As I predicted over one year ago when the CAB's in England were given money for their joint e-service with the DWP, where they had direct access to DWP records, and the announcement that 30,000 DWP staff were to be sacked.

We an independent advice agency have been approached by the DWP to become a recognised and approved collection / issueing / varifying source for the over 60 age group, this would appear to be us doing the work that the 30,000 previously did?

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/forwardsql/search.cgi?template2=user_details2.htm&output_number=1&news.ID=63013525039

Can see quite serious independence implications for greedy advice centres that go down this route.

Anyone else aware of this?

Sat 22-Jan-05 11:00 AM by shawn

12 months ago, the pensions service here was offering funding to community orgs. to facilitate its out-reach and take up work in the community. this doesn't sound like the same thing - more like the CAB arrangement. we weren't approached directly and weren't interested in applying, - our manager asked ask me what i thought, and there was a multitude of reasons why it wasn't viable, so i didn't even have to get scary.

but it was low level funding.

there will be some greedy advice centres, but most i think are cash-strapped and always on the look out for funding sources. that's the danger. the statutory authorities are pretty good at pitching the lucre levels just right from their point of view. (snare level)

i doubt i'd have to have a big row with our manager and management committee, but we lost some independence when our LCD grant was lord irvinged, and now we're dependant on CLS Partnership funding. i'm totally confused about what's happening in the Department of Constitutional Affairs and even who's who or what - who isn't? but nothing explains why the LSC don't get the importance of independence and seperation of powers even in theory. so an element of DCA compulsion through the the contracting system can't be ruled out. i've heard nothing about it.

i'm pretty sure you were spewing at the inslut, bill, but i don't suppose you could tell them openness about funding issues up front is essential, in case they've forgotten?

anyway, for anyone in need of a good laugh, re-read Alexis clevelands's evidence to the select committee, and try to imagine the committee struggling to control their faces...

was it a dave brent moment?

i don't suppose it was filmed, was it? : )

jj


http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/forwardsql/search.cgi?template2=user_details2.htm&output_number=1&news.ID=111152821075 (link edited by shawn)

Nice one shawn

On another topic this link

http://www.lasa.org.uk/cgi-bin/publisher/display.cgi?1111-0105-18526+computanews

Mentions this speach:

"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."

This is exactly what they are suggesting we, and we are told they have also asked the local CAB to do, will greed get the better over independence?

and there's more ...

Pension Service Partnership Fund launched today: £13 million to improve take-up of older people\'s benefits

Hi Shaun

This partnership fund is not the same as we have been asked to provide, we did in fact put in for that one but were turned down, no great loss.

Since my original post I have spoken to the person who sent me it at the pension service, they have confirmed that NO PAYMENTS are to be made.

They expected us to do all their previous work for free!

This makes the decision to refuse even easier.

the partnership fund must be the one i recall, and to my recollection, the pensions service would pay for costs such as publicity, displays, telephone and computer (RAT?)installation, but didn't suggest funding for additional posts - i could be wrong - but it seemed that what they were after was outreach locations for their own staff.

the CAB partnerhip, if i understand correctly, does involve the provision of RATS and access to some DWP systems and programmes. worrying, but maybe some CAB folks could clarify?

the average funding figure, dividing the 13 million quid by 170 orgs comes out at just under £76,500 for two years (then fini. period)

i suspect that the majority of contracts are for significantly less than than £76,500 - (the average figure could be quite meaningless if there are a small number of largish contracts), and looking at the list of successful applicants there are quite a lot of small local organisations that i doubt would get sums above the kinds of expenses i mentioned in the first paragraph - possible exceptions being isolated rural locations - who knows?

my guess is that larger sums have gone to the local authorities to fund posts (for 2 years) at neighbourhood advice type centres - LA's are in a much stronger negotiating position. CAB's may also have some larger contracts - there's already a partnership with some, and they are an organisation with a national network. i spotted 3 primary care trusts and a scattering of legal (as opposed to general) advice organisations.

