http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/atos-disabled-people-assessment-fit-work-report
"Not only are there figures for overall numbers of people awarded the points needed to qualify for the employment and support allowance (ESA), figures also exist for individual prognoses, for the points awarded, even for the word count of the summary findings. And each Atos region is expected to stray no further than 20% from the national average."
"Jayne Linney & Debbie Sayers also secured questioning for Iain Duncan Smith in Parliament in November over how the Department for Work and Pensions had been using statistics to back up controversial claims.(105,344 signatures)"
(just received in an email)
I honestly don't think there was any intelligence applied to this within DWP, and that's what continues to be the problem.
They clearly have a "thing" about people they think are workshy. And this reform was an opportunity to "let the dog's out" and beat up all those skivers they've always wanted to sort out.
Right the way through this process they've treated it as some sort of licence to wreck lives. I don't think they've given the slightest thought to the impact on disabled people, or even attempted to understand what disability is about.
If there were underlying good intentions DWP staff went about this thoughtlessly and thoroughly unprofessionally.
Personally I don't think there is any way forward now without a massive reform of DWP. This Government Department needs a clear out of a lot of dead wood.
Yes, and the persistent failure to understand autism spectrum conditions and mental health conditions is a huge sticking point.
When I claimed DLA, they gave me the lowest possible award and stated that it was reviewable in less than 2 years. I have a tendency to answer only specifically what is asked, and not enlarge upon it on forms (which is probably an ASC thing) and I had to write and ask them to look again at it and go into a lot more detail and explain that ASC is a lifelong neurological condition, so I won't "get better" and if anything have got worse, because of years of trying to "be normal". They then changed my award to be ongoing, but it's the whole stress of it and having to explain to them something that they should already know. Don't they have medically trained staff making the decisions? Because if not, they will never get it right. They waste a lot of manpower, paper and therefore money making wrong decisions.
Despite me fulfilling relevant criteria for care, they ignored it and in the end I gave up. The award I got doesn't even cover weekly ongoing treatment I need for something that was an direct result of having Asperger's. Their view that people claim benefits just to live the "high life" at tax payer's expense is all wrong.
I know they need to save money, and they need to be seen to not just dish money out without checking, but the system needs overhauling.
That may be one of the outcomes of Litchfield's review, as it has been picked up as a defect. It seems a lot of misunderstandings have arisen, and long delays (with reduced benefit) experienced by applicants, because the interview was so inaccurate.
The report gives the example of someone who had such poor mobility they couldn't get out of the house. The interviewer asked if how far away were local shops, then entered in their report that the applicant was perfectly capable of walking that distance.
The trouble is that DWP has confused disability with health condition, and clearly perceives most complainants as work shy rather than genuinely disabled. There is very little proper understanding of disability.
Hence it seems to be assumed that there should be frequent re-assessments looking for signs of recovery or improvement. Litchfield's report points out that long term disability should be reviewed every five years. The DWP are reviewing many long termed disabled as frequently as every six months, because they insist you can recover from disability.
The whole thing has clearly been managed on the basis of deep rooted prejudice against people perceived as workshy. The staff involved have been quite blinkered about real need.
Hence even if the Government intentions are genuinely constructive, even remotely compassionate, one thing is for certain, interpretation by the DWP has been cruelly prejudicial.
The only way out of this is large scale sacking of DWP staff - let them taste their bad attitude at the receiving end.
As to the Coalition Government, it tries to make out it is strong government, but this sort of bullying of the weak and disadvantaged while failing to deal wioth blatent abuses at the top is not only weak government but BAD government.
Longman, you are as thorough as ever and I for one thank you for spending the time reading it all and giving your thoughts.
What I want to know is, legally, can a claimant request to have what is recorded shown or read to them so that they can sign it off as an accurate representation? I don't see why not. It reminds me of the family courts - shrouded in secrecy and it's time it was all brought out into the open. It doesn't mean claimants would get to see how they were scored, just that data was accurately recorded.
I agree with what you say about the fatcats. It smacks of some nasty overlord begrudgingly doling out a few coins to the undeserving, making them jump through impossible hoops to get them, whilst the aristocracy and rich stuff their faces with the suffering of the many.
My husband is self-employed, and due to the HMRC's online banking provider not working for a few days he couldn't pay his VAT (despite multiple attempts) so he had to take time off work to go into the bank and get them to do it for him. It was therefore paid 2 days late (for the first time ever) and HMRC sent him a letter instantly, indicating a surcharge would be levied. Yet, all those huge corporations evading tax (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/19/hmrc-lost-nerve-tax-avoiders-mps) get away with it. He can barely cover costs being self-employed because of all the high outgoings he has (apart from rent, the largest of which being VAT) and they must know how small business owners in his industry are struggling, yet this is how they react. Like you are a criminal trying to defraud them, they got their money. And this is the same attitude as the DWP, begrudging, harsh and unwilling to accept peoples' genuine situations.
