A-Z of mental health
Information and advice on a huge range of mental health topics
The WCA - working hard for reform
Posted Thursday 2 August 2012
18 months ago, Mind, working with Mencap and the National Autistic Society, submitted a report to Professor Harrington, the independent reviewer of the WCA, about changes we wanted to see to the criteria used in the WCA. Harrington had asked us to produce this report after recognising that the assessment was not working well enough for people these organisations represent.
Translating our concerns with the system into specific proposals was not an easy task. Based on what we had been told by the people we represent, we identified two key aspects of the ‘descriptors’, used to score applicants, that we believed needed changing:
- We didn’t feel the descriptors really took account of the fluctuation and variability inherent to many of these conditions and we wanted to make sure that our descriptors could collect this information.
- We wanted assessors to be able to ask applicants directly about the areas covered in the assessment rather than trying to select the appropriate descriptor based on tangential questions.
We made an attempt to address these issues in the proposals we produced, looking at models of fluctuation used in the equivalent Australian assessment. But we recognised that our descriptors were not perfect and didn’t address some of the fundamental issues with the WCA, such as what ‘work’ and ‘fitness for work’ actually mean.
After refining our proposals through consultation with other groups and collaboration with a ‘scrutiny panel’ of health experts convened by Harrington, they were submitted to the DWP. The Department responded that the proposals were too radical and not backed up with sufficient evidence.
Meanwhile, at Harrington’s request, another group of charities (MS Society, National AIDS Trust, Parkinsons UK, Forward ME, Arthritis Care, and Crohn’s and Colitis UK) were submitting proposals for how the descriptors could better address the type of fluctuating conditions they focus on. This report built on our descriptor proposals and made more general recommendations for improving the assessment.
They received a similar response to us from the DWP and the whole endeavour might have been dead in the water at that point, were it not for Harrington arguing that the DWP should carry out some testing on the proposals. This suggestion was accepted in principle but in the ensuing months there was no real activity.
Then, about six weeks ago, the charities involved were invited to the DWP to discuss how the testing would proceed. We were told there was Ministerial commitment to the project, resources allocated to make it happen, and a tight timetable to work to.
This turn of events provoked mixed feelings: it would be the first time that the current descriptors had been properly tested, with the outcomes they suggest compared to the view of an expert panel on whether the applicant was actually fit for work. It would also be a good opportunity to test out some of our ideas for improving the descriptors. But we were wary of the project being driven by the DWP, with Mind’s name attached to it, and the possibility that we wouldn’t be comfortable with how the testing was designed or carried out.
Overall though, we felt it was too good an opportunity to turn down and since then we have been involved in intense and long meetings with the DWP and the other charities involved to try and finalise a common set of proposals that can be tested.
Mind knows this is fairly unique opportunity and we are acutely aware that the circumstances aren’t ideal: our proposals were suggested reforms to problems with the current assessment, not a perfect alternative; we are not experts in producing assessments; we are not in control of the design and timeline of the project; and there are many people not round the table who could make important contributions. However, it is clear that the DWP will go ahead with or without us and so we feel that it is important to try and make the process as rigorous and constructive as possible.
It’s been a hectic few weeks, but we want to make sure we find the time to keep the process as open as possible to disabled people and the disability sector. We’re pushing to relax the timetable to make more time for consultation but we’d welcome any comments or questions that people have at any point in the process.
Tom Pollard – Senior Policy & Campaigns Officer, Mind
This blog represents the views and experience of Mind, not necessarily those of other charities involved in this process.
This blog is also appearing as a guest post on Sue Marsh and Kaliya Franklin’s websites in order to reach as many people in the online disability community as possible.
If you are looking for information around the WCA, visit our information page for details on finding the right advice and support.
22 Comments
-
Tom, Thank you for this information. I have a couple of points.
1. Is it a proviso that the present WCA testing regime is stopped whilst any testing regime is explored and enacted? If not, why not?
2. Recently we heard that two mental health sufferers have been granted the opportunity by the high court to seek a judicial reveiw of the DWP testing regime. How does/would this affect negotiations with the DWP? Can you capitalise on this?
3. Will you be using evidence from the undercover documentaries to help your argument with DWP. Are you going to be asking searching questions that demand answers from ATOS regarding the footage? Can we have a definitive comment on the specific failings the undercover footage exposed, i.e. no more than 12% to be put into the support group regardless? What about the misinformation we are given concerning these things? Can you trust them?
-
In addition to the good questions asked above by concerned citizen.