so, 170 organisations are awarded funding, and assuming 25% of the 13 million quid goes on capital and running costs, my very basic maths works out a potential 375 max. posts could be funded at £10,000 a year (with 30% on-costs). that is, if the partnership fund administration team costs don't come out of £13m (they wouldn't work for £10,000 pa). i'd expect most of this would go to LAs, so how much say UNISON would have in this i don't know, but fixed term contractees are... as we know.

the Pensions Service has to lose 8,700 posts, and Alexis Cleveland and the minister are confident blah blah, and thanks to billmcc, now we know why.

jj

You might be interested in this news story from Third Sector.

It notes that 170 charitable (or voluntary/community sector) organisations have recieved £10m of the £13m on offer under the Partnership Fund, with the organisations including RNID, RNIB, Carers UK, Citizens Advice and Age Concern. Apparently, the successful organisations will recieve an average of £76,000 over the next two years.

It will be interesting to see how these coalitions work in practise, whether there is a verifiable uptake in benefit entitlements amongst the elderly, and how some of the stresses and strains of joint working are managed. I broadly agree with your points, here and elsewhere, about reductions in DWP staff being managed byway of increasing roles for the voluntary and community sector in service delivery - at least with this fund there is some cash available, unlike the Alternative Offices mentioned elsewhere which seem to have the potential to seriously compromise the working practises of voluntary sector agencies and advisers without bringing them any obvious benefits.

from the lga website

'Alternative Offices Pilot -

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) are currently seeking Local Authorities who are keen to expand their current partnership arrangements with The Pension Service. They are now looking to extend this facility to Local Authorities and are seeking volunteers to pilot Alternative Offices.

Local Authority participation in this scheme should not adversely impact either existing Joint Team activity or plans for the creation of a Joint Team. Successful volunteers, selected by the DWP, will be invited to a preliminary workshop to discuss the full arrangements including the necessary evaluation.

The aim is to have pilots operational by April this year.'

Looking at the list of organisations who have been awarded funding under The Partnerhip Fund there is a wide ranges of organisations from local authorties (ourselves included) to small voluntary sector organisations. As I understand it one of the purposes of the Fund is to fund innovative ways of benefits take up - Pension Credit - Attendance Allowance etc. As far as I am aware the Fund is not linked to any initiative on verification/accreditation etc - a seperate issue.

Thie issue of verification/accreditaion is a much wider issue tied in with joint teams (local authorities and The Pension Service) and the Link Age initiative. There is interesting article in the recent edition in The Adviser on this and the LGA are sponsoring a conference in February.

Clearly there is a need for welfare rights organisations to get get involved in this whole debate from an informed perspective - the bottom line is how we can improve services to the public isn't it? or have I missed something?

The Partnership Fund according to the press release blurb, _is_ part of the Link Age Strategy. It says _what_ the funding is for -

" advises that money is being made available from the Fund to local and national organisations and community partners, including the voluntary sector, to -

improve the take-up of older people’s benefits particularly by hard to reach groups;
promote the independence of older people;
integrate joint working between partners;
improve access to services; and
gain a better understanding of older people’s needs in a specific community, religion, including the needs of Minority Ethnic elders"

but what we are not informed of, is HOW this will be achieved.

£13 million is being spent, and i definitely would like to know what it's being spent on, and to be fully informed as to the context in which the spending occurs. perspective and context, as you imply, are of the utmost importance.

incidentally, the word 'improvement' has been used as a 'euphemism' for cuts so often for so long, my default position is now to consider it a lie, deception, total fabrication, and to require the proponent to demonstrate that i'm wrong. (i have a nasty case of acute and chronic cynicism with complications of spasmodic bouts of unexplained optimism.)

as for the bottom line, this is going to vary, when you have a diversity of organisations involved. the statutory authorities are the ones with the _responsibility_ for delivery of public services, and also the ones with the funding, from our taxes. Good public services are obviously a matter of interest to everybody. The public funds them after all.

