Have they no shame???????????????

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/sub_client/search.cgi?template2=news/user_details2.htm&output_number=1&news.ID=82317524059

Hi ya, being a volunteer for one of the lesser funded provincal little advice agencies (i know its a bargain, but .............) and not having access to the rightsnet news service (oh how i miss it) whats the above all about.

This is about NACAB calling for central government funding to fund "intermediary" electronic services i.e. CAB advisers having direct access to DWP systems (I think) and electronic client authorisation etc.

I'm not sure that I see a major ethical problem with this (I speak from some experience being an ex bureau manager)although I have to admit that I do not know the full details.

From a funding perspective it is well recognised (or at least should be!) that advice agencies undertake a certain amount of work that reduces the administrative burden on government departments, this is regularly used as a negotiating tool by advice agencies in discussions with funders so I am not sure that I see any difference here. In addition if new systems help to improve access to information for advisers (how many of us have had cases where it has felt like banging heads against brick walls in trying to get simple info from the DWP!)that is a good thing (?).

I also don't have a problem with the fact that it would be government funding per se. After all
Local authority grant = Goverment funding
Service Level agreements = Government funding.
Legal Services Comission = Government funding
National Lottery = arguably may as well be government funding!
Even purely charitable funding (tin rattling) puts restrictions on an organisation that could be described as government control.

All come with strings attached and a degree of restriction on the amount/type of work that can be done. The real questions to be addressed are whether the funding results in a conflict of interest in the operation of advice work and secondly whether public confidence is affected by any perceptions of links to other organisations/departments. I always felt that it was ironic that the only truly independent source of funding would be private funding clients...and I am assuming that you are not advocating charging your clients?

My main bug bear at the moment is what seems to be the recent proliferation of Local Authority Welfare Rights Advice services (no offence to all you council employees out there). As an example my local authority put an unprecented amount of funding, far in excess of its total spending on the voluntary sector (which have been hit with year on year reductions) into its own welfare rights service. I would like to know how many Housing Benefit appeals or Community Care decision challenges they have taken forward. I think I already know the answer...

I might be missing the point on this intermediary stuff so I stand to be corrected but where do you see the threat to independance? As long as this is restricted to improved access to DWP info and CAB staff never become liable as agents of, or answerable to the DWP I can't see the problem.

Remove safety pin..light fuse...stand well back...

Come on then billmcc - where's your response?

I'm intrigued!!

Re: threat to independence - Many many disputes between claimants and DWP/HMRC are in relation to issues such as "I told you that I had started work/won the lottery/left my husband/married my wife/etc etc".

If the CAB becomes the agency administering such information provision in future, not expressly on behalf of their clients, but on behalf of the Gov't Dep't that administers the benefit, can't you see the potential for compromising situations to occur? Who would a client approach for advice where their dispute turned on who had told what to who and when, if the information they provided to the DWP was given via the CAB? I don't see it so much as exactly about where funding originates from, but more the case of advisers being very clear about who they are, what their functions are, who they are answerable to, and the limits of what they can and cannot do for a client.

There is also often an unconscious blurring of boundaries in peoples' minds (for example, in the way that Lasa's Appeals Team needs to emphasise to appellants that their Tribunals are independent of the DWP because to the client, these agencies are all part of the decision making structure that affects their lives). It's not certain that clients would make similar assumptions but it must be an issue worth discussing and highlighting.

And I think Bill's point may relate to the fact that CitA were recently awarded some £20 million for ICT improvements, and now they're after some more. They might not have any shame but they certainly have deep pockets.

If CABx were relaying information to the DWP, would this not help in cases where information is lost after the client has given it to the DWP? After all the CAB would be likely to have a record of having forwarded the information.

I don't think independance as such is the issue, but the perception of independance. Would clients appriciate that CABx were doing the DWP's work but not part of the DWP?

What happens if the client says they definitely gave a piece of info iro their benefit claim to a CAB, the DWP subsequently state they haven't ever been notified and issue an overpayment, and when client goes to CAB to challenge the decision, they also state that they were not made aware of this information at the time they were acting as an intermediary? Is there duty of care to the client or to the agency that they are acting as an intermediary to?

Presumably at the moment, a CAB would keep their own records about what info they have sent in with a client's claim, so that if DWP stated they hadn't recieved a piece of information, the CAB would back up the client to say it was originally sent. Acting as an intermediary, the information management issue would need careful consideration, as would liability if incorrect or incomplete information iro a claim became a point of dispute.

I'm not saying these points are a reason for CABx not to have access to claimant information necessarily, nor that they shouldn't act as intermediaries, just that the relationship is a difficult one to manage and could jeopardise the views of those who seek advice. So, I think your second question is very important.

If you choose to become part of the process then you become part of the problem.

That's the crucial distinction.

Additionally of course, once you are a part of the process then you are at the mercy of the people who design and amend the process. You have to adapt your practices to fit-in with the way they need to work. If this intermediary work becomes a major part of the bureaux workload then sooner or later, probably sooner from past experience, bureaux will have to set aside specific time slots for these clients taking possible advice time away from others.

