Exposed the underhand methods deployed by DWP to sanction claimants

[tommy456]

Targets: What targets?

 

 

 

John Longden –Personal Adviser

A Statement on events witnessed by me at Salford Jobcentre Plus and Rochdale Jobcentre Plus between 2011 and 2013

 

Summary

1.0Managers at both district level and in the local office created a culture which encouraged staff to view the customer (benefit claimant) as an obstacle to performance. The Jobcentre operations became wholly performance led. Sanctions of customers were encouraged by managers daily, with staff being told to look at every engagement with the customer as an opportunity to take sanction action. I was personally told by a manager to “agitate” and “Inconvenience” customers in order to get them to leave the register. The staff performance management system was used inappropriately in order to increase submissions to the Decision Maker and therefore to increase sanctions on customers. Senior HR managers condoned this behaviour by refusing to issue guidelines on appropriate time limits on performance, which encouraged managers to look at short-term targets above staff development, fairness to customers and appropriate behaviour as set out in the departments own values.

Detail

2.0Managers at Salford Jobcentre, created an environment where every action with a customer could lead to loss of benefits. They made the decision to mandate customers to all job programmes regardless of their suitability. They did this by applying a benefit direction on the customer to make them attend. The purpose was to increase the opportunity to sanction a customer, should they fail any part of the direction. My line manager reporting back from the district managers meeting stated that the message from the District Manager with regard to customers was –“let’s set them up from day 1”. Managers’ actions and words didn’t reflect the values and behaviours set down by department, they set the wrong examples and acted without any accountability.

 

2.1There was an unhealthy and unprofessional working environment for staff. Managers created and encouraged a confrontational approach towards the customer and the office manager at Salford set up “DMA hit squads” to target customers for sanction action. Customers dealt with by these squads had their job search scrutinised at an almost forensic level in order to get a suspension of benefit. The Office manager would call the customer record of a job applications a “micky Mouse” job search and customers would often break down and cry or argue because they felt that they were being treated unfairly.

2.2The office manager and her management team asked advisers to set unreasonable targets for customers to find work as part of their jobseekers agreements. This included asking customers to apply for a minimum of 6 jobs per week, regardless of their skills or experience. The aim was to find an opportunity to make a referral to the decision maker with the possibility of getting the customer sanctioned. It was distressing to see so many customers treated in such a way. The actions of the managers put the safety of staff at risk with arguments and incidents by customers a daily occurrence. Security was called frequently to restore order as were the police. Staff were asked to double the number of daily interviews they conducted in order to achieve targets and inconvenience the customer. This put stress on staff well-being and health.

2.3Challenging targets for individual performance were used to cover ghost targets for Decision Maker. This led to perverse behaviour, such as making customers attend the jobcentre daily in the hope they would miss an appointment or be late. This would result in benefit being suspended or the claim closed. This was setting customers up to fail in order to reach targets. Changes in the Personal Development rules gave scope for managers to threaten disciplinary action on staff who failed to make sufficient referrals to Decision Maker, rather than address any real issues about training. The Cluster manager at Rochdale Jobcentre issued office wide Performance Improvement Plans (PiP) to all staff in order to improve monthly performance figures on DMA, Programme referrals and MFA (More Frequent Attendance). I was issued with one of these PiPs to get more MFA referrals despite myself being an excellent performer. In my 23 years I had never had any PiPs or questions about my performance. I felt let down and demoralised as this was an insult to my efforts. I was required to hit the same level of referrals to a Decision Maker each week – regardless of circumstances, or i would be marked as a poor performer. As an experienced adviser I would expect my referrals to go down over time, not go up, or stay at the same level.

2.4Staff was told not just to increase referrals to the Decision Maker but also to focus on particular conditionality questions –such as Actively Seeking Employment, and Fail to Attend Adviser appointments as this would cause the maximum discomfort to the customer. I noticed that my own and other adviser appointments that were being booked where the customer was not informed. These interviews had been booked by the office manager [name deleted] and by her assistant under her instruction, with the intention of closing down the claim and claiming an off-flow performance target or in order to take DMA action against the client. She had indicated clearly in the conversation box that the interview had been booked and the customer notified in person with a letter by hand, even though this could not have been the case. These fake interviews were clearly illegal action and gross misconduct. There were many instances of this happening with other advisers. I informed my line manager, [name deleted] but was accused of lying – even though I presented him with the evidence. No action taken and the bookings continued.

2.5Staff were threatened by the cluster manager that their jobs would be taken by other people if they didn’t do what they were told. Staff were regularly told by managers to “agitate” and “inconvenience” customers. I notified the Whistleblower of these activities on more than one occasion but nothing changed.