There is no reason why the details of the spending of the £13m, and the context in which it takes place should not be in the public domain. The press releases are not adequate in terms of providing accountable information - hence a measure of speculation. We can share information here, and so far we know what billmcc has told us.
Hopefully, the outcome of the freedom of information act will be full public accountability.

As a community law centre our purpose is to advise and educate people of their legal rights and help them to exercise them. There is a welfare rights interest in improving the delivery of service, in so far as poor service increases and is part of the problems of social injustice. Campaigning and lobbying (now unresourced)on behalf of the community is part of our remit, but using the law and legal processes is our core mode of operating. It's in the area of our ability to combat social injustice that our organisation finds its bottom line. Mounting legal challenges against 'partners' doesn't always go down well, as you know, so compromised independence through funding as an issue is alive and kicking, as raised by billmcc at the start of the thread.

jj

What we were asked to provide had nothing to do with the partenership fund, it's seems to be the DWP's way of getting a local agency to issue and date stamp claim forms for over 60's benefits, including PC, CA, IB, AA, DLA, etc.

Although the thought of being able to do this and more importantly varify the information was tempting, my concience would not allow me to do it, knowing our local DWP pension office has already been closed and replaced by a regional office / call centre, our DWP office is set to close under the cutbacks, our regional Pension Centre at Motherwell is earmarked to close and we would be doing all their jobs for free.

As I said earlier we did apply to the partnership fund along with the local CAB and a Council service called the Better Neighbourhood Services Fund our regional bid was £350,000+ with over 50% of this amount nothing to do with claims or benefit work but for equipment, rent and management costs, it was (not surprisingly) turned down.

Sad really that Dumfries & Galloway got nothing from this fund as we have one of the most underclaimed benefit areas in the country for the over 60's according to the DWP's own figures.

Not too sure where Freedom of Information Act comes into this discussion - why not just ask The Pension Service who the Fund has been allocated too etc or even better contact the local advice agencies in your area who were sucessful - I can give you a list? Can't quite see the argument that how the Partership Fund somehow compromises independence. Can only speak from the perspsective here - where the Fund will target benefits advice to older people - partcularly those in hard to reach groups - simple as that. Sorry to hear you suffer from chronic cynicism - is there a cure for that?

The verification thing is part of the Link-Age initiative, its actually being called 'alternative offices'.

Unfortunately it is also being suggested by some welfare rights workers as an alternative to the joint teams agenda. I agree it will have serious implications for independence.

I think there is a list of agencies who were awarded money from the Partnership Fund on the Pensions Service website, although not the amounts.

Malcolm Wickes's comments at the launch of the Pension Fund were quite interesting, particularly the reference to countless volunteers.......

"Through this initiative we will be unleashing a diverse army of health visitors doctors receptionists, local authority staff and countless volunteers in communities to ensure the message gets to those who need to hear it most".

If you look at the list of organisations who have been awarded contracts, there is definitely more than a smattering of Voluntary organisations.

........mind you the unleashing of a Doctor's receptionist conjures up some very strange images....

Spot on Andy that's exactly what the e-mail is called

'alternative offices'

bill

thanks for the information.

Outrageous! i'm deeply angry.

hi gary

chronic cynicism? non-lying governments might cure it - in the meantime i'm on a laxative and enema treatment regime. : )

i don't know why we're even talking about 'hard to reach' groups, when it's hard to reach social security offices we should be yelling about.

the DWP is implementing a policy of office closures, whilst calling it 'improvements'. it's INVENTING/FABRICATING/CREATING the problem of 'hard to reach groups' on closing it's local office network. (arguably, similar to its creation of the fraud obsession.)