We used to have generalist advice services, and welfare rights services, that were rights-based not funding-based; now we seem to be moving towards generalist services that subsidise advice work from their core business activities and welfare rights services that are focussed on maximising the income of local authorities not their citizens.

Exaggeration, but....

"If you choose to become part of the process then you become part of the problem."

...or you can bring the b*******s down from the inside!

Hmm, I'm on the board of the Herefordshire CABx; I don't think that 'bringing the b...s down' is a part of our charitable aims.

Doesn't that come under the heading of social policy?

Whilst I can't help sympathising with the sentiment of "bringing the b.....ds down", it seems to miss the point. In fact moaning about funding yet doing nothing about it seems to miss many points.

Consider the following facts
1)A large slice of benefit agencies have to operate with short term funding (i.e. not LA or advisers attached to other organisations).
2)Funding is going out of the window.
3)Benefit authorities/agencies are gleefully cutting back staff and simply will not give any advice to claimants - but tell them to go to advice agencies.
4)The simple arithmetic of diverting some of the savings from cutting back on benefit administration into advice centres is resisted by the advice community as undermining independence.

This seems like a course of action similar to navigating the Titanic. We all know where it will end and there will be tears.

Seems to me that something has got to change. Perhaps the government will suddenly develop a conscience over groups of the population this hits the hardest. (And since they are not a) rich or b)electoraly powerful, I wouldn't hold my breath).

The logic is clear to me - if the government doesn't change then the advice community will have to or die.

Perhaps we will have to think about the unthinkable. For instance my personal view is that perhaps we do see our clients in a slightly warped way. Do we always assume that the client's interests are always in dispute with the benefit authority? I cannot see why helping a client to make a full claim, including verifying original documents is anything other than good advice giving and entirely in the interests of the client.

I know the problem comes with how the agency interacts with the benefit authority. Actually I do have some experience of this because I have been involved in verifying Hb claims.

It is true that some of the authority did, at first, expect that we would be "working for them" but a few (heated) arguments solved the problem and ground rulles had to be established which was:

We submitted claim packs on behalf of the applicant.
We DID NOT take any part in assessing the claim (it's impractical anyway).
Claims are assessed like any other.
"Verifying" original documents means certifying that the copy submitted was from an original. WE DO NOT certify anything else about the document.
We do not "CHECK" the documents (this is part of assessment).

In effect our involvement is administrative only.

In practice 2 wholly beneficial consequences result.
1) Claim packs that we submit are nearly always complete, including proofs and can be assessed very quickly. The benefit authority can avoid time wasting and misunderstanding prone enquiries for information/proofs. This has to prevent a significant number of benefit disputes.
2)Even where problems do arise, the neccesary communications we have with assessment staff mean that we can identify problems earlier and help claimants solve them much easier than a claimant who deals directly.

Neither of these consequenses really affects me being able to represent any claimant who still gets a dispute with the assessment decision. I still represent clients in appeals (and win).

I will accept however that it is easy for an observer to believe that my independence is compromised, not because of what is done but because of the way it can appear. I can only say that in several thousand cases this has not surfaced as an issue with any claimant.

The bottom line however is that unless someone can come up with a funding genie these issues are going to have to be faced sooner or later.

Gareth, great to hear you are still involved with HCABx, you were always a voice of sanity while I was there! As to charitable aims..yes I can see the application to the charity commission now, would make very interesting reading!

Derek, for the record my commment about bringing the b's down was entirely flippant and comes with the usual disclaimer..."the views expressed in this communication.."! You do however have some good points and I agree that I can see no threat to independence in the process of submitting a claim on behalf of a client provided that an appropriate understanding is drawn up before hand. If there was a dispute about the claim (i.e. claimant blames CAB for failure to submit x peice of information)I see that as a matter of professional negligence and for the client to make a seperate claim against the advice agency's indemnity insurance. Albeit that this is fairly rare, it does happen and is really no different from a negligence claim where the advice agency is not acting as an intermediary.

I am also led to ponder the question of independence in respect of your position. How do you reconcile the position of offering impartial housing benefit advice and being an employee/agent of the landlord? I'm not being critical, just interested as there must be situations where the interests of client and landlord diverge?

Steven

Although i now work for CAB i did work for our LA welfare rights office.

This never compromised our independence, if there was a dispute with HB/CTB we fought tooth and nail, same as now.

We were completely different departments and the fact we were all paid by the LA had absolutely no bearing on the way we worked.

Steven

Yes, rather guessed you were being flippant but the abysmal quality of decision making I have had to deal with in the last couple of weeks still makes me sympathetic to the idea.

It's a very good question "how can I reconcile independence, when I work for a landlord"?

The simple answer is I can never truly be independent. And I suppose that I'm in the same position as LA benefit advisers.

I cannot advertise myself to my client base as independent. I am however free and confidential - even from my employers. I had to consider the implications of independence when being assessed for the quality mark a couple of years ago. I had therefore to draw up a "conflict of interest policy". The assessors seemed quite happy that this met the standard.

It's not rocket science - simply that where any (even remote) possibility of a conflict arises I obviously signpost or refer to an independent agency.

Have to say though that apart from one topic, I have never found any conflict whatsoever. Maximising income and resolving benefit problems is always in the interest of my employers as well as the client. I suppose you could think up a scenario where I would be in a conflict but I have honestly never found any actual cases.

