Welfare ReformWhere are we now ?

Progress, Challenges and the “Claimant Commitment”

Andrew Noble

Welfare Reform Implementation Support Programme

Improvement Service

Purpose of day

To enable elected members to: • review the progress of Welfare Reform to date• consider the potential impact and challenge of the new

Claimant Commitment and sanctions policy• Hear about ongoing work to mitigate and respond to

Welfare Reform• consider the specific roles and challenges for elected

members in responding to the reform agenda to date, and in the future

Welfare Reform- the story so farImplementation and impact of key reforms- • Universal Credit• Personal Independence Payment• Under occupancy- “the bedroom tax”• Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) expansion• Benefit Cap,• Scottish Welfare Fund• Council Tax Reduction Scheme- National scheme in

place.

Welfare Reform- the story so far• Delay in roll out of Universal Credit (UC) and Personal

Independence Payments(PIP)- the cornerstone Reforms.• UC will not now roll out in Scotland till early 2016, beyond a

single Jobcentre in Inverness• PIP roll out has started on a phased geographic basis in

Scotland• Significantly diverging approaches between Scottish

Government and UK Government/ DWP- Funding to mitigate in Scotland

• Negotiations ongoing between CoSLA and DWP over a range of issues- LSS, SFIS, HB administration costs etc.

• Growing evidence impact on Local Authorities, RSLs and partners

Welfare Reform Impact on Scotland

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-150%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1%7%

24%

55%

100%

Profile of Total Changes to Scottish Welfare Budget 2010-11 to 2014-15

Cu

mu

lati

ve p

rop

ort

ion

o

f to

tal

Financial impacts

Underoccupancy charge

Tax Credits

Child Benefit

Uprating changes

State pension & pension credit

Other

-2,000 -1,500 -1,000 -500 - 500 1,000

-70

-1,770

-590

-1,700

590

-1,150

Total Changes to Scottish Welfare Budget 2010-11 to 2014-15 (£M)

Notes: ‘Other’ category includes Benefit Cap, DLA, ESA, etc.All figures derived from HMT/DWP forecasts, which estimate

over £4.5 billion worth of cuts in Scotland

Group Discussion 1:How is your local authority responding to Welfare

Reform?

What are the significant challenges you face?

Session 2

Claimant Commitment and Sanctions

Background- Conditionality and Sanctions

• Conditionality has always existed in the Welfare system rules have been increasingly tightened since 2008

• Sanctions have increased in duration and severity since the 1990s (1995 Jobseekers Act)

• Introduction of the Claimant Commitment in October 2013 for JSA

• Building on the conditionality regime introduced for JSA and ESA in October 2012.

Claimant CommitmentHow it works

• Each Claimant Commitment is to be individually tailored to the needs of the claimant- agreed between the claimant and their jobcentre advisor/ Job coach

• Claimant Commitment determined by an initial assessment by JC+

• Intended by DWP to make it absolutely clear what is required of them in return for their benefits.

• Policy change in advance of the introduction of Universal Credit

• Major feature of DWP’s drive to change “behaviour and culture”

Claimant Commitment• What is expected of the Claimant:

• Actively look for work• Attend JC+ Interviews• Participate in mandatory employment programmes• Ready for work immediately • Work full time• Take a job at minimum wage• Prepared to travel up to 90 minutes from home to work

Sanctions• What happens if you don’t meet the Conditionality

requirements of your benefit claim:

• Potential to be “sanctioned”- lose your benefit payments for a period of time

• Three levels of sanction- low medium and high• Can lose benefit for anything between 4 weeks and 3

years.• Sanctions can be reconsidered, appealed and claimants

can receive a hardship payment

Types of SanctionSanction level Reason

Low • Failure to attend an adviser/ job coach interview• Refusal to carry out a jobseeker direction• Failed to participate in a mandatory employment programme (the Work Programme)

Intermediate • Not actively seeking work• Not being available for work

High • Losing employment voluntarily• Losing employment through misconduct• Refusal of employment• Refusal to participate in mandatory work activity

Example of a JSA sanction

Claimant “A” refused an offer of employment, which is classified as a “high” level failure. As this is the second failure within a 52 week period, Claimant “A” receives a

sanction of 26 weeks removal of JSA.

