The new Spartacus report proposes an alternative to the broken ESA system.
A new Spartacus report launches today, proposing an alternative to the broken ESA system which fails to support disabled people, either in or out of work
Employment and Support Allowance promised to liberate people by assessing their capabilities, not their disabilities, and giving them intensive, personalised support to achieve their aspirations and lift them out of poverty.
Six years on from its introduction, it is clear the ESA system is a sham.
Take the Work Capability Assessment. Despite all the controversy, the backlog of costly appeals, 43 per cent of which are upheld, the deaths reported in the papers every week of people declared Fit for Work, the government still defends the WCA.
“Looking at what people can do, not what they can’t,” is the mantra for the WCA. Here’s an illustration, in the DWP’s own words, of the hypocrisy of this statement. Consider their justification of why Case Study 2, (I’ll call her Mary) is Fit for Work and should not qualify for ESA.
Evidence Based Review of the Work Capability Assessment – DWP, December 2013
“Mary” has anxiety and depression. She has had counselling and is on medication which helps but she gets anxious at the thought of going out, and being around people she doesn’t know. She stays in bed most days. However, she does see her friend three times a week, and manages to go out to attend appointments or get food.
She has arthritis in both legs. Standing and walking makes condition worse, but can manage a 10-15 minutes walk to the shops. The severity of her symptoms fluctuates and she is on medication for pain. She has abdominal problems and experiences pain and minor incontinence.
Panel opinion and rationale
‘Mary’ is Fit for Work […] Her conditions would not affect her functioning. Both panels highlighted that Mary would need adjustments: periods of disability leave, and either flexible or home working arrangements. The panels noted that the adjustments she would need are significant, but that she would be capable of some work if these adjustments were available, and that work would be good for her wellbeing.
Sounds reasonable? It’s hard to argue that the dignity and economic rewards of working are not good for our wellbeing. But look further into the ESA system.
You could be forgiven for assuming that Mary’s “significant adjustment needs” would be noted in her case file for when she gets her intensive personalised support from the Jobcentre or Work Programme? Wrong. No transfer of the WCA report (known as ESA85) occurs which would let an employment adviser know what Mary’s needs are, let alone making any suggestions for how to support her into a suitable job. There is no connection between assessment and employment support in ESA.
Beyond the Barriers/Spartacus calls for an integration of the assessment system with a genuine employment support service via a caseworker system that performs well in other countries. Because how else can ESA make sense?
Did you think that Mary might get help from Access to Work – an existing DWP scheme that could pay for extra transport costs or equipment to help her overcome her limited mobility? Wrong. Access to Work is only available to people in work, not to people claiming benefits because they need support to work.
Beyond the Barriers/Spartacus calls for a multi-disciplinary intervention for people whose health or impairment poses a barrier to work. A caseworker system that integrates benefits advice with Access to Work, health services and social care, as well as signposting to education and training opportunities.
Did you perhaps assume that the DWP or anyone at the Work Programme or JCP had a network of ‘Disability Confident’ employers who have jobs lined up that involve a few hours work per week, from home, and only as and when someone like Mary is able to?
Take it from me: they don’t. I’m on the Work Programme – the ESA stream for people who are not Fit for Work – yet when I tell my advisers I could only work under 16 hours per week, from home, and with completely flexible hours, they look at me like I’m asking for the moon. It’s no wonder they’ve only found suitable work for 5 per cent of people on ESA.
Looking at what people can do, not what they can’t: what that phrase means for Mary and the rest of us is scouring our lives any for evidence of our struggle to remain active and engaged and using it to deny us the support to survive.
What galls me the most about Mary’s case is the assumption that Mary stays in bed most days because she lacks the incentive to get up. I can’t speak for ‘Mary’, but I know many people like her, including myself, for whom that struggle to walk to a corner shop to get their own groceries, or that chat with a friend a couple of times a week, are the only things they can do over and above basic self-care.
For the rest of the day they’re bedbound by pain or exhaustion, not out of choice. Sometimes we do these things at the expense of washing ourselves or brushing our hair, because they make feel connected to others and in control of our lives.
Yet because the WCA looks at what we can do, not what we can’t, we live in fear of being seen doing the little things that make us feel human.
If we have one good day in a month and manage to pull a few weeds up in the garden, will our neighbours, (encouraged to police the benefit system), report it as evidence that we’re fit for work?
If we share some beloved photos of a trip we went on before becoming ill in a Facebook group, (because it’s the only way we can socialise), will a Jobcentre spy haul us in for interrogation for being a secret travel photographer, not a sick person?