we have hard to access social security offices. The DWP's "rolling out jobcentre plus" in birmingham- the local social security office is appointments only, booked through the call centre number. some of the neighbouring social security offices have closed or are closing. we have a problem with claim form stocks. people with problems who need to sort something out with the SS face to face can no longer do so easily. where do they go?

around dumfries, it's major access problems, known low take up levels and billmccs organization is expected to roll out JC+ (minus the JSA) for them, free of charge.

for 'army of volunteers', may i suggest we read 'army of mugs'?
why does the DWP think it can offload and be negligent with its statutory responsibilities for administering the social security system and functions? there are circumstances when the DWP should carry out home visits. eg - to severely disabled people. and the likelihood of a remote processing factory doing this is...?

maybe gary can fill us in on the bedford plan for getting to hard to reach groups?

the FOI, if it is not blocked, should have a profound effect on the way government works. a bit like the way tribunals having to give reasons for their decisions works. in future, bad-decision-making cannot be covered up by secrecy. if it contradicts the facts, the evidence and the law, and if it offends ethics and morality - a difficult area, granted, it can be challenged. to put things in context, human rights is a battle ground at the moment, at the most extreme levels. is it reasonable therefore to expect abuse of rights (welfare rights, civil rights, human rights) to be rife at less extreme levels?

speaking in english helps, which the law demands, but is a double edged sword. english is a polite language, despite it's many strengths and virtues. : ) spin and stock phrases deserve to be challenged. acceptance of contracts is to varying degrees, an acceptance of agendas, and acceptance of language. and there, gary, is one way independence can be compromised. we think in language and can be restricted by language.

sensitively, it wants something for nothing, the DWP, on their 'alternative office' website recognize the conflict of interests, and recommends that 'nominated officers' do not act as the claimant's representative. i can't see that the partnership can work for voluntary welfare rights organisations - on economic realities grounds alone, and of course, there are other valid grounds.

it may be different for LA welfare rights, where there is usually a split between claims advice and welfare rights, but maybe that is no longer the norm? i can't help thinking the CAB need to be very cautious with this.

here's a question on compromised independence - a good question to keep asking, imo - and an example of the double-edged speak english sword - the abolished adjudication officers were theoretically independent statutory authorities. although we could argue and debate about the theoretical as opposed to the actual separation of powers, if we agree that the theoretical separation is not meaningless, does the removal of the separation of powers make it easier for the social security system to be abused by means of the administration of the system?

nevermind. i think the situation seriously sucks, and wonder if anyone has any practical suggestions? maybe more pertinent is the question whether we are being too polite?

regards
jj

Nice one JJ

Found the DWP web site info you mentioned and yes thats exactly what we have been asked to provide for FREE.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2004/linkage/alt_offices/alt4.asp

this gets better and better, bill.

have i got this right so far?

you apply in a joint bid to the partnership fund - get turned down.
then you get an approach by the DWP, asking you if you want to be an alternative office, without telling you, until after you asked, that they want you to do it for free, and without exactly telling you it's this alternative office business, which they don't exactly say is the non JSA bit of Jobcentreplus?

dishonesty, fraud or indecency charges? <grin>

what they have said officially about the Pensions Service and Jobcentreplus is a matter of record. and evidence. i'd say there's something of a gap opening up between the record and evidence.

- it's looking like the DWP has got itself 'hard to reach group' problems at ALL levels. i think we can take it that the announced 'success' of the #13 million partnership fund is more fluffing, and it has been another failure.

the penny's only just dropping with me about FOI.

bill, you don't suppose the DWP would stoop to doing something like misusing your bid data, do you? you might want to track the decision-making resulting in its approach to you? : )

as for the alleged #13 m...

jj

I'm very late in this as usual and very Monday morning.

Gary - we have a leaflet in the office about the Pension Service in the community or something. Anyway whatever it is it has Pension Service on the front and it has a local CAB and times and things on the back.