I've seen the draft (?) descriptors on Sue and Kaliya's blogs. Will there be a full consultation on these before any trial or will they just go straight to testing?
Are there any points already allocated to the descriptors?
How will the trial work? (Nationally or specific localities?)
And is anyone challenging the fundamental premise, with it's two groups and time limits, or do we just have to accept that?
-
Demanding the existing test is stopped and getting your legal department to support further legal action is surely the highest priority.
None of the descriptors directly relate to mental health and the bar is so high that having a single functioning finger is deemed good enough.
Then there is the issue of suicides. Those of us going through this process knowing at what point we could be likely to attempt to take our own lives - there is nowhere to have this reality registered as this article demonstrates:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/mental-health-political-issue?CMP=twt_gu
To even have that denied is hard to swallow. -
"Are you going to be asking searching questions that demand answers from ATOS regarding the footage?
Can we have a definitive comment on the specific failings the undercover footage exposed, i.e. no more than 12% to be put into the support group regardless?
What about the misinformation we are given concerning these things?
Can you trust them?"
Great questions Concerned Citizen,but where are the answers from MIND?
As someone who has worked for 30 yrs in Mental Health and seen the destructive effects of these WCA I too have a question.
Why dont you stop trying acting as a pusher for these destructive policies? You should be organising a boycott not trying to find ways of making more profits for atos.
It is shameful how MIND and other charities have bent the knee to this regime. I thought MIND was supposed to represent those with Mental Health difficulties not administer the Govts Work Programmes.
It goes to show though how unrepresentative, undemocratic and unaccountable those running MIND and other so called Charities are.
-
What assurances can be given that the discriptors are worth the paper they are written on with the overwhelming evidence gained within the two documentaries.
It's very disapointing that Mind chooses to become a part of an assessment process of this nature when evidence speaks for itself. 32 people per week died as a result of those assessments. Terminally ill one's suffering in an unhumain way in their last days.
Proffesional doctors and GP's bassically being called liers in their diagnosis by means of those assessments.
It's a book balancing excercise nothing more. TARGETS have been set.
-
My worry is why did the charities get involved in the WCA from its outset.
I was just having a look at the ESA regulations from 2008. How did our representatives put their names to this disaster. It was clearly laid out the money to be saved from IB to ESA, that could only mean
cuts.
Why is MIND as an organisation still involved in the work programme?
There are no paid jobs, you all know that. Why are MIND still involved in disability works uk, please do not give us the local level excuse. -
Hi Tom.
Amongst many things, I would like to know what Mind thought was wrong (if anything) with Incapacity Benefit and the PCA assessment, other than the descriptors not being applied properly by Atos/decision-makers, which clearly continues to be one of the problems with the deeply flawed WCA?
I understand that ESA was supposed to ensure people got the right support to enable them to return to the workplace if and when they were well enough. This sounds fine except I am not sure how anyone suffering enduring, debilitating mental illness can be expected to recover/become stabilized enough to work when they have suffered unacceptable, prolonged and ongoing distress at the hands of this nightmare system?
I have often commented on here how any regime built on sanctions is counterproductive, and never more so than in the case of vulnerable people battling with mental illness. Before the introduction of ESA and the work programme, there was a range of employment support programmes people could access on a voluntary basis when they felt well enough. I will struggle to engage with any part of the process.
What happened to that assessment Atos were supposed to do looking at occupational health issues? Has it now been scapped altogether because the DWP have realised that Atos do not have any expertise?
The IB process involved doctors being contacted to avoid exempt claimants going through the harrowing process at all. With the WCA, I have heard that in some areas at least, people with severe mental health conditions are being forced to attend medicals and thrown into the appeal system without Atos/decision-makers making any contact with their psychiatrist. Can you please reassure me that I have been misinformed and that is not happening?
-
And why are you saying nothing, doing nothing in response to ATOS being a sponsor of the paralympics? There are many who would like to see a boycott. Would you support demonstrations over this?
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/02/atos-disability-benefit-tests
Atos has just been awarded even more contracts -
Hi everyone,
Thanks for all your comments this morning. Here are some responses to specific points raised.
@Concerned Citizen - We have called for a stop to the reassessment of IB claimants until the test is working. Although we don't want to see anyone going through a flawed system, stopping new claims would mean that many people would not be able to access ESA.
We are aware of the legal case you mentioned (http://www.mind.org.uk/news/7171_high_court_grants_permission_for_wca_judicial_review) and we are looking at the issues it raises. Mind has evidence illustrating the impact of the WCA claims process on people with mental health problems that may assist the Court. However, this case does not have direct implications for our work on the descriptors.
