A-Z of mental health
Information and advice on a huge range of mental health topics
Working for a fairer WCA
Posted Monday 5 November 2012
Back in August I wrote a blog about our work to improve the criteria used in the Work Capability Assessment (WCA).
We don’t believe the current criteria which decide whether someone is eligible for Employment and Support Allowance take proper account of the difficulties that people with mental health problems face in returning to work. This is partly why so many people are getting the wrong outcome from their WCA.
The welfare system must provide the right support to people who are out of work because of illness or disability and the WCA is the gateway to this system, so it needs to be working effectively.
Last time I blogged, the charities we are working with were still trying to finalise a common set of proposals for alternative criteria (or ‘descriptors’ as they are called in legislation).
A few weeks ago, we submitted a final set of proposals to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) which will now test our criteria and the current WCA, to see how they work in practice and how they compare to the views of expert panels.
We hope this process, which the DWP is calling the ‘Evidence Based Review’ of the WCA, will show where the current assessment is not working properly and will lead to real improvements.
We want to be as transparent as possible with our supporters and members about this piece of work, so the group of charities involved has produced a short document which explains how the process will work from here and includes the proposals we have submitted to the DWP.
Although we are hopeful about the possibility of real reform of the WCA on the back of this review, we are also aware that it is not going to solve all the problems that people with mental health problems are experiencing with the process.
In taking part in this process, we were given the opportunity to make some improvements to the current system, not to design a new one. We think that our proposals will mean the assessment takes better account of how people’s conditions change over time and will lead to fairer outcomes, but we still think that there needs to be a fundamental rethink of the WCA.
We have highlighted these concerns in our recent submission to Professor Harrington’s third Independent Review, and we hope his recommendations in late November reflect our concerns.
Recent statistics show that there have been some improvements already, but we will not be giving up until we feel the system is working for people with mental health problems.
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.
If you are looking for information around the WCA, visit our information page for details on finding the right advice and support.
9 Comments
-
It's already known the current assessment is not working, all previous reviews have yielded little return so I won't hold my breath.
Mind got any comment on this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/01/atos-disability-tests-contract-labour?INTCMP=SRCH -
Dear Tom.
The descriptors put forward seem to mean little without any score points to go with them. Although they do seem straightforward and not so complicated.mindreader
Atos are more stupid and underhand than I thought. Is it true they are even claiming to be consulting with DPAC?In my area of the country I believe a firm called Capita? are going to get the contract for the PIP assessments.
-
I hope some changes will be made and the government really should apologise to the distress this has caused people with genuine conditions.
I have been lucky to have been in work since becoming ill 20 years ago and unless they put in proper support for people who would like to return to work in place the problems may never be solved. I have overcome huge obsticles to get back into and then stay in work as employers fail in ensuring work policies aid and not hiddenly discriminate against people with mental health issues.
I personally feel the coalition government has failed people with mental health issues with cuts to services and idiotic ill thought out ideas.
-
Thank you for your comments and sorry for the delay in responding - I was out of the office yesterday.
@mindreader although I agree that the test hasn't improved as much as we would have hoped on the back of previous reviews, this is the first time that there will be proper scrutiny of whether the outcomes produced by the descriptors matches up with the views of experts.
On the story about Atos's bid for PIP contracts. We have had contact with Atos in the past where we have communicated the problems with their service experienced by people we represent. However, it is worrying if other groups feel that Atos have misrepresented their engagement.
@concerned citizen I agree that the scoring is important. We hope that the structure and style of assessment we have suggested will lead to a more accurate picture of the difficulties people with mental health problems face but we also believe that the current scoring is too stringent and our final suggestions for scoring will reflect this.
@Ben I share many of your concerns and agree that there should be far more focus on genuinely supporting people with mental health problems rather than constantly testing and retesting them with an assessment that is not fit for purpose.
-
Tom, Thank you for your replies. Good to hear your working on the scoring too. Concerning the miss-representation by ATOS, I find it more concerning that the outcries of some organisations named in their contract bid who basically accuse ATOS of out-right lying have just been brushed aside by government. So we know where we all stand then. As for ATOS espousing their 'hope' to work with and consult with stakeholder groups, It took the intervention of two MP's and over a year and numerous requests for ATOS local management to finally agree to a meeting with a local mental health group and said MP's. So much for hoping to work with us then!
-
the 'fit for work' figures are because the test is near impossible for most people irrespective of their illness/disability, it's a stitch up no matter what anyone does, it's driven by ideology.
Yes CC, there are claims of consulting DPAC, and protest is being increasingly criminalised without any changes to statute
-
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35092
see this? I think Mind should some version of this, people who were given 'indefinate' awards shouldn't be reviewed otherwise why do they still have indefinate on their letters?
-
@mindreader - sorry for the delay in replying. Thanks for flagging up the petition. We agree that, if possible, face-to-face assessments should be avoided for people with severe mental health problems.
We are working with the Disability Benefits Consortium to try and ensure that the providers of the new assessments for PIP meet key pledges that we have designed (http://disabilitybenefitsconsortium.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/pip-pledge/). As part of this work, we want them to commit to assess people on the basis of existing evidence where possible.
I think the Government were careful to use the term 'indefinite' rather than 'lifetime' to leave open the possibility of reassessing people's eligibility.
-
As I understand it ATOS are paid for every person they deem as being fit for work?! I've heard nothing to say they receive any payment for keeping people ON the list as unfit and neither have I heard of them being fined for approving people as being fit for work when subsequent appeals find otherwise?! Surely this makes the whole system unfair and totally biased??? But what else should we expect??
Commenting is now closed.