Sanctions• Scottish Government analysis of the research shows:

• Claims who face sanctions are often unable rather than unwilling to comply with sanctions.

• Those particularly vulnerable to sanctions are the most disadvantaged• Younger people tend to receive a higher proportion of sanctions • Impact of Sanctions is mixed- may improve short term outcomes in terms of

leaving unemployment and entering employment• However research suggests that these individuals tend not to enter

sustainable employment and the tend to have low incomes. Also a range of related negative outcomes

• What has actually been happening?

JSA Sanctions in Scotland 2012-13• DWP has released data on JSA sanctions which cover the period October

2012- September 2013:

• 177,449 JSA sanction decisions in Scotland during this time period• 75,329 (42%) of these decisions were “adverse”.• 43,705 (25%) sanctions decisions were “cancelled decisions”

• 41,112 (54%) were low level sanctions• 26,820 (36%) were intermediate level sanctions• 7,360 (10%) were high level sanctions

• 48,951 separate individuals were subject to an adverse sanction decision• 28,623 adverse decisions were asked to be reconsidered, 38% of the total• 1,751 adverse decisions were appealed against, 2% of the total.

JSA Sanctions Oct.12-Sept.13

Aberdeen City

Aberdeenshire

Angus

Argyll & Bute

ClackmannanshireDumfries & Galloway

Dundee City

East Ayrshire

East Dunbartonshire

East Lothian

East RenfrewshireEdinburgh, City of

Eilean Siar

Falkirk

Fife

Glasgow CityHighland

Inverclyde

Midlothian

Moray

North AyrshireNorth Lanarkshire

Orkney Islands

Perth & Kinross

Renfrewshire

Scottish Borders

Shetland IslandsSouth Ayrshire

South Lanarkshire

Stirling

West Dunbartonshire

West Lothian

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

6052

3119

3908

21703214

3633

9035

4060

20382732

1608

15280

393

6922

1503827166

4559

3255

3250

19445194

14706

194

3458

60572171

169

3235

9373

3344

45507197

5559

JSA Adverse Sanction De-cisions

All JSA Sanction Decisions

% of JSA sanction decisions resulting in an adverse decision (Oct 2012-Sept 2013)

Orkney IslandsStirling

Aberdeen CityEdinburgh, City ofNorth Lanarkshire

Dundee CityEast Lothian

FifeWest Lothian

Perth & KinrossSouth Lanarkshire

FalkirkAngus

Scottish BordersMidlothian

AberdeenshireMoray

ClackmannanshireArgyll & ButeGlasgow City

Eilean SiarEast Dunbartonshire

West DunbartonshireHighland

Dumfries & GallowayEast Ayrshire

North AyrshireRenfrewshire

South AyrshireEast Renfrewshire

InverclydeShetland Islands

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

3636

3737383838

393940404040

414242434343

44474748484949

505050

5356

56

JSA Sanctions- UK analysis• Some findings emerge from the published data from October 2012 September 2013

• UK analysis- University of Glasgow (D Webster, 19/2/14)• Total number of JSA sanctions in this period- 874,850, the highest since JSA

introduced in 1996.• 527,574 individuals received a sanction. Again the highest level of individual

sanction since 1996.• JSA claimants sanctioned at a rate of 5.11% per month, and in the 3 months to

September 2013 the rate was 6% per month. Highest rate since JSA introduced. • Failure to participate in training/ employment schemes and “not actively seeking

work” are now the main reasons for JSA sanctions. • Twice as many people on the Work Programme are getting a sanction as opposed to

a job outcome• Tribunals are upholding almost 9 out of 10 appeals against DWP. Only 2.44% of

those sanctioned are going to tribunal however.

