The pension service state that there are some 25+ joint teams up and running - has anyone managed to verify who these teams are, and more importantly what their definition of "Joint team working" is?

The reason I ask about definition is that (and far be it for me to appear even a tad cynical) in some quarters, just making the odd cross referral is looked upon as joint team working.

Mike, you might remember I sent an email round the SG a while back when they were claiming 18 joint teams up and running. It definitely did include at least one team where there was little more than a data sharing agreement and, I think we found out later, one local authority that hadn't even agreed to participate.

And no, I don't think there is an actual definition as such.

According to the evidence provided to the Commons Work and Pensions Committee Inquiry into Pension Credit (Vol II, page Ev 107), the DWP advised the Commitee that the following 25 LAs had joint teams as at November 2004:

Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Dorset, Bournemouth, Devon, Swindon, North Somerset, Bath & North East Somerset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, LB Richmond, Shropshire, East Sussex, Nottinghamshiore, Tameside, West Lothian, Derby City, Nottingham City, Reading, Warrington, Wigan, Plymouth, Harrow, Poole & Portsmouth.

I think there are also Joint Teams in Durham County and Waltham Forrest.

The DWP are also claiming that the joint teams have been responsible for a major part of the increase in AA/DLA claims, but no data to support this has so far been produced as far as I am aware.

One LA listed above told me that theirs was more of the referral arrangement type (apparently their fairer charging functions of benefits advice and financial assessment are split) and in September last year someone from another LA listed above told me that they hadn't even signed an agreement to form a joint team despite being listed as fully operational at time as well.

Didn't feel it was fair to name the LAs involved as not sure what they were telling me was on the record. Both were listed as fully functional joint teams last September though, as per my message to Mike above.

I'm not sure there has been a particularly large increase in AA/DLA claims since joint teams have been on the agenda so not sure how they can make that claim. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

At least two of these have Welfare rights teams operating at "arms length" as it were, but certainly not part of the joint team - anyone out there who works for any of the others ?

Kind of like I thought, numbers of AA and DLA claimants have been steadily rising for years, no recent jump since joint teams (at least up to December 04)

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/stats_summary/Stats_Summary_dec2004_final.pdf

Apologies if this is on RightsNet already but see following link:

www.audit-commission.gov.uk/CPA/Downloads/CAKLOEpractitioner.pdf

It is the consultation draft of the new CPA assessment for Councils. See page 38 where it talks of needing evidence of joint working with the pension service re take up of benefits for older people. However, in the criteria as to how this will be measured it specifically states that there should be a "joint team" in place. This notwithstanding that the other criteria is about demonstrating take up.

Point has been made elsewhere that having just seen off the proposed BVPI which seemed to be saying that only increased benefit take up in joint teams could be measured we now have the same thing through the CPA. Given that the CPA is of high importance for most (all?) councils this appears to be compulsion by inspection.

Guess a lot of councils will need to rethink their position as at the national finance officers' meeting in Leeds the other week a show of hands indicated that most were either not thinking about them yet or had ruled them out altogether.

Seems all the talk of "joint working" being an alternative ain't worth a hill of beans. Not sure if the LGA are formally responding to this but given that the LGA lead on joint teams is, I understand, a secondee from the DWP, I won't be holding my breath.

Any thoughts?

there's now a list of joint teams, as of 1 march 2005 @ http://www.dwp.gov.uk/pub_scheme/2005/april/pdfs/annex_a.pdf

I can confidently say that there are several LAs on this list which do not have joint teams and that many LAs with alleged joint teams don't have signed agreements, (how can one have a proper joint team with shared working arrangements without a written agreement?)

There has been more than a little spin about how many LAs have joint teams and how many intend to do so.

I have been emailing a contact at the LGA re the joint teams issue and the new CPA references to joint teams at both Level 2 and 3.

I'm informed that the LGA's Community Well Being Board, which has strategic relationships with the DWP within its remit, will be considering the issue at its board meeting in early July. I understand guidance will be circulated following this meeting.

Hopefully this will clarify what appears to be the ambiguous nature of the CPA proposals which "suggest" that a joint team is a pre condition of demonstrating joint working with the DWP to increase take up.

