JobCentre Plus "independent" decision makers have a target of 80% sanctions

Florian · 31/01/13 - 21:06

"Decision makers outlined that they were working towards a TARGET of 80% of approval of sanctions referrals...".

That is DWP decision makers who decide if a sanction should be upheld.

Evidence: See page 87 - Sec 11.3.2 - http://york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/rrep821.pdf

They have targets for sanctions, they do not judge each case on its merits.

https://twitter.com/boycottworkfare

Flat Matt · 31/01/13 - 21:08

Florian wrote: »

"Decision makers outlined that they were working towards a TARGET of 80% of approval of sanctions referrals...".

That is DWP decision makers who decide if a sanction should be upheld.

Evidence: See page 87 - Sec 11.3.2 - http://york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/rrep821.pdf

They have targets for sanctions, they do not judge each case on its merits.

Can you honestly say that you are surprised by this?

ATOS are working to targets when they take people's disability benefits from them as well.

blueblade · 31/01/13 - 21:23

post deleted

jenzie · 31/01/13 - 21:26

and this PROVES it's all about the money, and not a damn about each person's circumstances .....

Flat Matt · 31/01/13 - 21:30

jenzie wrote: »

and this PROVES it's all about the money, and not a damn about each person's circumstances .....

Of course it is about the money.

The government decided they wanted to cut the welfare budget by several billion.

It was just of who they would shaft in the process. As it turns out, sick people seem to have been their number one target.

God bless the coalition. :rolleyes:

weirlandia4eva · 31/01/13 - 21:35

my hubby lost his job at the end of October and signed on and was getting contribution based JA. in november they stopped it for a week ( didn't appeal as he wasn't making enough effort as he believed his appeal against dismissal would be successful).
then at the end of December they referred him again and his money has been stopped for 13 weeks. Have had to continually chase them up just to get a letter confirming this. now plan to ask for a review of the decision and if needs be will appeal it.( he has been looking and applying for jobs since the first stoppage).
also they say the 6 months contriburtions based JA allowance includes the months when he is not getting any money. Is that right??

flashgordon1952 · 31/01/13 - 21:42

my wife is on incapacity ! but should have been on DLA when she applied some 10 or so years back. As always the goal posts have been moved ,not in my wifes favour..
there is no doubt the govt is putting pressure on the job centre fewer staff to get the same results.
maybe its time they looked the shirkers .. the druggies and drink problem people .which are in fact self induced. and not really ill at all..
Then have the cheek to give these peopel more money than they really need because of there habits. I say no to this .these people need to be drained of there problem and not be a burden on us. simply because of there problem and its costing us the tax payers billions of pounds

[Deleted User] · 31/01/13 - 22:13

Didn't Ian Duncan Smith, the Prime Minister and the DWP all deny they had targets for sanctions a few months ago?. Does this mean they were lying to use?. Surely not.

I'd also recommend saving a copy of that document to your hard drives, it could disappear or be amended as knowledge of them admitting to sanction targets finally starts to get around.

Florian · 31/01/13 - 22:22

captainkremmen wrote: »

Didn't Ian Duncan Smith, the Prime Minister and the DWP all deny they had targets for sanctions a few months ago?. Does this mean they were lying to use?. Surely not.

I'd also recommend saving a copy of that document to your hard drives, it could disappear or be amended as knowledge of them admitting to sanction targets finally starts to get around.

Save the document and SHARE the information using social media and ask your friends to spread the information, the people aware of it the better.

Here is the sub-section from the official DWP document:

- - -

11.3.2 Targets for sanctioning
Decision Makers reported that the number of cases referred for sanctioning has increased over
time. The numbers are higher than anticipated in many cases, and offices have been told to expect
further increases due to the volume of people being referred to the Work Programme.
Generally, fluctuations in the number of referrals for sanctioning are attributed to the fluctuations
in the number of people transferring to the Work Programme, although some Decision Makers were
unsure why numbers of referrals differed so substantially between providers.
Decision Makers outlined that they were working towards a target of 80 per cent of approval of
sanctions referrals, but that their work would be called into question if the approval rate sank below
60 per cent.
Some Decision Makers indicated that most of their sanctions were for two weeks’ duration, rather
than for the longer periods that could be applied. This is consistent with the providers’ accounts
(noted earlier) that failure to attend the initial appointment comprises a high proportion of referrals for sanctioning.