If we naively tell our Atos assessor, (because we desperately want to be seen as strivers, not skivers), that we manage a few hours’ of voluntary work per week, will that be held up as proof that we’re Fit for Work?
This is not paranoia. These things can and do happen, all the time. It is the cynical reality of what is meant by “looking at what people can do, not what they can’t”.
* Beyond the Barriers calls for a culture change within ESA towards disabled people, from one of suspicion and adversary to one of trust and partnership. We challenge the assumption that a punishing, penalty based system produces results and call for a whole-person approach that enables everyone to be included.
ESA has decimated my community. On top of the challenges of living with disability we now face a onslaught of fear and despair and an epidemic of self-loathing. We face a twofold battle: one to make ends meet when benefits are being cut on all fronts, and another to resist internalising the image of ourselves as lying, cheating scroungers that comes not just from media but from the staff we encounter through Atos, Jobcentre Plus and the Work Programme.
Until ESA is reformed, the hard-fought rights of independence, choice and control won by the previous generation of disability campaigners will evaporate. Because of our disadvantage in the labour market, ESA has taken away our right to consider ourselves valid human beings.
Beyond the Barriers takes a fresh look at the international evidence for what works and what doesn’t in sickness and disability support systems. It is entirely written and researched by disabled people and takes evidence from consultations with over 1,000 people who have experienced ESA.
It is very easy just to criticise the status quo. Beyond the Barriers aims to offer a comprehensive alternative vision for sickness and disability support in the UK.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
24 Responses to “Until ESA is reformed, the rights won by generations of disability campaigners will evaporate”
Graham Keeton
As you can see I am really disgruntled and fed up about this
outinthecold
Ok, lets start with point 1.
Whoever is in power holds the media – a party who supports disabled people can reverse the negativity if that is their desire. I think the majority of the country have now realised they have been part if a huge propaganda campaign. Remember other campaigns over the years? Single mums for instance?
The DWP are well aware that disabled people are not a burden. However they do believe that disabled people are low hanging fruit and that the coffers can be plundered. Hence the negative rhetoric.
None of that is irreversible.
And as you quite rightly point out, some 3 million voters plus their friends, families and carers are at stake here. Which sort of covers point 2.
The report does address the benefit system, and we spent many hours debating how far into the benefit system we should step. Eventually we settled with a new type of sickness benefit that recognises many more barriers to work, and is much more dynamic and intuitive that the blunt weapon that is ESA at the moment. It links to JSA in that we have attempted to reduce fiscal cliffs and reward participation, recognise inability to participate and have no financial penalty or stigma attached to that, and to offer much better tailored support on the journey back to work, including developing opportunities that are not work, such as sport, hobbies, community life etc.
What has happened is that the current rhetoric has backfired – by creating a hostile environment for sick and disabled people, we have been marginalised more – after all, to advertise us as “lazy, scrounging fraudsters” is not going to have people queuing to employ us, or create an environment where people flourish.
So you are right, we need a different picture, a different party, and a different policy.
Hopefully our report can help Labour write that policy, hopefully the evidence in that report will convince them that, if possible, the journey back to work is as important as work itself , and that our solutions are not just a benefit to the the individual but to society too.
We are a cost, but we are not a burden. We should be, and hopefully will be, recognised as no more or less of a cost than any other cost, and that cost does not equate to burden.
You ask about fairness. Our report suggests that the WCA is not fair – we know its not,so we wont discuss that again.
A more fair assessment would look at a person’s whole life, what skills they have,what they have lost, what the barriers are, how they can be tackled. If those barriers are insurmountable, or the person is too ill to work, or there really isnt very much chance they can be employed – then in all fairness why harrass them further? We suggest that the person isnt harrassed further – that instead they can choose to have help, choose the type of help, choose what barriers they want demolishing.
Our report has shown that one-size-fits-all actually fits no-one, as all disabled people are different. And any new system must listen carefully to the individual and respond to their individual needs.
Graham Keeton
ok not 100%sure that even the labour party would be fully understanding of this problem but thanks for your reply i WILL now leave this discussion completely as to me its going nowhere
Graham Keeton
so thanks but no thanks anymore ok
Graham Keeton
also just ask any geniunely disabled person who wants to get back to work if they think they are a burden (financial one) to the govt and they would without a doubt say yes and this is the problem the govt does think that people with disablities are a financial burden as they have an agenda to follow and thats from the super rich bankers and other business leaders and the govt is just following orders from them all this govt is interested in is reducing the defict and they will get that done at WHAT EVER cost I DO agree with SOME of the points in your reply to me BUT not ALL OF THEM