Please note that because of log in problems with RightsNet this post is from Steve Nelson not Sara Collins whose machine I am using.

Thanks

The link below is to a document which lists the latest (May 2005) position per authority. May be worth checking your own to see if it is consistent with what is happening on the ground and post here.

Cheers


http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/joint_teams_july_2005.doc

I work at Derby City Council and we have a joint team up and running with the DWP. It has raised an issue of Regrading for our posts as the work we are taking on has really made an impact on our workload.

I have similar concerns with the whole 'joint team' issue, in that the concept could be described as progressive, the reality i fear will be somewhat different.

I raised an issue at the consultation committee meeting in Peterborough last week, surrounding the whole issue of The Pension Service (TPS) holistic approach to Pension Credit (PC) claimants and any potential eligibility to AA/DLA and subsequent claims.

We know AA/DLA claims increase year on year, but my concerns surround claims made by a PC home visiting team, as a part of the 'new' holistic approach, but then subsequently fail to get an award. If these cases have been correctly identified and the AA/DLA claim is appeallable, who will deal with it ?

Do we expect the TPS to extend their role to an advisory capacity, or will this work be signposted to a Welfare Rights organisation that will then take it forward?

The real concern comes when there are disabling conditions that require specific and specialist support, such as profoundly deaf AA/DLA claimants, who communicate using BSL. As we all know, most CAB's Welfare organisations do not have these specialist services available and may find the cost of employing an interpreter prohibitive.

Is there the potential for these claims and subsequent denials to go unnoticed, if not who is picking them up ?

My view is that your fears are based on sound assumptions. I have circulated an analysis of joint team performance data to NAWRA and one of the indicators showed that in May 2005 just 6% of the people seen by Joint Teams were referred to other services - this includes any referral for anything (home care, medical services as well as well as to an advice agency). The December 2004 referral rate was similar. So the evidence points to almost no referrals being made in the situations you describe.

Inevitably staff in Joint Teams (esp DWP staff) may well feel uneasy about referring cases which will result in a legal challenge to their employing or partner body, ("The policeman in your head" - Soviet era, Czech disident saying), and some staff will not have sufficient knowledge to identify winnable appeals in more complex or unusual cases.

The internal operational procedures I saw for the Somerset JT showed that their standard approach is to close a case if a benefit is refused.

There are also some signs that staff in JTs tend to claim benefits like AA only in cases where entitlement is more certain. Given the difficulties that DWP Decision Makers seem to have in correctly applying Mallinson and Fairey/Halliday principles to claims made by people with a sensory impairement, this is of particular concern.

"................We know AA/DLA claims increase year on year, but my concerns surround claims made by a PC home visiting team, as a part of the 'new' holistic approach, but then subsequently fail to get an award. If these cases have been correctly identified and the AA/DLA claim is appeallable, who will deal with it?............."

The simple answer to the question is that no one will pick up these cases. This is the whole point of the arguement around Joint Teams and Welfare rights units. Unless Pension service make a policy decision to refer such cases to WR teams the the claimants will lose out. It is doubtful if the joint team concerned are even notified when a claim is unsuccessful - is the client advised by the PS visitor about appeal times etc - how well trained are PS VO's in the law - particularly case law? There is a possible tendancy to target those AA/DLA claims which would attract SDP etc if successful.

There is a Pension Service standards review event scheduelled for November 15th, the following text has gone out with the invitation letter:

'The Pension Service is currently reviewing the standards of service our customers can expect to receive from our organisation. These will be contained in a revised Customer Charter, which is due to be published in April 2006. We want to make sure that our service standards continue to meet our customers’ priorities and expectations. It is vitally important that we involve customers, customer representative groups and staff in this review process, so that we can provide a service that meets everyone’s needs. This review will include our customer feedback process'.

This may be the ideal forum to feedback on a lot of the issues discussed in this thread.

