I've just been reading the PIP review, published 17th December. It really should be compulsory reading for all disabled people and their carers and supporters.
Why? Well it is just such a clear indictment on the gross incompetence of the DWP. If we are losing money in this country, it isn't about whether people are justified in claiming support, its the amount of money DWP staff waste through the bungling ineptitude of their higher management - senior civil servants.
The report isn't easy reading. It necessarily explains all the different agencies and subcontractors involved and the difficulty they all seem to have communicating with one another. Some of this, in the initial chapters, is enough to deter most people from reading further.
There are three chapters though that merit close attention - Chapters 4 and 5 dealing with claimants' and service providers' (stakeholders) experiences, and chapter 8 on the effectiveness of the assessment.
Chapter 4 looks at delays and backlogs (the process is too long drawn out and makes people feel worse); the claims progress (extreme lack of information and feedback, people having to telephone and telephone the contact for weeks and months on end, getting nowhere);
The claims process (absurdly over-complex, with an over-reliance on the telephone, regardless of ability to use this media. DWP staff would insist on talking directly with the disabled person rather than a carer even when this was unrealistic; delays of up to a month between a phonecall and the necesary paperwork, and lack of information to relate the paperwork to the phonecall).
Face-to-face assessments (having to travel long distances to interview locations, inadequate parking, poor disabled access to run-down centres, appointment notifications not coming through, people not turning up to do the interviews.Some assessors were good but most seemed to be ill-informed admin staff).
Further evidence (gathered too late in the day, means repeat interviews because all the information isn't available, evidence not being requested that was essential, and claims being resolved without seeing key evidence).
Decisions (paperwork doesn't explain the evidence, doesn't show that all evidence was considered, often oblivious of important evidence, lacking credibility and very inconsistent). Reviews of awards (not really happening). Effectiveness of the Assessment (clearly not fair on people with fluctuating conditions or multiple disabilities).
Chapter 5 looks at evidence from other stakeholders, which here seems mostly from the subcontractors and DWP staff. It contains interesting revelations, from the start, a complaint from a DWP officer that "claimants do not seem to understand the process at all" and that telephone operatives don't understand the procedures enough to explain properly. Claimants could be better informed how the process operates.
Operatives claimed they had lost sight of the claimants and their pathways compared to how they operated under DLA. A particular complaint is that staff don't get feedback so there's no basis on which to discuss individual progressions or learn anything.
Chapter 8 draws together some of the issues, including differences in how to interpret the evidence, leading to case notes being referred back too often, contributuing to the backlogs. It was observed that claimants often didn't understand what they were being asked, which affected the completeness of the evidence. There are issues whether aids and appliances offered were effective. This chapter is very informative on the amount of chaos.
The obvious message from Chapters 4, 5 and 8 is that management of the process is poor. The operatives working with the claimants are themselves inadequately supported. The continuing failure of the PIP is clearly down to the poor standards of senior civil servants in the DWP, who have not set up effective frameworks, nor responded effectively to the need to improve it in practice.
We used to joke about "The Men from the Ministry", "Yes Minister" and "Yes Primeminister" - but increasingly the major problem this country has lies with the sheer numbers of incompetent senior civil servants - overpaid, over-protected, unaccountable, unsackable. Many of them wouldn't survive in a commercial company, they'd be quickly identified as "dead wood".
The report is expectedly cautious and non-committal. But what it clearly demonstrates is appallingly poor management.