 

2.6Customers were being deliberately treated inappropriately in order to achieve performance without regard for natural justice and their welfare. Daily signing was introduced across the board initially to anyone claiming over 6 months but gradually to include new claimants. This was done to inconvenience the customer. One customer was made to attend daily for two months and eventually broke down and wept in the office. Staff were being asked to behave in a manner that was against the departments’ values of integrity and honesty. An environment was created where staffs’ own safety was at risk, and their respect, and professionalism was diminished.

 

 

A Timeline of some Events

3.0Apr 2011 – summary of my personal development identified in my personal review states “John to apply DMA appropriately to attain 4% target on ASE, Availability, RE & MFA, to achieve minimum standard of 4% referral rate”.

3.106/05/11 – Team meeting was informed by [name deleted] (team Leader) that DMA referral target across the team was now to be 2.4% per month.

3.217/06/11 – Team Meeting was informed by [name deleted] that each adviser must do 2 Mandatory Work Activity referrals per month. Staff were asked to mandate customers to training by giving a direction. This was done to increase the prospect of sanctioning customers.

3.313/07/11 – attended culture workshop at Regional Office held by the Transformation Team. Issues raised by staff within the District were

•Staff are expected to play the game and not rock the boat

•Make sure all boxes are ticked rather than analyse the work we do

•Good work is not recognised if it is not performance

•No transparency or consistency in management behaviour

3.422/07/11 – managers at Salford office decide to withdraw flexi-credit for medical appointments for staff, in breach of well-being guidelines. Staff are told by Office manager [name deleted] that they are stealing money for time they are not working. This measure was confirmed by cluster manager [name deleted].

3.522/07/11 – spoke with my line manager [name deleted] about customer interviews that were being booked where the customer was not informed. These interviews had been booked by the office manager [name deleted] for the intention of closing down the claim and claiming an off-flow performance target or to take DMA action against the client. She had indicated clearly in the conversation box that the interview had been booked and the customer notified in person with a letter by hand. This was clearly illegal action and gross misconduct. There were many instances of this happening with other advisers. [name deleted] accused me of lying – so showed him the evidence. No action taken and the bookings continued.

3.623/07/11 – I challenged the withdrawing of medical flexi-credit by raising the matter with the Senior HR Business Partner. She investigated it and found in my favour. Although she notified the district operations manager that the flexi-credit had to be restored, it was never notified to staff by any of the managers and I had to send an office communication to inform staff.

3.726/07/11 – Phoned the whistle-blower hotline to report the inappropriate booking of customer interviews. This action has now been assigned by [name deleted] to a member of staff whose purpose is to look at all adviser interviews across the office and rebook them at short notice for customers to attend on dates which may only be a couple of days after their last attendance – again with the intention of getting a Fail to Attend and closure of claim – to achieve high Off –Flow targets.

3.805/08/11 – team meeting [name deleted] reports back from the district managers meeting that DMA is falling behind the 2% target and in regard to our customers that we must “set them up from day one”.

3.924/08/11 – Office manager [name deleted] tells staff that any customer who attends late on their signing day is not to be signed but booked to come back in on the next day. This is to punish the customer –regardless of the reason for their late attendance- by delaying their payments sometimes by as much as 3 days

3.10September 2011 – made aware by a member of staff that they have contacted the Whistle-blower hotline to report [name deleted] for asking staff in her team meeting to make customers sign daily so as to inconvenience them.

3.1128/10/11 – rang RAD Whistle-blower Hotline to report that inappropriate booking of customer interviews was still continuing. Member of staff at RAD informed me that she didn’t feel that anything would be done about it, as the report went to the line manager of the person I was complaining about. They felt that this way things were able to be hushed up.

3.1216/12/11- District Operations Manager – [name deleted] attends Salford Jobcentre. I attend a meeting with other staff in which we raised our concerns about being asked to set up customers to fail, the inappropriate booking of interviews and being asked to agitate customers. He got angry with us and said “you are hitting your targets but you don’t seem to care”. I asked how the district was planning on implementing the departments 7 cultural challenges. [name deleted] said – “what are those?” when I explained them he said –“we do things differently in this district”. I asked him if he was aware of the way we were being told to behave to customers and he said –“I don’t see any complaints on my desk”. When I asked another question – he said “don’t get smart son”. It was one of the most dispiriting experiences I have encountered.

3.13March 2012 – June 2012 Harassed by my line manager [name deleted] and physically threatened, which was over-heard by another member of staff.