Impact• What does this mean

• Increased claimant work search activity and requirement to find work

• Increased service demand for Councils across a wide range of services- response to Claimant Commitment

• Increasing number and severity of sanctions- hardship, crisis, negative outcomes?

• Policy change in advance of UC- in advance of any funding package around the Local Support Service Framework- Council’s and partners taking the financial and demand hit

Key challenges• How do local authorities work with Jobcentre Plus/ DWP to

minimise negative impact of a tougher sanctions regime?• Effects of more people looking for and getting work?• Is the help available for the people who need it most?• What outcomes are we trying to achieve? getting people off

benefit or getting them into work is not the same thing• Local authorities and their partners picking up the service

demand and the crisis- direct challenge to early intervention, prevention model of public service delivery?

• In-Work conditionality is a feature of Universal Credit- will effect millions of low pay/ part time employees as UC is rolled out.

Group Discussion 2:

• What is the Elected Member role in relation to conditionality and sanctions?

• Are there other key challenges?

• How can Local Authorities work most effectively to minimise potential negative outcomes from

sanctions?

Session 3

Responding to Welfare Reform

Scottish Government Response- Mitigation

• £258 million in mitigation funding in the period 2013-14 to 2015-16

In 2013-14 this included:• £20m for Discretionary Housing Payments• £23m for Council Tax Reduction Scheme• £33m for Scottish Welfare Fund (£23.8m transferred by

DWP, £9.2m in SG funding)• £7m for advice, support and anti-poverty projects

Conditionality and Sanction Working with CoSLA and Scottish Government:

• Survey of all 32 local authorities• Trying to get a clearer idea of the impact and effect of claimant

conditionality and sanctions on the ground• On-line survey with 4 themes:• Impact on service demand• Information and data collection• Impact on client experiences• Council responses

Survey will underpin the ongoing discussions around policy and

practice in this area. Discussions at a regional and national level with

the DWP

Local Authority Pilots3 Scottish Government pilots during 2013-14,• Aberdeenshire, Dundee City, South Lanarkshire

Draft evaluation findings include:• Substantial deficit in IT skills, experience and confidence among

benefit claimants• Ongoing commitment on the part of Council’s required to support

people through online claiming process• Important to work closely with trusted 3rd sector/ community

organisations• Training and information for front line staff is key• Need to promote new/ changed services effectively• Some citizen’s will always require substantial support• Focus on restructuring and aligning key service areas

Welfare Reform Resilience Fund• Scottish Government £600,000 fund available to local authorities

during 2014-15. Principles of prevention, early intervention

1. Innovative and transformational projects with the potential to inform development/ service redesign

2. Projects which will mitigate negative impacts of welfare reform

3. Projects which demonstrate a partnership approach

• Application closing date, 24th April. Projects start May 2014

Local Support Services

• DWP term to describe additional services that will be required for Universal Credit (and that they are prepared to fund as a result)– Triage– Online access– Personal budgeting

• LA’s and other agencies deliver services such as employability, which are LSS but not in the DWP framework

• DWP to undertake “trialling and testing” with local authorities during 2014.

Local Support Services

• UK wide agreement that DWP will work with LA’s to develop LSS

• Scotland will have its own OPA(Overarching Partnership Agreement) with DWP

• LA’s will have DPA’s with JC+ Districts (Delivery Partnership Agreement)

• LSS will be designed, delivered and managed through CPP structures with Jobcentre+

• Negotiations ongoing at a national level around this and the associated funding for LSS

Welfare Reform Data DashboardNeighbourhood Level Map

Group Discussion 3:

How do Councils their partners and Councillors best mitigate the impact of Welfare Reform?

What are the main opportunities from Welfare Reform and how do we progress these?

What further support do Elected members require to appropriately respond to Welfare Reform

Conclusions, final reflections, feedback and evaluation

Welfare Reform Implementation Support Programme

andrew.noble@improvementservice.org.uk