- - -

That is coming from an official DWP document. So if they do not uphold at least 60% of sanctions they receive they will be taken to task.

[Deleted User] · 31/01/13 - 22:45

The PCS Union say that around 40% of the DWP's own staff are part time/low income and currently claim benefits that will be incorporated into the Universal Credit System. This could well lead to the rather bizarre situation of your advisor themselves having to pop over to one of their colleagues to prove they are seeking extra pay, extra hours or seeking better paid work, or face sanctions. So there's a distinct possibility that some JC staff could end up sanctioning their own workmates.

Bizarre.

Impact on staff as claimants
It is estimated that as many as 40% of the staff working on UC will also be entitled to claim UC, once UC replaces working tax credits. This presents a number of issues. Firstly is to ensure that any staff claims are dealt with in a way that ensures complete confidentiality.

Of more concern is the impact of the increased conditionality regime that UC will introduce. This is likely to particularly impact on part time staff claiming UC whose gross part time pay is below the full time national minimum wage. In this case they may be subject to a similar conditionality regime to current JSA and ESA claimants. In other words they could be expected to attend interviews with Job Centre advisors whose role would be to encourage them to increase their earnings in order to take them off UC.

This is of course something totally new and is extremely sensitive. PCS’ view is that it is wrong to extend conditionality to anyone who is in work and is currently arguing for the UC regulations to be changed accordingly. However the government appear determined to treat in work UC claimants in the same way that they treat out of work claimants. DWP has yet to decide how they may handle any DWP staff who are affected by this.

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/department_for_work_and_pensions_group/dwp-news.cfm/id/56F645FF-C06F-47EB-8D8402A16C0BD520

MiresiaVerteta · 31/01/13 - 23:23

How are they expected to find full time work or better paid jobs? Where I used to work, a chance of promotion was more likely than a San Marino win in football, unless you had contacts or in some cases non white.

This has to be human rights abuse.

Florian · 31/01/13 - 23:44

captainkremmen wrote: »

The PCS Union say that around 40% of the DWP's own staff are part time/low income and currently claim benefits that will be incorporated into the Universal Credit System. This could well lead to the rather bizarre situation of your advisor themselves having to pop over to one of their colleagues to prove they are seeking extra pay, extra hours or seeking better paid work, or face sanctions. So there's a distinct possibility that some JC staff could end up sanctioning their own workmates.

Bizarre.

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/department_for_work_and_pensions_group/dwp-news.cfm/id/56F645FF-C06F-47EB-8D8402A16C0BD520

I would be all for JCP staff having to make decisions on their colleagues benefits, it might make them a little more compassionate.

[Deleted User] · 31/01/13 - 23:55

flashgordon1952 wrote: »

my wife is on incapacity ! but should have been on DLA when she applied some 10 or so years back. As always the goal posts have been moved ,not in my wifes favour..
there is no doubt the govt is putting pressure on the job centre fewer staff to get the same results.
maybe its time they looked the shirkers .. the druggies and drink problem people .which are in fact self induced. and not really ill at all..
Then have the cheek to give these peopel more money than they really need because of there habits. I say no to this .these people need to be drained of there problem and not be a burden on us. simply because of there problem and its costing us the tax payers billions of pounds

Oh my goodness. nearly every word on your post is wrong!

Can you explain how these druggies and alcys get more money to feed their habbit????

They DONT! they also probably have an underlined mental health issue that needs to be seen to the same way that someone else needs to go for medical help.

THEY DONT GET EXTRA MONEY! Next youll be saying homeless people get paid for their dogs. Some people are delusional and believe anything they are told.

Hey there!

Quick Links

JobCentre Plus "independent" decision makers have a target of 80% sanctions

Comments