The only topic that crops up is debt. And of course I always have to refer these cases on to a specialist debt advisor.

derek

Just to add to the pot, a previous posting of mine!

In the year 5045 in the socialist republic of the planet Terra where the people are the government and professional politicians and classes no longer exist then we can all hold hands and congratulate ourselves on the fact that we are all marching in the same direction and delivering the same agenda.

Until then we shall do well to remember that the state and the ruling class has its own agenda and the welfare of the workers (other than to render them fit for maximum productivity) is not on it.

As Neil Bateman so eloquently said, welfare rights is not neutral. It is a classic political tactic that the best way to neutralise opposition groups and movements is to infiltrate them and impose your own agenda on them, usually by stealth.

Welfare rights groups need to be alert to this as I am sure most of them are. Where the needs of the individual and the state collide we must be in a position to side with the individual without having to look over our shoulders to see if the hand of the state is about to feel our collars.

If we are not in a position to defend the weak without being compromised then eventually the weak will band together and defend themselves and we will be discredited. It has happened before (the unemployed claimant’s union in the 1980’s for example) and it will happen again.

This is not to say that we should not give credit where it is due. If the state genuinely moves to improve the lives of individuals then we should recognise that. But we should not let ourselves get carried away. It is not the role of welfare rights organisations to promote or defend government policy. We must keep our distance and not get complacent. We need to keep a close eye on the state at all times and above all to maintain our complete and utter independence from it. That is non-negotiable.

Keep the faith
Paul

Hi Folks

Holidays so trying to catch up, will answer more fully on monday but read earlier response first at

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=301&mode=full

mainly the quote below.

"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."

from another angle?

In terms of benefits advice half of us wouldn't be in a job if the DWP/LA/HMRC got it right in the first place; the rules didn't get increasingly complex; the administration become more reliant on caller centres which are inaccessible and where staff don't know whats happening to a claim because they only have responsibility for a small part of a clerical production line etc. etc.

Therefore, advisers spend increasing amounts of time doing the benefit offices work for them because in the widest sense their administrative systems and decision making are crap - and remember Jobcentre Plus is 'rolling out'a regional contact centre model of former local office benefit processing similar to tax credits!

So the pressure on advice centres grows from client demand / the extra time to sort out an individual problem as benefit office buracracy increases.

At the same time agencies are under funding pressure as grants dry up or we have to jump through bigger & bigger hoops to get it. And then there is the LSC, means tested advice services .....

The temptation must be to get drawn into a funding culture of 'partnership working' or whatever jargon you choose that slowly erodes independence as the funding co-ops agencies as part of the state. Government policy on this is clear. They do see the voluntary sector taking a greater role in the delivery of state services rather than being an independent sector that assists the individual against the state. Its just that they are good at spin but the practice is ..... well look at the LSC!

Some of our local CABx and other advice agencies face cuts in their funding. There must be a temptation to clutch at funding that ensures survival of the service but may compromise principles.

At a national level Citizens Advice is clearly in a strong position to negotiate funding from central & local government (compared to small local agencies).

Whether government in practice has a clear strategy to co-opt the independent advice sector into the state machine or its a creeping unintended concequence of a raft of dispirate policies (joined up thinking anyone?) is a matter for debate.

The question is at what point does an agency decide that the available sources of funding so compromise its principles that it is refused leading to possible closure, redundancies and no service to the community - now that is a tuff one!

this has been such an interesting discussion - i'm looking forward to hearing from billmcc - i love it when he stirs the sassenachs up : )

my two penn'orth - there will always be a need for independent advice- for similar reasons why there is a need for there to be more than one national newspaper, or more than one political party. the reasons are philosophically profound. if the DWP were most generously resourced, and highly trained, there would still be a need for independent advice. (but less of it!)

but this doesn't mean that the existence of such organisations absolves the statutory authorities of their responsibilities. despite the pain the staff working for those authorities feel from cost cutting, they are still by far and away the best resourced organisations, with responsibilities given to them by Parliament. the state is _required_ to fund them, to do the job the state tells them to do, by legislation. any claimant ought to be able to get the advice they need from the relevant authority, and should be able to expect that his/her claim should be dealt with, to the high standards expected of a statutory authority.

they cannot be expected to be perfect or infallible, and it cannot be expected that people will always agree with their decisions. but it can't be right, it can't be acceptable, if people _have_ to go to alternative organisations _because_ they can't get what they have a right to, from the statutory authority.

we (advice organisations) see people coming to us, not only because they want independent advice, or because they have a debateable and contentious issue, or an obscure problem, or because they trust us, or because they need representation, or because they are severely disadvantaged. we see all of those, but we also see people with problems related to lack of ACCESS to basic advice, and problems with FUNDAMENTAL decision-making, and problems of gross maladministration. in other words, problems of endemic failure on the part of the statutory authorities. and the worst thing is that we know that only a percentage of the people who are hurt by such failures, come to us.

this is where the question gareth raised, to what extent are we part of the problem, seriously comes into play. i suspect its a question that voluntary organisations are better at asking themselves than the statutories are. i certainly remember this point being made at a law centre conference, in the context of lawyers asking themselves that question. if only the Stats would...