I've been reading the fourth review of work capability assessment by Paul Litchfield, out this month and accessible via the NAS webpages.
Its not just the big issues about whether GP and other medical evidence is taken up, or the way persons accompanying applicants are being kept out of it, the whole process is incredibly mean and dehumanising.
Why we need human DWP staff to manage it perplexes me, computers could do just as good a job on their own.
Litchfield obviously has to be gentle in his comments, as it is clear from the acknowledgements he depends greatly on the cooperation of DWP staff. But even gently written descriptions of what goes on doesn't hide the appalling lack of humanity or of respect for human dignity shown by DWP staff.
The way the computer sits between interviewer and interviewee, and the confrontational approach used.
The fact that they use drop down phrases and sentences to fit what they think they are being told, because they are too lazy to write down what interviewees are saying.
That often what they write down bears no relation to what they are being told, and interviewees aren't allowed to see what is being written about them.
That the interviewers' preconceived notions and prejudices influence the assessment more than what the interviewees try to convey. Why bother with the interviews?
That while the decision process is unecessarily long and overly complex, during decision phases applicants lose benefit, and are often left in dire financial straits, with no consideration given to them at all.
That interpretation of the evidence is so arbitrary and crude, why not just let a computer do it?
There are two levels of processing if people are referred to work or WRAG - the uncomplicated ones are handled with germanic efficiency, just skeletal procedures with no input of intelligence or compassion required - again why not just use a computer?
The more complex cases are treated very little better.
I realise Litchfield has to be delicate and fair to DWP staff.
But this report is a clear indictment of the unfeeling, inhuman, selfish lazy character of DWP staff. They clearly come over, beneath the veneer of nicety, as the lowest forms of human life.
And why cannot Government Civil Servants show the same "toughness" with all the fat cats.......? ........maybe because they hope to rise to the ranks of top civil service fat cats themselves one day?
The pretended objectives of this rethink - making it possible for those disabled to work and be self sufficient where they can, is commendable. But that would take considerable change in the work culture and the way disabled people are treated in the work place.
But the actual implementation of this reform is an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE, and demonstrates we are governed by the vilest crud imagineable.
Interesting how the DWP perceives how it is addressing disabled interests. I found this snippet:
"We are fully committed to enabling disabled people to have the same opportunities and choices as non-disabled people. Reforming the benefit system aims to make it fairer, more affordable, and better able to tackle poverty, worklessness asnd welfare dependency. We have tried to make fair choices and to protect those who are most in need, and have looked closely at the impact of decisions on different groups, including disabled people".
So now it is only right and proper that we all do our bit, and be miraculously cured of our disabilities, so we are no longer a burden on the Exchequer.
Simples,.....
I strongly advise people to read the link IntenseWorld has provided.
I honestly had the impression reading it, that I was reading historical documents on the operation of the concentration camps and gas chambers under the ***.
Does that sound like I'm exaggerating? I wish I was. We seem to have become insensitive to much of what goes on around us now. Maybe too much media exposure to TV and Video fiction dulls our reactions. I'm not being party political but it is crystal clear to me that the present coalition government has sunk to the lowest level of immorality and inhumanity, and this ATOS system is little better than the Nazi's strategy for the Final Solution.
Twenty years ago a report like this would have resulted in a General Election being called immediately, not because of how we provided for the disabled obviously, but just the level of public revulsion such a thing would have generated. Wolfbear compares things to Thatcherism. Thatcherism was never this bad.
An ATOS assessor will see 40 people a day. He has a quota allocated - 65% (2 out of 3 approximately) will fail the assessment.
Of the remaining 35% only 14.5% will be allowed ESA, the remaining 20.5% will go to work related activity.
Assessors are working to tight budgets and face penalties if they drift from these "targets".
That's not all. Whether ESA or work activity, all those passed are divided into 5 review terms from 6 to 24 months. These review terms are based on an assumption of recovery.
People with lifelong or degenerative conditions should go on the three year term but many are ending up on 6 monthly review.
As to the points system, it seems they are fiddling the scores for multiple disabilities, and trying to keep the scores as low as possible.
I can only see this as NAZI-ism reborn. Every morally upstanding person should see the same. This state of affairs is a profound disgrace and shame on this nation.