That is just prima facie iffy to me. I already have clients who are not sure if I'm them or us, who say things 'off the record'.

We have offices closing at an alarming rate, frighteningly reduced access by phones that are always engaged. Helpline staff at national centres just trained to calm customers down, not to inform them.

I don't think this is cynical let alone too much.

Nice one JJ. Spot on mate!

You mention LA welfare rights teams. Our team is about 17 strong, split into 3 teams, plus miscellaneous other advice workers. We are all situated in the one office which we share with other sections, contracts, finance etc. Alyhough some of us do advice surgeries in other buildings throughout the borough, several days a week.

We have 1 team that works exclusively with people over 60, doing home visits completing claim forms only. Any appeals are passed to us in the 'welfare rights team'. However, our team also does advice sessions and most of us do half a day on the advice line. So as you can see there are no clear splits between claims and appeals.

Thus we envisaged a few problems (to say the least) when joint teams were first mooted. If DWP staff were working in our office then I would have wanted the filing cabinets with client's (appeal files) locked at all times and keys given to case workers only. What about DWP staff listening to our phone calls. Information about clients on desks being accessible for their roving eyes. Outside perception of our team not being independent, thus compromising trust. These were just a few of our concerns. I for one had a whole host of them.

Luckily, however one of our senior managers wrote a strong report to our chief executive and the LA has declined the offer of joint teams, much to our great relief. We await the next attack however!

Regards
Paul

Oh dear seem to have struck some raw nerves - there are real issues which welfare rights organisations, partcularly local authoprity based services, need to adress in terms of its future relationship with The Pension Service. Joint teams really links in with fairer charging agenda but there is an issue for welfare rights organisations where for example, as in Pauls case, there is local authority funding of a teams of advisers who broadly deal with the same client group as The Pension Service - this is an issue being faced by many welfare rights services across the Country. At present there are 29 joint teams, as far as I`m aware non in this region. Local authorities may have to engage in this whole process, if for example it becomes a best valaue indicator - then it may not be just a case of a senior manager writing a 'strong report'.

As regards the relationship betweem CABx and local Pensions Service and logos etc - would suggest read current article in The Adviser - raises a lot of issues.

JJ raises a lot of points, many of which I have difficulty understanding. However, I will make a general point that welfare rights advice is very diverse in terms of the organisations that provide it - there is no one single model and diversity of provision also meets the needs of the public. The debate on joint teams, link age, alternative offices etc is part of changing agenda in welfare rights advice - each organisation to decide where they stand on this issue but ultimately surely its down to what best meets the needs of customers in each area, assuming of course they are consulted in this whole process.

I've an article in this month's Benefits journal which sets out the case against joint teams and which also touches on Alternative Offices. I think there's still all to play for in making the case against joint teams and they are by no means inevitable. WR advisers have a key role to play in making that case.

DWP seem to using the offer of convenience of an Alternative Office as a lever to set up joint teams by claiming that these are not possible within LAs unless there is a joint team. I can't find any legal basis for them to say this. The Link Age website also attempts to tone down advocacy by bodies offering Alternative Offices by stating that they sholud not be involved in any appeal on the benefit where they have verified/gathered evidence. While it may be right to not do an appeal about a dispute about the verification, this strikes me as part of the agenda of many within the DWP who would like to rein in welfare rights advocacy.

DWP actually has no power to stop alternative offices doing appeals, although they may withdraw alternative office status if they do, which would obviously be a source of incalculable shame...

The issue really is one for the organisation, there is a clear conflict of interest (for pensioner clients at least) and it would be up to their own procedures etc to decide whether they would want to do that.

I think this conflict of interest will affect any quality mark general help or specialist level, although the LSC have been quiet on the issue so far. DWP say you must have a quality mark to become an alternative office so I think AO status is only appropriate for organisations who have the QM at information level.

I understand that DWP are planning for their local services to have one of the QMs. This raises interesting points about the value of independence for QM holders.