Our Chief Executive Paul Farmer posted a blog response to the WCA documentaries earlier in the week http://www.mind.org.uk/blog/7191_uncomfortable_truths. We will certainly be looking into the issues they raised and we agree that it was very worrying that there were expected 'norms' for the number of people going into the Support Group etc. This will help inform our campaigning work such as responding to this year's Harrington review.
@another citizen - The version of the descriptors that has appeared on those websites is just a draft. We consulted organisations and individuals on our original proposals but we are also pushing the DWP for a period of consultation in this process.
There are not yet final points assigned to the descriptors and we recognise this is a big factor. However, we hope that the testing will look at what information is collected and how this is used as well as what the final thresholds for qualifying for the benefit should be.
The proposals are for reforms within the current assessment format but we recognise that further and more fundamental changes to the system are needed.
-
In response to other comments about our approach to campaigning on the WCA and welfare reform: we have consistently spoken out on the problems with the benefits system for people with mental health problems, reflecting the concerns that are passed onto us by people we represent. Although we face a media climate that is largely hostile to benefit claimants we have achieved significant coverage of these issues and will continue to publicise our concerns as widely as possible.
The direction of travel for successive Governments’ policies on disability benefits has been very worrying but we have achieved significant improvements to the system through our campaigning. We believe the system would be far worse if we had simply disengaged from the process of discussion and negotiation around reform. This type of engagement does not mean we endorse the current system, it is simply a recognition that we must try and achieve all reform that we can to make the system work better for the people we represent.
In response to comments about the Work Programme: Mind is not involved in any contracts under the Work Programme or any contracts as part of Disability Works UK. Whilst we have serious concerns about the WCA, we believe that those who want to and can work should have access to the best employment support possible. Given our expertise and experience in supporting people with mental health problems we feel we can offer that. So, should the opportunity come up to deliver those services we would explore it – but we would not enter into any contract which did not match our values and which sanctioned individuals unable to work due to their mental health.
-
@a Mind supporter - I agree with you that there is too much reliance on conditionality and sanctions in the system rather than building a genuinely supportive process for people who may be able to return to work. This is something we are looking at right now.
The 'Work Focused Health Related Assessments' that you refer to have been scrapped, which is a concern as this was supposed to be a key component of the system. The DWP claims this role can be performed by Work Programme providers but we are currently looking at how well these organisations are supporting people with mental health problems.
I totally agree that people's doctors or other relevant professionals should be contacted for information before someone is assessed and this is something that we are campaigning for improvements on. We do know that often evidence does not come forward until an appeal and we want this situation to be fixed.
-
What assurances can be given that the discriptors are worth the paper they are written on with the overwhelming evidence gained within the two documentaries.
It's very disapointing that Mind chooses to become a part of an assessment process of this nature when evidence speaks for itself. 32 people per week died as a result of those assessments. Terminally ill one's suffering in an unhumain way in their last days.
Proffesional doctors and GP's bassically being called liers in their diagnosis by means of those assessments.
It's a book balancing excercise nothing more. TARGETS have been set.
-
Dear Tom@mind
I know you've gone as far as you are able to say within the remit of your job/mind policy. It is such a shame that mind is unable to take that extra step over that so called controversial line. I belive after those documentaries public opinion (which seems so important to you) might surprise you by more radical action. I suspect there are more than a few employees of mind who would like mind to take a more radical stance but are held back through fear of in -house politics maybe. Maybe I'm wrong. Why can't you organise demonstrations outside ATOS offices whilst still negotiating? Farmers have done it, unions do it, benefit office staff have been known to take strike action over poor quality negative decision making for their clients. Why can't you organise practical action that they can't ignore and still demand a place at the table? Because I fear you won't be listened to any more than you have been without this. And I suspect from the comments on this and other blogs you will have majority support. Rome burns whilst the fiddle player is wrapped up in his own and their music. Its like Canute content with trying to hold back the tide when at one time he dreamed of conquering the waves and sailing the sees without any fear. We had such high hopes they said but couldn't bare to get our feet wet. Someone biblical once said, 'they dress the wounds of the people as if their wounds are not serious'.
But thanks anyway.
-
The awarding of the new contracts to ATOS & CO is nothing more than a cynical move by the government to stop them from running scared and pulling out after the other nights undercover exposing. It also shows that the government are totally on the side of their working practices. What a slap in our faces.
