× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Work capability issues and ESA  →  Thread

Benefit Safeguards - policy issues

‹ First  < 11 12 13 14 15 >  Last ›

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

Further info on the review of safeguards referred to at Errol Graham’s inquest (and which meant that the coroner did not send DWP a PFD report).  If I receive the information which DWP are currently witholding then I’ll post it in this thread.

This follows on from this ICO decision: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/9149/P105/#81342

Link to the decision on the ICO site: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2022/4019773/ic-113450-b1z0.pdf

Update 04/04/22 - DWP have confirmed that they intend to appeal the ICO’s decision

[ Edited: 6 Jan 2023 at 11:12 am by Owen_Stevens ]
Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

There’s a few things on complex needs in the recently published DWP Universal Credit Operational Plan 2019-20 Review
https://depositedpapers.parliament.uk/depositedpaper/2284243/files

p.4 - The Review Team heard that there are pressures to define the cohorts of customers with complex needs. The system would allow more data mining than is currently undertaken, although this is not seen as a priority in the Product design and development area. Although Operations’ staff do not want a return to the “tagging” of previous benefits regimes, they reported that the ability to search and segment customer data would allow better targeting. The Programme recognises the need for Operational staff to have greater insight into their caseload and are evaluating how this might be developed. The Review team recommend that this work on Data strategy should be accelerated.

p.11 - there are concerns about whether staff will have the capacity and capability to deal with the anticipated growth in caseload and the complexity of needs. Around 40% of the caseload is said to present with disabilities, many of them related to mental health

pp.16 to 17 - The dissonance between the external dialogue about Universal Credit and the actuality of what happens on the ground is particularly extreme in relation to customers with complex needs. The commitment and determination to help people who at most at risk in society is evident and impressive. The amount of outreach work and engagement with Partners such as mental health charities and domestic violence units goes beyond the Review team’s
expectations
[...]
Measuring the impact of the dealing with customers with complex needs is difficult and creates a conundrum: there is recognition of the need to report that complex needs customers are receiving a good service, while there is also a desire not to “label” people as had been done in previous benefits regimes. The Review Team recognise the challenge of this conundrum but also recommend that the Programme team give more consideration to how greater insight could be created from the customer information which has been gathered. Several interviewees talked about their desire to “mine” the data for both reporting and operational effectiveness reasons.

The Review team learned that the “Work Coach” dashboard was a planned systems development but has been put on hold because of other priorities. Given the potential growth in caseload and the consequent inability for staff to remember customer details, we feel that this decision should be revisited.

Recommendation:
The Programme should plan to accelerate the work around Data strategy to ensure that data mining enables Operations to build greater customer insight to facilitate more effective interventions and respond to requests for management information about customer segments. The decision to put on hold the work to implement a “Work Coach Dashboard” should also be revisited.

There’s also a whole load of stuff on UC managed migration, some of which is relevant to this thread, in the UCPB papers.  I’m still working my way through them and may or may not end up posting stuff here.  https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/17229/#86421

[ Edited: 3 May 2022 at 01:51 pm by Owen_Stevens ]
Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

This comment by the IPA is interesting: The dissonance between the external dialogue about Universal Credit and the actuality of what happens on the ground is particularly extreme in relation to customers with complex needs. The commitment and determination to help people who at most at risk in society is evident and impressive.

It’s worth noting that, in the months prior, SSAC had been raising concerns about managed migration and complex needs and that, in the months following, the PMIU would write a report on vulnerability and UC which raised various concerns.  It also came at a time that ICE had just criticised DWP’s handling of Jodey Whiting’s case - among other similar developments.

It looks like almost everyone interviewed for the IPA report was internal to DWP (besides the CitA Director of Business Development) and so perhaps the comments by the IPA just reflect the perspective within DWP at that time.

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1005

Joined: 9 January 2017

Thanks for all the above, trawling and commentary etc etc Owen!

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

No problem, it’s interesting.  There’s loads of useful stuff in there - and I’m sure that someone else reading them would pick up on other aspects.  I’d really recommend policy pros and welfs with a policy interest take a look

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1005

Joined: 9 January 2017

Projected case loads for CM’s and WC’s, budgets, fraud and overpayments etc - https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2022-0377/27-UCPB_18-02-20-BTL02-UC_Benefits_Realisation_Update_R.pdf

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1005

Joined: 9 January 2017

Owen_Stevens - 04 May 2022 11:09 AM

No problem, it’s interesting.  There’s loads of useful stuff in there - and I’m sure that someone else reading them would pick up on other aspects.  I’d really recommend policy pros and welfs with a policy interest take a look

We’ve shared a couple with our local job centre on migration and projected WC, CM case loads and so on.

Within those papers is there anything on escalation?

 

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

I vaguely remember that there may have been some stuff on the need to improve escalation processes - I’m afraid I don’t remember which paper it was in (if it was there at all), sorry.  Also worth remembering that all these papers are from the period immediately preceding the creation of the DWP Serious Case Panel and the various other things that took place at that time

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District
forum member

Citizens Advice Bridport & District

Send message

Total Posts: 1005

Joined: 9 January 2017

Owen_Stevens - 04 May 2022 11:51 AM

I vaguely remember that there may have been some stuff on the need to improve escalation processes - I’m afraid I don’t remember which paper it was in (if it was there at all), sorry.  Also worth remembering that all these papers are from the period immediately preceding the creation of the DWP Serious Case Panel and the various other things that took place at that time

No worries lot to rummage through.

Good point re: latter stuff.

 

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

Owen_Stevens - 10 February 2022 03:42 PM

DWP are now able to record whether a claimant is a care leaver or a veteran

An interesting couple of PQs showing that DWP are, despite having recently introduced markers to track veterans claiming UC, unable to actually do any basic analysis as a result.  They’re unable (or unwilling) to track data over time or geographically.  This, presumably, also applies to care leavers:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-06-01/11553
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-06-13/16851

For background: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/821171/response/1971726/attach/3/Response%20FOI2022%2001789.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

The introduction of these markers was presumably related in some way to the PM Implementation Unit report on UC and vulnerability (which included a focus on care leavers): http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2021-0836/54H-UCPB_22-10-19-Paper7a-How_Effective_is_Support.pdf

Edit: seems that DWP are trying to develop the ability to do more reporting https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-06-29/27713

[ Edited: 6 Jan 2023 at 11:14 am by Owen_Stevens ]