal capacity and not on behalf of my authority or the customers in this area)

When I was a DWP union rep.fighting cuts in service, I frequently used to argue that there would always be a need for independent advice, but it is _not_ a substitute for advice which the DWP had a duty to provide as a first port of call - in other words, although we had a referral list of independent advice agencies which were issued with decisions and on request, it should not be issued with a _refusal_ to provide advice, in abdication of responsibility, and forcing independent advice agencies to fulfill the department's functions, instead of their own, which are rather different.

Now that I have moved on, I remain of the same opinion, and would be very happy if the situation were such that the various authorities provided reliable advice, accessibly. I think the problem has been worsened by reduced access, and reduced objectivity and impartiality of staff, through reduced training, and the impact of the benefit system policing priority.

The problem for LAs, is that they have to provide advice in the course of their statutory responsibilities as administrators of a benefit system, and are also funders of welfare rights advice provision. Depending on the way LA services are delivered, there is always a risk to true independence of their welfare rights units, and I am aware that most LA welfare rights advisers take this difficulty very seriously, and are actively concerned to 'firewall', if you like, welfare rights work from involvement in the benefit administration process. Whilst being quite different, it's not that dissimilar from the old 'independent' adjudication system, which has been abolished. The quasi-independence is realized through systems of safe-guards, procedures and monitoring, culture and committment, as well as physically separate locations.

It should be clear that involvement in benefit administration _inevitably_ compromises independence, and the very serious worry is that senior LA managers do not understand the distinction between the two service areas, dissolve the 'firewalls' and effectively, if not in name, stop funding their own welfare rights advice, detrimentally leaving a big hole in the welfare rights sector.

i don't accept that it is elitism to value welfare rights work, and to defend its independence. if welfare rights staff are being deployed on joint teams, they are no longer welfare rights staff. I don't think the objection is to joint teams per se, but to the blurring of 2 entirely different functions which could result in the demise of welfare rights advice provision in some LAs.

i think the field of welfare rights is of necessity pragmatic and adaptable. there is no call however, for it to be supine.

jj

On the button as usual Jan. Welfare rights is not form filling: although that is a service that can be legitimately provided by advice services (particularly DLA/AA claims and IB50’s).

If advice agencies/LA’s want to work jointly with the DWP to complete claim forms, collect information and promote take-up then I do not oppose that in principle. However, form filling, as Jan says, has always been the primary responsibility of the DWP. A claimant goes to the JC, sits down with a benefit officer who assists with completion of the form if that is what the claimant wants. The DWP should not be allowed to abdicate its responsibility for this to the advice sector (thus making its own staff redundant). Funding in the advice sector is tight and we need more specialist workers not fewer.

Specialist legal advice, representation and casework is what we are trying to protect and we do not want funding drawn away from this provision to fund form filling and information gathering.

Another problem is that of physicality. Joint teams would entail DWP staff moving into an already established WR team, which provides a range of services from form filling, take-up, advice and representation. Therefore to keep the representation side apart from the DWP would mean splitting an existing team up and making the caseworkers into a new and separate team. There is not one person in our team who would agree to this if given a choice. We are a good team whose parts work well together to provide an all round service. The wheel does not need re-inventing.

Finally, as has been said before, the public need to have confidence in us. A person needs to know that when we take his/her case on for an appeal that:

1. DWP staff do not have access to the case file

2. DWP staff have no influence over how the case is prosecuted

3. DWP staff do not ‘spy’ on operations and report back to their employers

4. The rep does not pull his/her punches to appease DWP workers who s/he may work with, whether sub-consciously or not

I’m sure that there are plenty of other potential pitfalls also.

It's an interesting debate... I don't have any answers.. simply a few observations... perhaps a bit wacky.. but based on a philosophical perspective which has helped to keep me relatively sane!

1. "Independence" must of course be a relative concept rather than an absolute one. I worked in a busy and effective local authority advice centre and on a day to day basis I considered myself as independent of the local authority. However, in 1997 we were shut down as part of a general cutback in council funding. Whilst I now work in a RSL doing welfare rights work, that experience of near-redundancy has changed my view of "independence".

2. Related to 1 above, it is easy to forget how recent, in historical terms, the welfare rights world is. It emerged and grew from a specific social/political/economic era which has now changed and continues to change. My view (from the early 90s) of what constitutes "welfare rights" may be different from that of someone coming in to the job now c.f. those who pioneered the sector in the 70s and 80s. Just as our clients have to deal with a series of confusing changes, we may have to face fundamental challenges to the way we work and the principles on which that work is based. Some of us, may, if we are able, decide that it is no longer a job worth doing but I suspect that for many of us, the reality of family and financial commitments may mean working with what we don't like.