Some realism needs to be injected into this debate. We are dealing with a Pension Service which is pro-activley encouraging the take up of Pension Credit, AA, underlying carers premiums etc Yes - there are concerns about Regional Centres, issues of independence, decision making etc but it has to be recognised that there has been changes in ethos, culture of local Pension Services. 10 or 5 years ago would you have been able to refer a client to a local DWP(BA)and get a VO to advise and assist client to claim AA, IS(PC)? Think not.

The 6% referral figure mentioned - what does that mean? What is it benchmarked against? Perhaps a useful bencmark would be to measure level of benefits take up between welfare rights services and Pension Service, numbers of claims, numbers of home visits made.

We also need to consult clients/customers and ask what they want and not what professional/paid advisers feel the services they should recieve - where to they figure in this discussion? Suspect if asked - clients/customers are interested in recieving efficient, prompt and professional service where they can claim full benefit entitlement and referred on when necessary - the issue is who provides that service?

Could I move this debate on a little and pose a new question?

We have now moved toward LinkAge and then LinkAge Plus. Effectively, IMHO, this latter is a ceding by govt. that joint teams aren't working especially given the feedback on the LinkAge document, which appears to have been pretty damning and managed by issuing LinkAge Plus.

Now, around the country LAs are being asked to sign up to 'Memoranda of Understanding'. Some may be for joint teams and some are for joint-working partnerships. However, the issues are that

1) the length of these documents various from 3 to 65 sides!
2) they each contain a para. suggesting it's not a legally binding document and then talk in terms that suggest it is - notice periods etc. General consensus appears to be that it's a nonsense and the ODPM web site suggests that the real purpose is that PS don't share data unless you sign one of these.

So, some questions:

1) I have seen joint-team memoranda that are 3 sides long and joint-working partnership ones that are 65 pages long. Is it that the PS have various versions milling and the left hand has lost the whereabouts of the right or is it that we need to be demanding the 3 page version? 65 pages to share data is ludicrous especially when the document has been written to have no legal standing.

2) Can anyone think of a reason why PS would even need such a form if there is a policy decision that the sharing of such data is appropriate under DPA 1998? There appears to be a tenuous link made to verification i.e. LAs aren't allowed to verify for PS unless they sign this ludicrous document.

3) A local PS manager effectively suggested that LA funding would be at issue from govt. if we didn't sign up. I think we have dismissed this as bluster but nevertheless... thoughts!!!

Mike

I think they do have a 'standard' one to use as a starting point but it is expected that variations will be made depending on local needs. Obviously different councils have different charging structures and joint teams/working will have to reflect that. I'm surprised to hear that the size of the documents varies so much though.

I've definitely been told that the idea of joint teams has gone off the boil as the practical problems have proven too much. This is probably not a surprise. However, they are still pushing for joint working, the main difference being that co location and shared IT are no longer on the agenda. Some of these 'joint working' arrangements have been labelled as joint teams but I think its widely accepted that is largely spin.

I would agree that The Pension Service (TPS) have 'a standard' but it is not one that is defined wholly by the customers requirements, it is currently driven by ministerial pressure to raise the number of PC recipients to over 3 million. Likewise the pre-occupation of joint team working, has not entirely focused on the end user, only a few cases that we have been informed about have holistically dealt with an eligible persons disability or condition and dealt with it in a manner that is not only required by legislation, but is a reality when given the section of society being looked at.

Okay, I'm afraid it's back to basics time for me. Here are some simple questions. Anyone have some answers?

1) On what specific legal or other basis does a LA share access to its' HB/CTB data with a LA Welfare Rights Service? We already have live access but I am being asked to justify this to some extent! It has been suggested that such systems are derived from the CT register and are therefore governed by rigid legislation that may prevent live or other access even for the purposes of benefit take-up!

2) On what specific legal or other basis do the LA and Pension Service share claim data?

3) If we were to engage with PS and make some referrals to them (picking up any challenges/appeals) on what specific legal or other basis can we share with the PS any data we receive from our HB/CTB system or Social Services database?

4) Bearing in mind that your answers to the above may already have answered this to some extent, to what extent, if any, does this solely come down to DPA? In terms of that legislation, what are the gateways/barriers that enable all of the above to happen?

Cheers,

Mike