-
This gov is laughing at any protest, they can do exactly what they like - and they're enjoying it
-
I fail to see how the proposed new descriptors offer any real improvement. In some sections they are actually worse.
Why cannot the charities use the old PCA descriptors and insist on them at least as the basis for negotiation. The ability to score a small number of points on a wider range of answers gives the ability to cover complex conditions, and are far better on mental health than the proposals.
I think these proposals are just a sop by Grayling to try and shut people up after the BMA voted to demand an end to the WCA.
I think the rushed time limit now is because he knows there is to be a Parliamentary debate on it on Sep4th. With EDM 295 it is clear many MPs are in no mood to compromise and neither should we. This will just be used for Grayling to be able to say We have listened to concerns and the charities have developed new descriptors which we have accepted. End of debate.
We have the doctos on our side, MPs signing an Early Day Motion supporting the call to end the WCA, so why try and succumb to Grayling's obvious duplicitous manipulation.
Where is the mention of PAIN and FATIGUE. Where is the exemption possibilty by having peopl's GPs contacted first? Where is the time limits before being reassessed? Some people are being recalled every few months. Teh old system for conditions that would not really be expected to improve but could in theory were checked every 5 years. That is only sensible. Retesting someone with M.E every year is pointless and only makes the condition worse. I can't believe Forward M.E or the M.S Society had any input into these descriptors. If they did they seriously need to consult with their members ho will still not be able to pass this.
Grayling is a tactician and is only using this to appear that he has moved when the outcome will essentially be the same. Do not be fooled and remember you are meant to be here to serve vulnerable people not keep the govrnment happy.
-
I cant beleive Mind is still going along with trying to make a system that is killing people 'fair'. Whats the problem? Have not enough of us died yet? Any protest from the public will be reserved for those with physical illness and disability, those of us with severe mental health conditions will remain at the bottom of society and will be forced to do workfare (and be subject to more bullying and abuse even though we have had a lifetime of it). So Mind please inform us of the numbers of us who have to die before you admit that the system is killing people and do something. We've had years of platitudes and no action which just confirms that we are worth nothing
-
It seems the coalition government are turning a blind eye to the way this WCA is being conducted. Generalizing people on what they can physically do is so backward and victorian and doesn't deal with the non tangible illness such as mental health. The whole WCA process is a way of railroading people off their benefits. ESA is just a pharce there is no support. Just a dictatorial process to humiliate and expose claimants as liars and scroungers when really not giving them a fair chance to access it. 'If you can stand up straight and press a button you are able and available for work?' How flawed is that. Politicians have never understood social and healthcare. They have tried it with other weak targets. Those who have addictions to alcohol and drugs. Pick on the weakest is their policy and its all about saving money. A few suicides won't matter because the less claimants the better for them. Disgusting. I hope Mind can assert some changes to this god awful assessment for everybody's sake.
John
-
I have my first wca appt on 13th aug.
I cannot cope with the stress this is causing me.
I have a personality disorder,deppresion,anxiety,im agraphobic other conditions High BP for last 15yrs,high coleseteraol,underactive thyroid,Asthma and I also self harm.
Ive been placed in the work cap group,so I will recive ESA until I am able to work.So they will have to find me a job where I dont leave home,a job that allows me to stay in bed because I cant face the world dont want to face the world,dont want to wash speak,eat,talk,breath.Ajob that will allow me to pick the hours and time too work as Idont know what im going to be like on a daily basis.
I think more about dying than I do living.I have support and im under my local mental health team.But this worry and stress is just unbearable and im not sure im going to get through it. -
Thanks for your reply Tom - I think Mind needs to look at all areas of the process to highlight where it is failing people.
Whilst it is very important that GPs/MH teams/specialists are asked to provide medical evidence etc, it is also vital that they are given guidance/training on the eligibility criteria for different disability benefits to ensure relevant and quality reports are submitted to Atos/decision-makers and their full support given to patients reliant on benefits to survive.
I am sorry you are having to go through this Courtney - it is the last thing anyone needs, who is already fragile, battling with debilitating mental and physical illness. You sound like someone who should be, and would really benefit from being in the support group - has your mental health team tried to support you with this?
Swimming really helps me calm down when nothing else seems to work. I hope you find ways to help you cope better - it isn't easy i know.
-
I have just tried to access Callum's list highlighting the deaths related to welfare reform. The site is now forbidden to access. So there we have it no free speech something Brendon O Neill is always on about, obviously free speech for some eh?
Commenting is now closed.