Tue 07-Oct-08 12:20 PM by Gareth Morgan

I think that it's now time for us to start talking about the impact of what could be economically bad times on the benefits system and advisers.

If we prepare ourselves for the changes in demand, and for the likely changes in the benefits system, we should be in a better position to meet the needs that are going to arise.

My own speculation is leading towards a feeling that the Freud / Green paper changes are likely to be in big trouble and that back-pedalling will start soon.

For example, I doubt whether the commercial sector, or anybody else, are going to be happy about bidding for outcome based payment any more. In times of plentiful vacancies then you can make money getting people into work but when jobs are vanishing and there are genuinely keen job seekers with recent experience that's a lot harder.

With short term pressures on the Treasury it will be very hard to justify the expense of all the expensive back to work preparation money that underpins the justification for conditionality, particularly when it becomes apparent that much of the hope for real jobs has evaporated.

If we are going to see lots more redundancy, debt and unemployment then perhaps it's also the time to start drawing up plans for ways in which advisers can offer help in local areas and begin talking to local politicians about the contributions we can make.

Discuss.

Interestingly, a new commercial player, Maximus Employment & Training (UK)

http://kudocreative.com

has recently arrived in the UK via the take over in the south west of Westcountry Training and Consultancy Service (WTCS).

This is the same Maximus that is listed on the US stock market and holds contracts in a number of other countries. In the current economic climate It will be interesting to see whether there will be consolidation in the number of commercial players bidding for outcome-based contracts and how that may potentially impact on the advice field if there are mergers with existing contractors.

Amongst many services provided in the US, Maximus offers an "eligibility determination system for Medicaid".

I wonder what their aspirations are for the UK...

from today's guardian ..

'How the financial crisis will affect welfare to work policy - With unemployment set to rise dramatically, measures must be in place to keep the labour market active, say expert observers ...'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/08/credit.crunch.welfare

and more ....

'As credit dries up and jobs disappear, Britain is having to tighten its belt. So how will the financial crisis play out in public services?'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/08/policy.public.services

I wish there was some chance that what you were saying was true but i don't see any signs of the current administration changing their basic approach with regards to welfare to work policies, and the opposition appear intent on going even further. Involvement of the private sector (primarily) and the voluntary/third sector to a lesser extent in the provision of employment support services is going to be taken forward in some form or another, regardless of the wider economic circumstances.

I have been at a few meetings now where interested parties such as Mr Freud have stressed the fact that, if anything, the current circumstances actually provide more of a reason for these changes to occur. I think we will also see increases in conditionality in terms of the expectations placed upon claimants, with a drawing together of benefits until the mythical single working age benefit can be introduced.

NI benefits have now been equalised in financial terms with means-tested benefits, undermining their fundamental strengths in many ways, and neatly laying the pattern for their abolition - the private employment insurance sector can then fill the gap, so that all employees will be required to make contributions for their own financial assistance if they cannot work. Otherwise, out of work people will recieve a very basic means-tested payment, probably at jsa levels.

I do think that you're correct to raise the need for local lobbying though - there is a great deal of energy being aimed at local devolution under current policies and advice agencies do need to think about how they can fit their work into local area agreements and much more.

Thirty years from now I wouldn't be surprised If we looked back on the current period and realised just how much the welfare state evaporated in the first part of the 21st century.

The gradual removal of the word 'benefit' from social security vocabulary, including deletion of 'social security' from the name of the responsible department), only child 'benefit (destined to merge with CTC surely at some point?) and the endangered industrial injuries 'benefit' remain after 27 Oct.

The introduction of regional benefit delivery centres (how did 'benefit' slip in there?), the current trend to commission out services, contraction of funded legal advice, international 'service' companies (ready to bid for large contracts), would all seem to indicate the current direction of travel. Such changes could be said to reflect the hard reality of the global economy, but the public seem to be blissfully unaware of where they are headed, except, of course, when they come hard up against the resulting outcomes, especially when the bankers screw up.

I'm also very wary about health campaigns on smoking. drinking and obesity, all worthy causes of course, but I keep hearing about NHS financial time bombs/affordability and wonder what the real agenda is.

Who or where are the politicians that will represent the views of those who will never afford the inevitable 'choice' based insurance schemes?