For the Information level QM you don't have to have a policy on conflict of interest, although you do for General help and Specialist level. I think there is at least one HB office that has info level QM.

Tue 01-Feb-05 10:59 PM by shawn

gary, sorry for late reply.
i think it's not so much hitting a raw nerve as brains exploding. it's a case of having to join up the dots, and there is an overwhelming number of them.

to try to keep things in perspective, the ball that we shouldn't take our eye off, is the DWP policy of office closures and centralization, using call centres, and remote processing. it's called modernisation, and jobcentreplus, (just to be confusing?).

it's worth noting that you won't find any useful information about the program on the DWP website. i don't know if you will find anywhere an assessment of the impact on claimants and communities -

it's also worth noting that it hasn't been presented as a cuts program, with reasons for cuts clearly stated and open for public debate. rather it is concealed to an extent, and disguised as something else - that it, improvements in the interests of 'customers'.

it may also be worth considering that the type of outsourcing/privatisation on the rightsnet news page (link at bottom)would not be viable without re-organisation away from the local office network. (check out the ministerial statement which relies on mere assertion of a stock phrase.)


in addition to the impact on claimants and communities, this re-organisation of the administrative operation, (which suggests that claimant access received lowest or negligible priority), also has an impact on the DWP's ability to fulfill its statutory obligations. access is not a purely administrative matter. the existence of an independent advice sector doesn't remove the need for access to statutory advice, and case law has emphasised that the proper place for claimants in any doubt about their entitlement to make enquiries, is the statutory authority.
this is one area where that separation of powers thingy comes in.

the 1998 SS Act was always about giving more power to the Secretary of State (or the DWP - i find it difficult to work out who's really in charge of whom, frankly). the squeeze was on the adjudication system on the DSS almost from the outset of the Benefits Agency, but for 3 or 4 years before that, it was clear to me that the BA saw the adjudication system, and let's be honest, the law itself, as an 'obstacle to business'.

at what point, does anyone suppose, does statutory administration that is careless of the law, abuse it's power so as to deny claimants their legal entitlement to benefit? is there a point at which abuse becomes systematic? what about rubbish DLA decision, stock (meaningless and dishonest) phrases in DLA submissions, and what about stock phrases in SoS submissions to the Commissioners? just one example. do these have to get dealt with on a case by case basis, when there are systemic failures?

there has been an undeniable squeeze on DWP staff, and LA's are being squeezed, and the voluntary sector is being squeezed, and all the time claimants are being squeezed.

the voluntary sector is very diverse. fwiw, my organisation is a registered charity, with a smallish staff, working out of an idiosyncratic slum in a deprived area, heaving with 'hard to reach' groups. we are dependent on a specialist LSC contract. In February, I was the only WR case worker, with a general adviser giving level 1 advice. We now have another WR worker, who I have to train and supervise. And we have a part time debt adviser also. We can't get paid for form completion under the LSC contract (other than DLA), and we have something of a haphazard form filling project with volunteers from the college of law. we have an education obligation, so we give opportunities to local law student volunteers, but are extremely restricted by LSC and law society rules in what we can allow them to do (NO client advice), and what it's fair to ask them to do. it's definitely not the case that we can utilize volunteers to get loads of free work done, and on the whole, i'd say they gain more than the organisation, appreciated as they are.

we were one of just 9 law centres who used to get a grant from the LCD provided for out of the Access to Justice Act, for historic reasons, lost in the mists of time - worse than SDA transitional protections, for not being written down!. (somebody ought to benefit from it, why not rightsnet and its users? sheesh!) A pitiful amount by DWP and LA standards (£89,000) it at least allowed us to do some work for non-eligible clients, and some room for those difficult to define somethings that once were considered valuable. it was deemed anomalous and abolished nearly 3 years, so we have had a staggered over three years doubling of our LSC contract hours, on the same staff. we've managed so far, but the current year is a real struggle, and we don't know if we'll make it. there is no slack, and we couldn't take on AO work even if we wanted to.