which brings me to the question of resistence to 'intermediary' work. partnership working, with a statutory authority, is a long way from a bed of roses. it's much more like an abusive relationship, with a male chauvinist pig, who believes that because he brings home the bacon, you have to do exactly what he says, and your contribution does not entitle you to an equal share in the home. (I have a client whose husband sold their home without telling her, and i'm obsessing about her case, sorry) at least, this tends to be what happens in contract management. and there is the pressure to be perfect and infallible. which is impossible.

yesterday, i was given instructions on two complicated but related issues by a client in 48 minutes flat, and i found it remarkable for it's rarity. the vast majority of our clients are so disadvantaged, i rarely spend under an hour and often longer, obtaining initial instructions. but i was beginning to think it was all my fault. i sent a letter to the DWP, which not only made representations, but provided free training to the decision-maker. i know this sounds arrogant, but it isn't that. i need to see my doctor, my dentist and an optician, and i don't find the time. i haven't been for my cancer screening. i left work at nearly 8 o'clock tonight. i have to pay a speeding fine and i'm too tired to write a cheque and i can't find my driving licence. i work out of a slum, in one of the most deprived areas in Birmingham. what's relevant to contract management and what isn't, is determined by the contract managers. the LSC might pull our funding next year. (i may yet be obliged to enter the chip shop business, and become an absolute menace to the health and safety of the public. ). we have to stop tribunal representation, social policy work, community general advice, our historic ethos and culture, (or find alternative funding for it), and the consultation on CLACS, which more or less describes what we were, before the LSC first of all removed our 'anomolous' grant* under the Access to Justice Act, and then got us 100% under contract, sounds very hilarious, at the moment. (we have no LA funding and i'm ecstatically happy about that.lol!)

a client phoned me today to say that he has a revised decision notice, following his appeal against a 6 month sanction decision. they must have realized their evidence was too unreliable to send to the tribunal. but his month without money has made him ill and his doctor has given him a note for 6 weeks. should they give a decision of that kind without sound evidence?

a nice lady from the Inland Revenue phoned to let me know that there's no record of a contributions enquiry into 'confused identity' and will put in writing that because our client had never paid NI, the investigation would have been carried out by the benefit authorities, not the Contributions lot. She did find someone with the same date of birth, and nearly the same name who died in 2000, so this will all help in the struggle to reconstruct the records of the life award of AA that got disappeared two years ago, because our old lady didn't die when the DWP said she did, and they didn't put it right on the three annual occassions they had the opportunity to put it right, before they ripped up her records. the tribunal (before she came to me) gave a really helpful decision on the SDP, and the DWP more or less have to appeal it to the commissioner, who (and i'm giving them the opportunity not to embarrass themselves - i wish i knew how to do that for myself!) i expect will also be helpful as possible.

so yes, representatives are not the same as intermediaries.

final point, i think it's always worth reminding ourselves, and 'them' that governments don't have any 'government money'. they have our money.

jj

*it was £89,000 pa, frozen for years, and was the highest of only 9 grants to law centres, just to give you an idea how highly valued we are. eat your heart out, Ross Perrot.

ps very good news - i've heard 19/9/05 is designated 'talk like a pirate' day : ) what d'ya say, billmcc?

jj

i should have said - FUNDAMENTAL problems with decision-making.

Just to keep the pot boiling.

Partnership is defined, in the OED, as "associated with another, or others, in the carrying on of some business, the expenses, profits and losses of which he proportionately shares".

Implicit in that is some commonality of control and direction.

When the Pensions Agency unilaterally closes down its local offices and, in order to provide a necessary face to face service, seeks to 'partner' with the Third Sector (a term that is well understood internationally and is now more accurate than referring to the voluntary sector or charities) and LAs, then partnership doesn't seem the right term.

When it further imposes its own processes on others and pressures others, in particular LAs, financially or politically, to participate then proportionality vanishes.

It's much the same when the LSC decides that it alone 'knows' where advice needs are and how to meet them.

I remember speaking at a conference in Miami on Legal Marketing (don't ask) where one attendee summed it up; "Whether it's personal or business, in any partnership, one person's getting screwed".

"..Just to keep the pot boiling.."

Gareth, never boil your pot, it makes it very difficult to smoke.

The OED defn accords quite closely to the defn in s.1 Partnership Act of 19(ehem cough something, 40 i think) so presumably this is where it is taken from. I dont agree that the defn includes any requirement for comonality of control although admitidly does need "direction". There is also no requirement for partners to equal. The PA defn also only applies to enterprises designed to make a private profit which of course third sector agencies are not (haven't come accross that expression before..interesting!)

I do however share your sceptism for "partnership working" which is often only lip service to the dominant partner (no reference to S+M!!)to steer the direction of smaller groups. It also often glosses over the fact that often third sector orgs are in competition for the same resources. Having said that, it is often the orgs that are prepared to take a risk and embrace novel ways of funding that survive.