3.1427 June 2012 – Office Communications meeting attended by [name deleted] and [name deleted]. [name deleted] congratulates the office for their performance, he says “I live in Salford and I see the type of people you are dealing with, I see these people hanging around the precinct and shopping around town, lazy, drinking and taking drugs”. Such a bad example to set as a leader that he judges people by where they live and what they look like. [name deleted] then talks about the new sanction regime and says of the customers –“don’t forget these people are taking your money, you are civil servants, you are paid to do what you are told, if you don’t like it, someone else will take your job”.

3.1505/07/2012 – new line manager [name deleted] tells me to stop phoning and emailing vacancies to customers and asks me to get them into the office. I ask why and she tells me that I need to “agitate” them. I ask her what she means by agitating and she says – we don’t want people to get comfortable claiming benefit, we want to inconvenience them so that they will sign off.

3.16Sept 2012 – Start at new office Rochdale Jobcentre. Write a letter to [DWP Permanent Secretary] about the culture at Salford and how I was told to agitate customers.

3.17Oct 2012 – Receive letter from [DWP Director of Work Services] stating that they are satisfied that there has been no inappropriate behaviour at Salford.

 

3.18 Feb 2013 – All but a handful of staff at Rochdale Jobcentre are put on Pre Performance Improvement Plans as a preliminary to disciplinary action. The PiPs are issued in order to hit monthly performance targets on programme referrals, DMA and MFA. The evidence can be checked on RM system. The instruction was made to managers by [name deleted] the cluster manager.

3.19March 2013 – team meeting in which staff are told to increase the amount of submissions to the Decision Maker and in particular to do more ASE (Actively Seeking Referrals).

 

People Mentioned in this document and their role

4.0[names of DWP staff and managers deleted].

 

5

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/benefit-sanctions-policy-beyond-the-oakley-review/written/16165.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/url]

[url=http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/benefit-sanctions-policy-beyond-the-oakley-review/written/16165.html]

Edited October 9, 2015 by citizenB

[citizenB]

I think if you read the very first line of the post, you will see he was a Personal Advisor in the Salford branch during the dates also mentioned in the first line of the post. Further down, it seems he was so destroyed by what he witnessed, first hand that he moved to another.

 

We have seen people come to CAG and confirm what he has put in his statement.

 

So, at a rough guess I would say he is a Witness confirming the accuracy of their statements !

[tommy456]

It has a connection to the Oakley review Re, the DWP denying that sanction targets exist,when they obviously did /still do

 

https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-david-cameron-mp-implement-the-recommendations-of-the-benefit-sanctions-policy-beyond-the-oakley-review/u/13700232?tk=C6m-8lvWfkDCwRd3DnikoSXCVsxdnhnXapBqcHSpqKs&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

[tommy456]

Sanctions have always been there for the DWP use, but until the coalition government they were seldom used , since then the sanction regime has been abused as a way to fudge the numbers on benefits, You just cannot treat people like they have been doing and get away with it, at last the brown stuff has started to hit the fan for the likes of IDS and co,

I believe that those who can work should work where possible,But if suitable employment isn't available, within a reasonable distance agreed by both JCP and claimants then they should not be agitated or unnecessarily inconvenienced by the DWP they and IDS have to except that there will always be unemployed people , There has to be a balanced and fair system, at the moment thanks to IDS we don't have that

[antone]

Yes. In a perfect system, there might be a place for very occasional sanctions. However, my view is that under the present climate, the system of sanctions needs to be scrapped entirely, basically for the same reason that you don't give a box of matches and a gallon of petrol to a two year old: they are incapable of taking the care necessary to be trusted with them.

[SabreSheep]

I do not necessarily think that they should be scrapped. But I do think that the two year old should not see instant gratification from petrol and matches. Something like a safeguard maybe.

 

Sanction doubt issued

DM makes decision

Claimant informed and given 2 weeks notice

Claimant then does mandatory reconsideration.

Sanction postponed until result. 2 weeks notice given

Claimant appeals

Sanction postponed until result - 2 weeks notice etc

 

When claimant exhausts appeals procedure and/or accepts the sanction THEN it should be applied.

[trebormoinet]

Sanctions are not the answer.

 

If someone wishes not to work and would rather spend their time in other ways then that is one less barrier for those wishing to work.

 

Why force people who do not want to work for whatever reason to find a job.

 

If there was a shortage of labour fair enough everyone should muck in BUT that is not the case the system is set-up in such a way that unemployment is an essential and valuable element.