We never seem to learn from history: community land trusts (facilitating affordable homes) are now in vogue to partially address the housing crisis. I thought we'd cracked that problem in the 19th century with building societies. I wonder what happened to them?

i would be very surprised if there would be any confidence in private insurance cover at this point in time, and i doubt that the government would like to push it, because it would just be asking for awkward questions like what are we paying NI for anyway?...and what kind of mugs do you think we are?

there seems to be no doubt that there's a recession coming... the question is how bad... a reliable source round here tells me the DWP are recruiting...there are concerns that some jobcentres may be too small... this surprised me as all the ones i have seen are massive...but it seems a lot have been closed or sold off...

i remember the recession in the early 80s...(Londoners try google : ) )
i suppose that James Parnell one was about 10 then and he has no idea, especially as he has accepted Freud's potted shrimp version, and may yet rue the day he abolished sickness (benefit). i wouldn't be surprised if he wants to take a sickie or two himself when 'hard working families' unfamiliar with the toxic levels of punter hatred now embedded in the system discover it for themselves. psst... yes i remember the Unemployment REview Officer posts going by the wayside - 'you've been out of work 6 weeks why haven't you got a job?' doesn't work when there are no jobs ...<rolling eyes... kids today...think they know it all...sigh...>

imo the half a trillion squid bail out of the banks by tax-payers puts social justice way up the agenda...

it's okay, it's all going to be alright ....

'Jobcentre Plus is ready to support anyone who needs help in the current economic climate, with a tailored programme to get people back into work, said James Purnell, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

This support can include everything from simple job searches to help with CV writing and interview techniques, and even support for homeowners struggling with mortgage bills.'

....and there is another problem that has been overlooked - many of us are employed by Borough or district Councils and offer a first tier service, with an open door policy.

In Norfolk, we are almost certainly going to become part of a Unitary Authority some time in the next two years, with the consequent loss of all the Borough and District council in Norfolk. It is more than likely that the service I work for will be swallowed up into a social services dept which will more than likely operate a 2nd tier advice service not directly accessable to the general public.

We know of a number of other Counties where this is happening as well - and it appears that this is the route that is going to be followed elsewhere. If that is the case, then large areas will lose any access to information, guidance and advice. Whilst CAB can and do operate a good service, this is dependent the size of the Bureau, the hours and specialities it can offer and upon the political will of those particular Authorities that are funding them.

Overall, there will be a net loss of Welfare Rights Advice & Guidance services available to large and vulnerable groups of this allegedly caring Society that we live in.

it would be interesting to know how many RIGHTSNET members/readers who work for District or Borough Councils are going to find themselves in this position - perhaps they'd like to respond direct to me mike.shermer@west-norfolk.gov.uk if they don't want to post online....

"It is more than likely that the service I work for will be swallowed up into a social services dept which will more than likely operate a 2nd tier advice service not directly accessable to the general public".

Hi Mike. I share your concerns. I work for a unitary authority and we are partof the SSD. However, while we work on an appointment for face to face advice we are not limited to internal referrals only. We also run a telephone advice line with a number freely available and accessible to the public to contact us directly for initial advice or to arrange appointments for follow up advice, help with claim forms or tribunal representation. We also have a weekly presence in the local hospital and give internal and external training to various groups.

So we do offer a readily accessible and, in my view, a comprehensive and good quality service, so it doesn't necessarily have to be a negative step becoming a unitary authority.

However, I will not pretend things have been easy We, along with a lot of outside support, have successfully fought moves firstly, to limit access to the service to SSD clients only and then latterly, to make the team redundant altogether. And, heaven knows what the future holds as we move inexorably into a prolonged economic downturn.

Regards
Paul

I appreciater that there are some very good Unitary authorities who do provide a readily accessible service, which in areas such as yours will be much needed in the coming months.

However, a lot will depend upon the political make up of the Authorities and there attitudes towards the Benefit system in general and welfare rights in particular. You may have noticed that the further south one comes the more sparse good provision of Welfare rights becomes - look at Glasgow, Durham and other similar authorities compared with East Anglia and the South and south west ..................

If you are talking about more affluent areas (and I mean that in a very general sense - recognizing the existence of pockets of deprivation and poverty) then thats a very fair point.

I think we seem to have somewaht small pockets of affuence with larger pockets of Deprivation/poverty................

If you take Norfolk as an example, this is a predominantly rural area, historically a centre of seasonal work cycles, low wages and poor housing. The average wage is markedly below the national average. A large percentage (20%) of the population are estimated to have literacy problems - there are also large numbers who are suffering fuel poverty/child poverty - we also have a significant number of what one might call property rich cash poor claimants, mainly elderly. Our elderly population is markedly higher than the average - in some areas they account for between 45 and 49% of the population, putting additional pressure on many of the voluntary and statutory agencies.....

Andy, who works out of Dorset , can probably recognise the above as being a description of his patch as well, as will many other advisers working in rural areas.

Mike

Surely those points should make the LA policy people, councilors and officers, realise the importance of welfare rights as a tool for financial defence. The need for help in ensuring that external money is brought into the area for the local economy as well as the personal welfare arguments should all be persuasive.