As to the LSC, well yes I guess that to an extent they do dictate geographical funding priorities but that is their job, the funding is not infinite (largely due to a small number of high cost criminal cases) and in my experience they do pay more than lip service to consultation with CLSP's. Bless em, we love them really. (honest gov - trying not to start on a tyrade about a couple of pain in the neck legal aid cases I've had dragging on for ages!!)

Steven

PS LASA - Do I get any prizes for mentioning drugs and deviant sexual practices in a thread about advice independence?

“never boil your pot, it makes it very difficult to smoke”

I have been advised by someone who should know that boiling your pot, and then using the water to make tea, results in a very interesting – not to say therapeutic – beverage.

It reminded me that a few years ago the newspaper Disability Now - http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/index.htm - which is a long-standing campaigner for decriminalisation and therapeutic use of pot – reported a step forward in that campaign under the headline “Cannabis campaign gathers speed”. Fascinating thought. If anyone from DN reads this, perhaps they’d confirm whether it was serendipity or a deliberate funny.

As for advice centre independence, this chain of thought led me back to the time about twenty years ago when I was a sponsor, on behalf of a consortium of advice agencies, of a scheme under the Community Programme (remember that?) run by the Manpower Services Commission (remember them?). It provided money to create (mostly short term) jobs, on condition that you recruited to them from among those getting Unemployment Benefit (remember that? –Oh sod it, I can’t keep going with the remember queries. That’s the last one).

At first the Commission officials were very relaxed and flexible, and accommodated features of our scheme that stretched their rules a bit. But as we got more dependent on it, the line got harder and the hoops we had to jump through got narrower and higher, but we had no choice but to carry on. At the time I drew the clear analogy with the modus operandi of street drug pushers. The situation hasn’t really changed, has it – only the labels on the funding streams. But then so have the names of the street drugs.

nevip is passionate above in his defence of welfare rights advice as agent for real change – even if it is going to take centuries! – and that was good to read. But back then in the depths of the Thatcherite eighties another colleague expounded the Towpath Parable (sorry, but I can’t remember the proper attribution for this):

A welfare rights adviser was out for a Sunday afternoon stroll on the riverbank. He noticed a person struggling out in the current, so jumped in, swam out and brought him back. Then there were cries from two more people out in the current, so he left the first rescue–ee in the shallows and swam back out. Before he got there, even more people were being swept along.

Looking back he saw someone on the towpath, and called on him for help with the rescue. The man on the towpath ignored his calls, walked further along the riverbank, round the bend, where he found the monster throwing non-swimmers into the water and killed it.

So, obviously as advice workers we only dabble at ameliorating the symptoms; if we were serious about real change we would stop that and take up political action instead. But we are who we are. We compromise and manoeuvre and negotiate and try to help individuals as best we can, while also worrying about our jobs and families and paying the kids’ university fees. And we trust and believe the politicians when they promise to sort out the bigger picture. That’s how we got tax credits.

Sorry about this. I didn’t mean to be this long or this depressing when I started this post. But hey – it IS Friday after all. A pint or two after work will sort that out.

Pee Ess

Just had another look at the Disability Now website. The cannabis campaign page includes stories from this year with the headlines "Cannabis Blow" (about a setback)and another about the "Grass Roots reaction".

Guess that answers my own question about the paper's pun policy!

Gerry

Going to a liaison meeting with the DWP this afternoon about the new case management system so will be having more than just one or two pints this evening.

Regards
Paul

...and sometimes getting rid of the monster who keeps pushing people in is a really, really long-term project and you can't just leave all those people in the water. And of course getting people out of the water can draw others into your plan of getting rid of the monster.

... and sometimes the welfare rights worker can't swim.

Or is pushed under by the weight of the people being saved.

From Kable - Government Computing

"The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is to investigate outsourcing its network of Jobcentres, a move which could see staff and computer systems transferred to the private and voluntary sectors, according to a leaked letter written by a senior civil servant.

The letter, from the DWP's director of work and welfare strategy Jonathan Portes to Margaret Hodge, minister for work, outlines plans to outsource the bulk of Jobcentre functions from benefit processing and fraud investigation to contact centres. The proposals involve using private and voluntary sector organisations to deliver key Jobcentre Plus services.

An extract from the letter obtained by the Public and Commercial Services union said: "For non-labour market areas of Jobcentre Plus business we believe that feasibility studies should be conducted to ascertain whether there might be scope for contesting or outsourcing benefit processing centres, fraud investigation services and both jobseeker and employer contact centres."

The PCS would not publish the entire letter, which was marked "restricted", in order to protect the identity of the individual leaking its contents.

Under the proposals up to 60,000 staff could be transferred to the private and voluntary sectors."

What have we been saying?

More on this today in the Guardian who are carrying a story that NCVO have argued that voluntary and community sector organisations could find themselves in a potential conflict of interest by becoming involved as delivery agents for Jobcentre Plus.

Interestingly, the story quotes Marjorie Wallace, Sane's chief executive, as being supportive of the proposals and saying:

"We know that more people with mental illness receive invalidity benefit than the total number of those who are unemployed. We hope to be working with the Department of Work and Pensions in providing support, giving a 365-day a year port of call to employers and individuals when they feel the going is getting rough."