 

Without a pool of ready and willing unemployed, start up business would fail, businesses could not expand, the balance of power would shift, wages would rise and so on.

 

As a single male on benefits and no other income I can barely survive, after bills I am left with £3.25 for food and entertainment each day, it is not a life of luxury, but I got a roof and food and for me that is enough, for others that state of affairs is more than enough incentive to find work.

 

It is not like I can opt out of society, find a piece of land, farm it even though the earth belongs to me as much as it does everyone else, someone decided to take up the sword and create laws to deny me that right and so at the least I expect that I am entitled to some form of compensation and that is how I view benefits.

 

It is those that make false claims, have ghost partners, and abuse the system that should be targeted.

 

Increase benefits to a reasonable standard and make it an acceptable lifestyle choice. yes a radical mind blowing thought to some but if we are to reach towards a utopian future that is the first step to recognising we are in the 21st century, the end of capitalism is nigh as we move towards a data driven sharing economy with infinite stock levels, this inevitably means we will have far less jobs and far more time for leisure and pleasure.

[Jmulv]

This is very disappointing indeed.

 

But nothing I think we don't already suspect.

 

We've been hearing a long time about sanction targets etc, to me it's just disgraceful. I understand the need to have conditionality attached to benefits to encourage people off them. But looking to actively deprive people of money to be able to eat and pay their bills is disgusting.

 

The DWP continue to deny it despite MANY ex employees coming out and confirming these rumours.

[obiter dictum]

I do not necessarily think that they should be scrapped. But I do think that the two year old should not see instant gratification from petrol and matches. Something like a safeguard maybe.

 

Sanction doubt issued

DM makes decision

Claimant informed and given 2 weeks notice

Claimant then does mandatory reconsideration.

Sanction postponed until result. 2 weeks notice given

Claimant appeals

Sanction postponed until result - 2 weeks notice etc

 

When claimant exhausts appeals procedure and/or accepts the sanction THEN it should be applied.

 

Sabersheep makes a valid point

 

How much is it costing the Tax payer to appeal these sanctions through the HM Courts and Tribunal Service??

 

Over 60% of benefit sanctions and ATOS medicals combined are overturned at tribunals

 

That clearly shows a major failing in the whole DWP business model and always to the claimants detriment through policy decisions

[GrooverGrover]

Sanctions are not the answer.

 

If someone wishes not to work and would rather spend their time in other ways then that is one less barrier for those wishing to work.

 

Why force people who do not want to work for whatever reason to find a job.

 

If there was a shortage of labour fair enough everyone should muck in BUT that is not the case the system is set-up in such a way that unemployment is an essential and valuable element.

 

Without a pool of ready and willing unemployed, start up business would fail, businesses could not expand, the balance of power would shift, wages would rise and so on.

 

As a single male on benefits and no other income I can barely survive, after bills I am left with £3.25 for food and entertainment each day, it is not a life of luxury, but I got a roof and food and for me that is enough, for others that state of affairs is more than enough incentive to find work.

 

It is not like I can opt out of society, find a piece of land, farm it even though the earth belongs to me as much as it does everyone else, someone decided to take up the sword and create laws to deny me that right and so at the least I expect that I am entitled to some form of compensation and that is how I view benefits.

 

It is those that make false claims, have ghost partners, and abuse the system that should be targeted.

 

Increase benefits to a reasonable standard and make it an acceptable lifestyle choice. yes a radical mind blowing thought to some but if we are to reach towards a utopian future that is the first step to recognising we are in the 21st century, the end of capitalism is nigh as we move towards a data driven sharing economy with infinite stock levels, this inevitably means we will have far less jobs and far more time for leisure and pleasure.

 

 

 

That's a nice idea trebor but unless you're the Ray Mears type, you can not separage yourself off from society like that, thus that bestows an element of societal responsibility onto your shoulders to contribute in some way, be that some voluntary work. The onlybexceptiok are those who are sick and disabled although even there I know that many of those people feel a sense of civic duty to help people, be that on these forums for example.

 

Sanctions are very nasty, totally unnecessary and counterproductive in my opinion. They create a climate of fear and distrust between government departments and people such that many people are scared to death to interact with them. It would be much better to get rid of the coercian entirely. I think everyone accepts that there are people who claim JSA have no intention of ever working and they will always exist, regardless of sanctions being there or not.

 

I'm in favour of a modest basic income myself as that would ensure the most vulnerable always had a basic level of income. I honestly think it aould encourage people to be a more active part of society, as many i think would feel more confident doingso.