3. Individuals are free to express their own opinions and its good that this safety valve exists. The CABx sector should not be immune from criticism. However, I see the welfare rights and advice sector as a rainbow with different parts and colours having different strengths and weaknesses. There is no "pure" way or method to do the job and local authority welfare rights services can range in quality and effectiveness also.

Disclaimer: (1) Certainly my own views and maybe wacky.
(2) I don't support "New Labour", never have and never will.

Best Wishes

Ian

Ian - at last some common sense in this discusion - not too sure about the rainbow analogy though - bit too new age for me

Is that the same common sense that informed the 19th century british school of philosophy which condemned german and french philosophy as deranged and delusuional? If so, then its an absolute pleasure to be patronised by you.

Ouch!

I have just remembered to update you all (because I'm sure you're interested *wink*) on our experience with the training to become an alternative office.

It wasn't as intenesive as I thought it might be but the DWP are clearly relying on organisations being familiar with the claim process already. We were issued with the forms that the DWP would require to be completed every time a claim was accepted by the alternative office and they are not too onerous but obviously increase the workload to a small extent.

Monitoring is done centrally using the forms but no individual monitoring of alternative ofices is proposed. In fact I can see very little contact between the DWP and the alternative office on a on-going basis.

There are no advantages to us as representatives because the claim acceptance process is clearly differentiated from the representative role. The only real advantage is to our mainly older claimants who have always been happier to surrender documents to a person they know for a short period, then to send them off into the unknown that is Royal Mail.

Our decision is to go ahead with signing the agreement with the DWP and become an alternative office. We're not tied to any minimum period, we can stop at any time, we're not obliged to take referrals from any other source, or advertise the fact that we are an alternative office so we can limit the work to our existing client base.

We shall probably start in the New Year, to give me time to set up internal procedures so I shall try and remember to update you again when we've been running for a while (if you're interested, I won't be offended if you're not hehehe)

On the broader front I was interested to read the Chief Exec. of Citizens Advice responding to the latest government IT strategy statement.

"Improving transactional electronic services so that they are faster, easier and better than traditional channels can help people directly, can make front line public servants more effective, and can ensure that intermediaries such as ourselves can help digitally excluded citizens take advantage of these services.

The strategy also recognises that government IT systems have not been designed to support the voluntary and community sectors - to our dismay we have seen this first hand. I am therefore pleased to have accepted a place on the Service Transformation Board and trust that this initiative can indeed be the catalyst for real change and meet the challenge of focusing services on real needs of citizens."

I read a few things into that:

CABx as electronic access points into government

He's not just getting into bed with them, he's changing the duvet cover. (attempted clever analogy for 'wrapping services')

Entire absence of the A word - Advice.

Interestingly, I hear that CABNET, set up originally with some £37m of DTI money, is not as stable as CAB would like it to be, and is a tad slow into the bargain and ideally needs to be updated - a process that CAB can't really afford at present.

In addition, some of the DWP computer systems (CMS 2 & 3) are not exactly doing what they were designed to do: would not additional links raise the possibility of them becoming more unstable? and finally, if some brighter than average person can infiltrate the IRS E systems, then are they not widening the window of opportunity for hackers to attempt to do the same to DWP? How secure would links from external agencies really be?

Lets be honest - for a hacker to gain access to the DWP systems would be like christmas and easter all rolled into one - think of the monies they could misappropriate and the havoc they could cause - ahh, manna from heaven - and not so far fetched as one might think.....

Mark my words, It'll all end in tears and recriminations......

AFAIK the TC claims problem was people taking advantage of process design errors rather than hacking the system. A lot of work issues within government generally are caused because the security systems are so strong. If somebody could hack their way through the gateways and the GSI (government secure intranet) then they could, with enough knowledge, do some seriously more damaging things than extracting cash.

What interested me was the implication in Dave Harkers comments that government is building in the 3rd sector access into their new systems. That, it seems to me, indicates expectations rather greater than asking a few agencies if some of their members would be interested in helping out the DWP.

At a staff meeting here last week someone suggested we were going to turn into a sausage factory.

There's been talk here about turning our car park into a Donkey sanctuary - the donkey's get all the money apparently!

Is it just imagination, or is all not well within the CAB ranks ?

That depends on a number of factors:

1. How often you get audited
2. The quality of the management
3. The qualify of the trustee board
4. Paid and volunteer staffing levels
5. The level of funding
6. Etc...
7. Bureacracy


These factors do seem to be unbalanced..... (RCWRU is a CAB affiliated org)

News story headline today

"Voluntary sector Alternative Offices & local authority Joint Teams should be DWP funded"

Just what the greedy CAB's will have been waiting for me thinks?

Are you jealous Bill?

I would not call myself Jealous?

Independent and impartial always, but certainly not Jealous.

Just being flippant - sorry!

Alternative Offices is not something our bureau is getting involved in - we have enough to do coping with other funders demands!