The new proliferation of Local Authority Welfare Rights Services? This is 2005 not 1995. This type of concern may have been around then but since they have been challenging HB/CTB and charging decisions very effectively since, this is pretty much a defunct concern. Try and keep up.

Thought you might be interested in this policy news story Bill, eGovernment kisoks pilot a hit which may reveal more about the CAB thinking on this issue.

Amongst the generally positive findings of the press release, the evaluation report notes that a key issue for further consideration is value for money - each kiosk costs £7,000 to cover all costs, although if a national programmeis established, it is thought that there could be options to reduce the cost.

Still not got time to reply in full.

If the CAB are good at one thing it is producing worthless, meaningless statisitcs, more worrying is people and government accept them.

You'll notice the above press release says the portals mainly refered to government sites?

That many cliets afetr using the portals did not need any furtehr advice and felt their query had been resolved, thats what they think?

If the CAB's did not have people waiting hours (Locally here anyways) to be seen I wonder if people would still try using the portals ratehr than waiting to be seen?

If these portals are so good why have any CAB's, DWP's, Welfare Rights, etc?

Will answer more fully when time allows.

OK guys and galls, why is is this turning into such a bun fight? I thought this site was meant to be about advice workers offering practicle support and sharing knowledge, we do, I assume all have the day to day practicle best interests of our clients at heart?

If I put anyone's back up about talking about Local authority advice workers then I apologise wholeheartedly. I mentioned the issue to highlight the fact that CAB's are not the only organisations who have independence issues, after all Local Authorities are not only adjudicating authorities for HB and CTB, they also conduct joint fraud investigations with the DWP and I just don't see how there can not be a conflict there. As for it being 1995, well LA advisers in my area are quite a recent phenomenon, then again we are behind the times out here in the sticks..(I'm typing this while chewing on a carrot)

I can't accept hte resentment toward CAB that seems to be prevalent here and really feel that it is out of order.

Lets get a grip guys...yes lets have a discussion about the serious issues like independence but please can we keep it to the point and show a little inter-agency respect? We are all afterall doing the same job here!

PS the lack of a spell checker (and coffee) is highlighting my inadequate typing skills!!!

Well SLloyd has moved me to answer.

The main issue I have with the CAB is they will do anythng for money, regardless of their so call independence or impartiality.

They are now seeking to secure (Even more) funding to replace the 30,000 DWP & Jobcentre staff who are being made redundant as we speak, to me thats disgraceful.

My own experience as an ex-cab volunteer advisor for four years gives me the right to offer my experience while I was there, and many advisors on this forum have been there and done that as well.

The CAB (I worked for) offer a basic generalist service, staffed by basic trained volunteers who have no interest in learning anything further than very basic training (accepted some exceptions do exist), if fact i will go as far as saying they are discouraged for remembering or learnning anythig as the CAB information system has the answers to all lifes problems.

They were mainly elderly there to socialise with other volunteers and to get out of the house.

The one I was in would never, ever bite the hand that feeds them, the Council, who also had and still do have four Councillors on the management CAB committee, after all the council set up this CAB originally locally.

The other issue is about Governement seeing the CAB as the be all and end all in advice provision, treating them like a statutory agency, with every government letter written saying contact your nearest CAB.

This is an easy option for Governemnt as they will get less hassle from CAB's than they would from other independent agencies who know more about the various issues as they may well be specialists in the field rather than basic generalists.

I accept that people have the choice who they deal with if only Government would accept the same.

Council Welfare Rights Services?

How anyone who works for and is paid by the Council can say they are independent is beyond me.

I am sorry to hear you had such a bad experience at a CAB and indeed it sounds at variance with the way CABs should operate. I think it is fair to say that CABs generally aim to increase service provision provided it fits with the Aims and Principles. In order to do that they need money. Independence means that the service is not managed by any other government body. The fact that funding is received from statutory authorities does not by definition compromise that independence. If i go to the dry cleaners and purchase a service it doesnt make me the owner. Equally if the DWP pay CAB for delivering a service it does not make them the owner.
In respect of your comments about the age of CAB volunteers, again i suggest your experience is not as rich as it may have been with other CABs. Typically you can get volunteers from anywhere from the park bench to the judicial bench. There are many positive benefits of volunteering, as you suggest keeping older people active is just one. There is also evidence to suggest it has a positive impact on health and well being. There are also hundreds of staff working in various roles both within CAB and in LAs and other advice agencies, law centres and anti-poverty agencies having volunteered for a CAB originally then moved into paid work. The currrent recruitment problems would be significantly worse if it werent for CABs.

You obviously have issues with your local CAB!

"...from the park bench to the judicial bench..." - glad to see some humour creeping back into this debate.

The suggestion that because I work for the LA that I am not independent in my dealings with the DWP as an arm of central government, is, quite frankly, laughable!

Yes i must admit, i stole that line from somewhere but can remember where...

Amazing how passionate a discussion on independence can get. This system we all work in seems to be full of absurdities.

At the top end (so to speak) there are politicians who generally join the fashion of denigrating welfare benefits as a problem and a drain on the public purse. Until they meet a constituent (with a problem) of course then they are always sympathetic (but it doesn't change the way they vote in government).