the above is typical of the voluntary sector. it does not have anything like the resources of the statutory authorities to fall back upon, and the DWP must be insane if it thinks we can do its work (and carry it's liabilities!) for it. but it seems that exploiting unwitting and expendable 'volunteers' is a good wheeze, at least until it kills the sector. then what?

the current funding situation does not allow me to do my job properly. we have to turn away people we should be helping, and i make mistakes i shouldn't.

the FOI right is invaluable, but isn't worth a hill of beans without the right to freedom of speech, or if hardly anyone has funding to utilize it. so i don't accept that's it's unprofessional to criticize. i think it's long overdue.

i've looked at the amount of unpaid work i do, and right now, the 'what best meets the needs of the customer' speech, coming from the DWP, conjures up Snowball and Napoleon, and i'm wondering what else they aren't telling us about hardworking families and armies of volunteers and the rest.

well really, lie detecting disabled miners!!

sorry about length, folks.

jj



http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/forwardsql/search.cgi?template2=user_details2.htm&output_number=1&news.ID=128112516144 (link edited by shawn)

JJ - I`m now getting worried, I can see where your coming from and understand the points you raise - does this mean that I`m suffering from the 'chronic cynicism' referred to in earlier postings?

There is still the issue of how welfare rights services in general responds to a service i.e a local Pension Servcice, which has a policy pro-actively promoting the take up of benefits for older people. Some welfare rights services appear to have taken a total oppositional stance to The Pension Service - others a more co-operative approach - I would suggest that either approach has to meet the needs to the public and is not juts a knee jerk reaction. The point I`m making is that the agenda for welfare rights services has changed and some services appear to be operating in a 1970's time warp - for example the days of the large local authoity welfare rights team operating in a large metropolitan council or inner London Boro has largely gone - the days of large welfare rights take up campaigns using anti- test case rule has gone - look at the expansion of self employed 'welfare rights consulatants over the last few years- I could go on and on.

Can't understand what a Snowball and Napoleon, drink's I`m very partial too at xmas, has got to do with this whole discussion.

p.s you mentioned in earlier postings that this chronic cynicism fluctuates with bouts of optimism - any advice on the frequency and duration

I've looked through this entire post (yet again) and wonder why there is so much angst over these problems.

Advisers really do have a high standard of ethics. When we say we work on behalf of the client we really mean it. Why should this stop us from cooperating with benefit offices? Providing we are very careful to ensure our cooperation is in clients interests and avoid any moves to avoid conflicts of interests why shouldn't we do it?

The DWP is going to get rid of staff if they want to. I'm sure no matter how many howls come from advisers, they will do it anyway. Should we perhaps move on and do what we are good at - exploiting any and all opportunities in the system to improve the advantage of our clients?

I can say all this because my organisation (a housing association) has been "verifying" HB claims for a couple of years now. As benefit adviser I was asked to arrange this when we were invited by the local authority. I think if I had objected strongly, my organisation would have declined to become involved. However I considered the issues carefully and saw an opportunity to enhance the service we could give to clients concerning benefits.

The first sticking point is this emotive word "verifying" which can strike terror into anyone dealing with Housing Benefit. The problem is that most people confuse this with "assessment". An assessor needs to ensure that the information s/he is using needs to be "verified" as correct. The act of verifying it is correct is not assessment.

Our verification consists of:
assembling a complete claim pack.
completing the app form.
photocopying original documents
certifying the copies (as copied from originals)

This is essentially an administrative operation albeit that it needs some training and skills to fill the form and know what proofs are needed.

WE DO NOT
Check the authenticity of proofs (How could we?)
Interrogate the claimant (why should we?)