[obiter dictum]

The role of the job centre now is not to help you into a job, but sanction you at the first opportunity so they can get you off the Unemployment figures.

 

Take me as an example after being ill health retired from my last job of 20 years through arthritis

 

I hobble into the job centre on my signing day on crutches. I was totally in the dark of ESA at this point and nothing from the job centre staff that JSA might be inappropriate. (First time i claimed since leaving school)

 

I was placed on mandatory work activity as a thatcher (Roofer) I cannot get up steps six inches let alone a ladder.

I was sanctioned for a month for failure to follow a job seekers direction. I got redress at the tribinal and all the money back but that took six months and surviving for a month with no income

 

Welcome to 21st century Britain

 

Just do not get old, unemployed or sick

[tfp]

Disgusting behaviour. Iain D. Smith has truly turned the DWP into a rogue department.

 

Just when is the PCS union going to step in and make noises about its members being coerced into treating jobseekers in this manner?

[obiter dictum]

I myself do not blame the majority of PCS members, just like i do not blame the actual ATOS Assessor's

 

They are being performanced managed by department managers. If they do not fill the sanction targets they are place on personal improvement plans.

 

If this Universal credit really gets off the ground with monthly signing etc, it will be these very same managers made redundant as surplus to need

 

No sympathy

[caro]

I wonder how easy it is for someone who's sanctioned to devote their time and energy to getting a job while they go through the appeal process, apply for pitiful hardship payments, fend off utility companies they fall (further) into arrears with, keep phone bills paid/topped up to deal with these things, as well as job applications, while working out how to feed themselves until the sanction ends, not to mention the effect on mental health and motivation.

 

The only thing in its favour is it keeps all those administrators in work!!

[SabreSheep]

I would rather they spent some of the money waste don sanctions and appeals on retraining useful worthwhile skills.

[obiter dictum]

They do not care about wasting tax payers money on appeals and tribunals

 

Anything to remove people from the unemployment figures just so this sorry excuse of a government can say the unemployment figures are down

 

Besides sanctions anyone on this mandatory work activity or work place providers are also taken of the figures

 

It is all a con

[tommy456]

Of course it is,and then there is that other waste of tax payers money Universal Credit, there was no need to introduce this,

[tfp]

I myself do not blame the majority of PCS members, just like i do not blame the actual ATOS Assessor's

 

They are being performanced managed by department managers. If they do not fill the sanction targets they are place on personal improvement plans.

 

If this Universal credit really gets off the ground with monthly signing etc, it will be these very same managers made redundant as surplus to need

 

No sympathy

 

I can see your point and agree to the extent that DWP / JCP frontline staff are but small cogs in a much bigger grinder. However, it does seem that the union representing these advisers is very quiet with regards arbitrary and unjust sanctions. Not just with regards to the obvious effects on jobseekers, but what it may be doing to the long term mental health of the more conscientious JCP staff members.

[jasta11]

The PCS can be very active in some areas but show an alarming disinterest in others.

 

For example, they were up in arms when JC staff were wrongly telling people they had to allow access to their UJ accounts. They even issued a memo to all staff telling them they must not do this.

 

Yet when I contacted the PCS a little while ago, concerning the fact that once again, JC staff were giving customers false information regarding using the electronic signing pads, the PCS showed no interest at all, despite the fact that customers were being deliberately misled -and in many cases openly lied to - into thinking use of the pads was mandatory, when it was actually optional.

 

Best not to put too much faith in Unions..they too have their own 'agenda'.

[Nystagmite]

I'm in favour of a modest basic income myself as that would ensure the most vulnerable always had a basic level of income. I honestly think it aould encourage people to be a more active part of society, as many i think would feel more confident doingso.

 

But then you're also going to get people who are perfectly capable of working just sitting on their backsides all day doing nothing because they can. I used to know someone like that.

[Chester6]

Sanctions should be a last resort but instead they are used at a whim and randomly and to force compliance

[SabreSheep]

OD post removed as it was a personal attack on a site team member and did not add anything to the debate

[tommy456]

But then you're also going to get people who are perfectly capable of working just sitting on their backsides all day doing nothing because they can. I used to know someone like that.

Like it loath it, it is human nature, Governments won't change that, they really should know this already and have accepted it

[antone]

But then you're also going to get people who are perfectly capable of working just sitting on their backsides all day doing nothing because they can. I used to know someone like that.

 

I'm fine with that. If someone doesn't mind being poor then I have absolutely no problem with them taking their minimum income and not looking for work. We need to move away from the idea that one's value and worth to society is based on paid employment.