Below them you have senior civil servants who actually come out with detail benefit policies (politicians seem to barely understand them so I can't believe they thought then up). Have always had the feelings that senior civil servants have absolutely no idea of what life is like at the end of society where people struggle. This is the only explanation I can see for a means tested benefit - Child Tax Credit (I know it's been redefined as tax but its still a benefit in my book) to be given to claimants getting £58k.

Below them are the civil servants managing and manning(and womaning if I'm going to be PC) the DWP agencies. Here I start to have sympathy (but not much). To be given targets that are impossible, given computer systems like CSA and JC+ that simply do not work and then told thousands will have to leave - cannot be a very good place to work. Nevertheless I am convinced that somewhere amongst the management in these agencies there exists people who deliberately turn down benefit claims purely because it is easier than doing the job properly.

Nearly at the bottom end are advisers. We see the problems of the systems, fight the individual cases, get small victories which add up to a substantial good. Then we spend ages ranting about independence.

You couldn't possibly think up a system like this.

When the suggestion of working together in a system that is aimed at delivering benefits to people that need it gets drowned out by rants on independence - I really wonder where it's all going to end......

It could be said I have issues with my local CAB, but I have not got enough time in my lifetime to tell you about this.

I dont recall the CAB's complaining when they announced they were closing many local DWP offices, making the already hard to reach groups even harder if not now impossible to reach.

Again my experience of in-house Council Welfare Rights is based on my local area only.

Until recently they were called varification / income maximisation officers, trust me they stopped more benefits than they ever identified.

They are now based in the fraud section, soon to have the DWP along with them under the joint working programme, but hey there still indepenedent right?

One council WR worker was bragging recently that they had put their first HB appeal in ever and was quite worried how his bosses would view this, they have worked there over three years, no problems though as this local authority has never had any appeals ever under the Independent Tribunal System.

I fully realise from working with and talking to others that there are many excelent CAB workers and volunteers and fully understand that the CAB system in England is not the same as Scotland.

Time will tell how the public view these so called independent advice agencies when they start delivering the previous DWP staffs jobs.

Someone above or earlier said something like

"its hard to be part of the solution when your seen as part of the problem"

CAB's beware, dont put greed before need.

I really don't recognise this descripition of local authority welfare rights advisers (and I've met and worked with many over the years). If it's true, it's exceptionally irregular.

LA welfare rights staff have proved that they are just as capable of providing effective independent advocacy on benefits issues as any other adviser and you only have to read who is representing in countless Commissioners' Decisions to know this.

One would hope that there is generally an acceptance within the advice world that there is a need for a mixed economy of advice provision in both the LA and the voluntary sectors so that clients with different circumstances or needs can access welfare rights advice and which also gives them some choice about who they can turn to.

I have enormous respect for the majority of welfare advice workers in this area (and elsewhere) and admire the depth of knowledge and tenacity shown by you. As for the remainder; some have limited understanding of the issues and some are loose cannon. My son and 2 of his friends went to an advice agency yesterday and were given advice that would have involved all 3 of them in making fraudulent claims for HB and IS- supported by the advice agency- and would have resulted in me losing my job had I done what was suggested to help my son with his claim.People will always believe those who tell them that they are 'entitled' but what a shame that an agency I have had dealings with for many years,and always found to be responsible, should choose to give such advice to vulnerable young people and think that it is alright to do so.

Then I hope you have raised your concerns with the manager of the advice agency in question so they have an opportunity to look into matters now that this is in the public domain.

I have indeed made a complaint to the manager, as a member of the public, but have not yet decided wehther to do anything about it as a DWP employee.

Come on Judith give us a clue what was the advice?????

The only thing I can think of involves estrangement.

Right or Wrong?

Right for the 2 boys but LT for the girl. The boys were told to say that they were being fed by friends and that they could no longer live at home, while the girl was told to say that she and her boyfriend were just friends sharing a flat and that she slept on the sofa.

That's terrible - i cannot believe any right minded/reputable adviser would give such STUPID "advice!"

The latest scam round here involves 16 to 18 yr olds getting an educational maintenance allowance and the parents getting Income Support for them.
A letter arrives from the department informing the parents that payments are stopping, (with no reasons).

After a bit of investigation it turns out that the child has obtained/forged a letter from a friends parent saying that they are living at their home and have left home, then the child makes a claim.

The poor parents know nothing about it, because in real life, the child has not left home at all.

ps, happens with tax credits as well

Just to get back to the sex and drugs elements of this thread for a minute (well, one of them anyway) a local WI once went ballistic after the results of its smocking and rugs competition were imaginatively mistyped by the local newspaper.

Personally I don't think anyone's independent, and the more you think you're above influence from third parties the more worried you should become that you have lost the plot entirely.

I couldn't agree more with your comment on CABs doing anything for money. My experience was of two CABs in the same LA, literally hi-jacking good projects to help their funding, regardless of the consequence to clients. Also the same LA commenting on how because they funded them they were actually working for them!
Incidentally, I worked as a CAB volunteer for a number of years at a Bureau were the Mansger and volunteers had the upmost integrity, but this is an exception to the rule as far as I am concerned.

"FAIR?" Huh!!! Do you know the meaning of the word?!!