There isn't the clear RSG model of deprivation related funding now , like the one I produced some years ago, but there are still links. Is it that people are unaware of these arguments or that they don't believe them?

I'm considering running a 1 day session somewhere central which would actually look at how to 'market' welfare rights both internally and externally; would there be any interest in that?

Gareth

"......Surely those points should make the LA policy people, councilors and officers, realise the importance of welfare rights as a tool for financial defence. The need for help in ensuring that external money is brought into the area for the local economy as well as the personal welfare arguments should all be persuasive.....".

I wouldn't diagree with that at all - but come the revolution whren we all become Unitaries, something tells me me old fashioned face to face advice guidance and assiatance will be curtailed if not a thing of the past .....for political reasons hidden behind financial excuses.....

Jan

James Parnell and the 80's recession. That would be the 1880's recession then! Insert smiley face here!

Regards
Paul

"We will do everything in our power to get people into work, whatever the economic conditions."

Finally - a ministerial statement I believe.

...There has always been a believe that in government that governments can have some sort of control over employment - this can only happen in a mythical utopian State which owns all the means of production and distribution....

The labour market is dictated/controlled by the demands of industry which (in the real world outside of Whitehall populated by real people) is owned by private enterprise - their sole aim in life is to stay solvent and possibly make a profit -they are the ones who decide when and for how long they will hire labour.

What is always amusing is that in good times, when unemployment figures are low, the Government of the day always claim credit for it...

Finally - a question totally unconnected with the above ...How is it that a local Authority can quite happily watch Social Services teams struggle to cope with ever increasing client numbers and workloads - stating that financially they need to cut back on services - and yet have almost obscene amounts of ratepayers cash on deposit in various banks......

Actually Mike, its South Somerset at the moment (although my contract runs out 31/12/2008), although i'm doing very limited bits and bobs in Dorset at the moment, but that will change in the new year if my contract is not renewed.

But yeah our situation in South Somerset (and Dorset too, big wealth disparities there), parallels yours in Kings Lynn and West Norfolk to the extent that i feel incapable of adding anything else because it is really depressing (paper and cracks spring to mind because of the nature of the local economies).

Similarly, i suspect on paper there are parallels with numbers employed in manufacturing, last time i looked in South Somerset it was around a third of the working population. But that disguises the fact that the vast majority are not involved in skilled manufacturing jobs like Westlands, but rather unskilled jobs (temporary contracts) connected to service industry activities i.e. dairies and food processing, low paid dependent on overtime if available, tax credits etc etc. Scarily vulnerable to any down turns in the economy, let alone one of the magnitude were hurtling into at present.

Again, we are first tier (taking referrals from all sources, including people walking in off the street), but doing second tier work too. Ostensibly our role (we are part of the housing dept connected to the homeless persons team) is to save tenancies and maintain tenancies through the usual income maximisation.

I think the reason District council welfare rights units are few and far between in rural areas in the east, south, and west, is down to the conservatism both of the populations and the local politics of those areas, certainly not due to lack of demand in terms of volume of casework or need for advocacy.

I think Gareth's ideas are great in as much nothing ventured nothing gained, although i share Helston Paul's pessimism.

As for the "Recession and the impact on benefits", i think i better keep my mouth firmly clamped other than to say 'i feel my fellow welf postings anguish'.

Harking back to Paul's comments; I agree that the current mob in DWP are committed to their routemap. For one thing, unless they bring in the outsourcing they can't keep the services going after the job cuts they have to make.

Where I think things are different is in the Treasury. If they look at their models and see an increase in cost for groups who are unlikely to actually deliver savings by getting into work and off the register, then they're very likely to start saying no.

It might be short-termism but politicians, and electors, think and react short term.

The same is true for local politicians and electors. That's why I think people need to get their responses in first, before they become the targets for cuts. I was serious about a marketing session, I think that there's a lot of common need and a lot that people could learn about how to 'sell' their services.

I'm seriously interested.

An interesting email that I've just received.

I've anonymised it but the message is clear.

"Thank you very much for expressing an interest in working with.... I am contacting you to let you know that ... has, most reluctantly, just taken the decision not to tender on this occasion.

We were pleased to be short listed in .... and keen to work in the area, where we already deliver a range of services. It has been very positive to work with potential subcontractors and partners. However, we have become increasingly concerned about the risks to the success of the initiative, given the economic downturn and its likely effects on the local economy and labour market. We believe FND could work well in the buoyant economy, with full employment, for which it was designed, but that this is much less likely in the current climate.
... is still very interested to manage and lead delivery of services in future initiatives, and work with partners within the welfare to work programme, but we believe that Prime Contracting for Flexible New Deal in its present format is not appropriate for us at this point."