Of course we would tell the claimant if we thought (from an obvious common sense point of view) that something was a problem. This could include how authentic a document looked - though in 2 years it has not happened yet. It sometimes happens that a bank statement shows regular incomes, not declared on the form. We would then tell them that the assessor is bound to query this and they will have to explain it. We make a point however that they do NOT have to explain it to us.

So in essence we give a service to the client by helping them give a full claim which will not create any foreseeable queries. We also can give them a local point to submit forms and proofs.

Not surprisingly, because claims verified by us are likely to be full and fully proofed first time, they are easier and quicker to assess. Benefit gets paid quicker, the authority has less pending cases, and payment comes to us quicker. Everyone is happy.

Not only that but an unexpexted bonus also arrived. Because of the level of liason needed to create the cooperation, a new level of query resolution was set up. I can now, by telephone, speak to an assessor who is willing to discuss all aspects of a claim and willing to reassess if I can show them why. This would not have happened before we took on the verififation.

Sadly, the decision making of the authority has not really improved and there is still a number of silly and stupid decisions. I dispute all these. If I do not get sensible responses I still take it to tribunal. I do not have to take as many to the tribunal as I used to because I can now get more resolved at an earlier stage. No one has ever suggested that disputes have any conflict with being verifiers.

There is nothing in what we do for verifying that in any way compromises me in giving independent advice.

I realise that my experience in housing benefit may not match what the pension service is wanting and I do not know if there are any conditions they want to apply that could be compromising. We have not been approached to be a "DWP partner" and we would think carefully about it if we were. I cannot see it happening unless we received funding for an administrator to do it.

Yes there are potential conflicts of interest in "partnership" activities but if we can use it to our and our client's advantage - why not?

One of the things with becoming an 'alternative office' for the Pension Service is that they specifically say that you cannot do appeals for claimants whose claims you have verified. If all welfare rights advisers therefore took on verification, where would over 60s go if they needed help with appeals? I think this is a real practical problem, regardless of your politics.

Thats not to say that there aren't organisations who can usefully take on verification duties but in general I would say that these would be organisations who don't normally take on appeals.

I'm relatively alone in the advice world about being sanguine about joint teams. I think it is important to be clear which services are independent and which are not. A joint team will not be independent, as long as everyone is clear about that I personally don't mind them existing. Its all about the client being clear in their expectations as far as I'm concerned. However, I do personally think that verification does compromise independence so I'm not happy about otherwise 'independent' advice services taking verification on.

My big worry about joint teams is that local authorities are so keen on setting them up that, in a bout of lazy thinking, they just transfer their welfare rights teams over lock stock and barrel. However, I think the ball is very much in our court to sell the benefits of keeping an independent welfare rights presence as well as a joint team, rather than just take a negative point of view and slag joint teams off. I think this appraoch would serve our interests better in the long run.

At the LGA conference yesterday there was clear reassurances from the DWP that those oganisations with alternative offices could do appeals.

Joint teams are being set up, largely involving fairer charging teams etc, the concern for welfare rights services is that they could become at best marginalised in this whole issue unless they engage or have an input into this process.

Gary

Yes the information we were given also says we can still do appeals, but not the designated person/s who do the varification and / or claims.

I can sleep very well at night knowing what a great job we do now and in the future.

We are 100% independent and intend to stay that way, some other agencies will have this choice, some will not and have to do as their employers / funders say.

I rememeber seeing somewhere on rightnet the following and by god has it stuck in my mind since.

"It's difficult to be part of the solution if your seen as part of the problem"

Or words to this effect!

i've just got info under FOI of the contract awards and assessment process for the Partnership Fund. CAB and Age Concern predominate, with orgs for 'hard to reach' groups also represented. If anyone is interested in a copy let me know...

jj

is this the list of successful applicants?

if so, it's also @ http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/atoz/atozdetailed/partnershipfund.asp

(link from the rightsnet news story referenced @

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=301&mesg_id=301&page=#308)

yes, plus the amounts of the awarded contracts.

jj