Your comments are like saying that if one man's a wife beater then the majority of the rest are too!!

Get a grip for Gods sake!

Alot of us are only doing the bl**dy job because of the clients, i mean to say why on earth would we put up with the CLS otherwise?!

My bad experiences have been from advice given on Benefits by solicitors, a few of our clients have claimed compensation for bad advice from solicitors and two solicitors in our town have had their LS contracts removed.

That does not mean that i tar all solicitors offices with the same brush, there are some good and some bad. That's life innit!!

Sounds to me like you've got a grudge to bear!

I tend to agree with you Bensup, about the direction that this thread is moving towards - Bill Mcs original posting was about the umbrella body of Cit A asking for yet more money from Government for ICT, which I feel is a valid topic for discussion in the wider context of funding for independent advice services and who gets what share of funding available, as well as some of the wider questions of independence, etc.

I'm not particularly happy about the more "individual" criticisms that have starting arising, whether that is in relation to CABx, local authority WRU's or whatever.

If anything, I feel this stems from advisers deep-rooted anxieties about the financial security of their particular organisations, as much as anything else, and the shark-like feeding frenzy that takes place around rationalisation/revamping of funding streams and the like i.e. CLS strategy.

So please, unless you have a point beyond "I don't think that agency up the road are any good cos someone told me they're crap/not-independent/etc", can we desist from the increasingly circular argument. Thanks

(And btw, see barristers on strike thread for a similar telling off for me!)

I, and it seems many others, have been following this thread with interest, and would just like to add a few points and pose a question or two.

In the dim and distant past I originally started off in CAB as a voluntary trainee general advisor and sort of drifted (as one did) into welfare rights work, ending up working under a CLS contract. When these were first introduced I recall there was a great deal of discussion as to whether CAB should even think about going down that road, as it was seen at the time by many within the organisation as going against the very principles of CAB - access to advice and representation for all, not just the selected few on the basis of eligibility to legal aid. Plus of course there was the issue of confidentiality and external audits of casework papers etc.
CLS contracts were however seen I think as a means of maintaining at least some specialist WR rights (and Debt advice) within Bureau's, and therefore adopted as one means of funding. However, the funding of CAB's then was a very hit and miss affair - you didn't know from one year to the next how much you were going to get or even if the LA funding was going to continue and the periods just after local elections were the most fraught as I recall.
I have a great deal of time for the majority of Bureau's which are well run - particularly those that have good experienced session supervisors who ensure that the correct advice is given etc. OK, before anyone reminds me, I know there have been glaring examples where the opposite has occurred. However, the foundations on which the CAB was built were Independence and Confidentiality. (As far as I'm aware, you still can't get to see one of their case files without a Court Order or Client Authorisation). That Independence allows a Bureau to represent a client up to whatever level necessary to enforce their legal rights.

Perhaps a number of us see the present suggestion that, in return for funding, CABx would acting as agents for DWP with the power to verify and with access to DWP screens as a huge step away from the founding principles and a marked dilution of those principles. Personally I feel that the perception of CAB In the minds of the general public (and the WR community) would change completely. The public go to a CAB because at present they see it as totally independent and confidential. Would they feel the same way if they knew that their local CAB was also working as an agent for the DWP? How confidential would their case files be then? If a CAB has submitted a verified claim to JCP for example, and the Customer appeals against the subsequent decision, then all papers relating to the claim have to be made available at a Tribunal - this obviously includes papers held by that CAB. Having spoken with local CAB workers about the whole idea, these are some of the reasons why they are not at all impressed by the notion.

It should also be noted that those of us who work for LA's have been trying for years to get closer cooperation with JCP and it's predecessor: a bit like the Pension Service, this tends to be a one way street. Considering that we administer HB/CTB on behalf of DWP there has never been a good reason why we should not have had access to their screens: Nor is there any reason why we our visiting Officers (which is more than JCP have) could not have been able to verify on their behalf, but they have never acceded to those proposals.

This argument doesn't only apply to CAB's of course, but to any Independent agency who may think of going down this road at some point. It also runs parallel to the those being used in the discussions relating to Pensions Service Joint Teams (as originally envisaged by Mark Stone & other visionaries and soothsayers). In that discussion it was almost universally agreed within the WR community that Joint teams should never include WR teams, as this would effectively neuter them as an independent Representation units: work with them at arms length (as in Durham etc) by all means, but not as part of the system.

As already mentioned, very few of us can be regarded as totally "Independent". As a WR unit operating within a LA, we have freedom to represent clients against JCP/PS/DBU decisions up to whatever level is necessary and no doubt most other similar WR units have the same freedom. However, our client files are confidential to us, even within the LA.

The only other point is whether the whole idea is feasible anyway within the new JCP framework of Call Centres and CMS - I can't see how it can be made to fit into the new scheme of things, unless I (and the author of the idea) have missed something along the way.

===================================================================
Government is the great fiction,
through which everybody endeavours to live
at the expense of everybody else.
-- Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
===================================================================

It makes perfect sense to me "within the new JCP framework of Call Centres and CMS" if JC+ wants to absent itself from face to face contact with their cuutomers altogether ...

Point taken!