New Work Programme Provider guidance on vulnerable ESA claimants and sanctions

I’ve come across new DWP guidance for Work Programme Providers that sets out how they are supposed to deal with ESA claimants identified as being vulnerable before making sanction referrals.

Chapter 4b - Safeguarding and Vulnerability

As well as various safeguarding activities highlighted as being possible e.g. arrange an interview for the client to ensure they understand what they’re being required to do, it also stipulates:

Home Visits
26. A home visit must be attempted if you are unable to have the face to face discussion any other way.

Thanks for this Paul

Given how hard it is to qualify for ESA I wonder which claimants could be assessed as not being ‘vulnerable’? Do you have the WP definition of vulnerable referred to in para 6?

Yes, don’t you just know that if there is a DWP definition of ‘vulnerable’ it will include only claimants who clearly meet the Schedule 3 activities or Reg 35 requirements anyway…

The only definition of “vulnerable” that I recall seeing in the Work Programme Provider guidance is at para.57 of chapter 6, which covers raising compliance doubts:

Safeguarding vulnerable ESA participants
57. Vulnerable ESA participants are those who have mental health conditions or learning disabilities or conditions affecting communication/cognition.

That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a different definition elsewhere, as there is so much guidance and I certainly don’t claim to have read the lot.

Para 15 of the DWP guidance for Work Programme Providers Chapter 4b - Safeguarding and Vulnerability - has the definition below, which is the same as the one quoted by Paul from the Work Programme Provider guidance para 57 of chapter 6:

15.The official definition of a vulnerable ESA participant is: “Vulnerable Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) participants are those who have mental health conditions or learning disabilities or conditions affecting communication/cognition”.

It seems to be a pretty restrictive document. It quite clearly states that DMA referrals are only avoided where their client didn’t understand what was required of them. There is no mention of people who understood but were unable to do it or disengaged all together (possible for people with variable or intermittent mental health conditions). This document assumes that the work provider has accurately gauged their client’s ability to perform a particular activity and inform them when they can’t do it. I would say these people are in the majority and this particular document applies to people with learning difficulties and severe mental illnesses only. I don’t know how many ESA claimants in the work-related activity group fit these criteria, but I’d say it wasn’t that many.