Consultation outcome

Evenbreak response

Updated 23 March 2020

1. Introduction

We are a not-for-profit social enterprise, run by disabled people for disabled people. Our core service is a specialist accessible job board, helping disabled jobseekers find work with employers who will value their skills. We also help employers become more confident and competent around disability inclusion through an online best practice portal, events, training and consultancy. We are a Disability Confident Leader.

If the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have engaged with you in the past, please answer the following questions:

2. Question 1

Can you tell us about the process?

2.1 Question 1 response

We have a partnership manager, xxxxx xxxxx who has helped us engage with DWP. This has resulted in a number of activities helpful to DWP.

For example:

• we printed (at our own expense) thousands of posters and cards about Evenbreak’s (free) services to disabled jobseekers to be distributed to all branches of Jobcentre Plus

• we took part in a number of telekits to work coaches, disability employment advisers and providers of the work and health programme to offer advice on supporting disabled jobseekers

• we have attended and spoken at numerous events organised by branches of Jobcentre Plus, both put on for employers promoting the Disability Confident scheme, and for disabled jobseekers giving advice on how to positively present themselves to employers

• we have attended events at jobcentres talking to work coaches about disability inclusion

• we visited a ‘model’ Jobcentre Plus in Croydon and gave (free) consultancy on ideas for improvements, following a meeting with xx (DWP) at Caxton House

• we have attended many events at Caxton House offering feedback on various issues around disability inclusion

• we were asked to join a task force looking at guidance for employers in Wales

All of the above were offered at our own expense (printing costs, travel costs and most importantly, time) which, as a small social enterprise employing a handful of disabled people, is severely limited.

In addition to the above, we have participated in many ‘consultation’ exercises carried out by DWP either directly or through third parties, for instance Inclusion London and UnLtd. These have been on a range of subjects, such as improving the Disability Confident scheme, looking at the criteria for eligibility for Personal Independence Payments (PIP), looking at the role social enterprises can play in helping DWP do its job. These were all in the form of focus groups, where people were invited to participate, and DWP staff attended and, or facilitated.

I put ‘consultation’ in inverted commas, because in most cases it was quite clear that the decision had already been made, but there was a political requirement to say that consultation had taken place (for example, the 20 metre walking rule to qualify for PIP). In some cases, DWP even publicly listed the organisations they had ‘consulted’ with, giving the impression that we had endorsed their policies (when the opposite was, in fact, the case).

On one occasion, the people from DWP were apparently shocked at the response from the focus group, and countered our suggestions by telling us that other focus groups hadn’t felt the same. The group felt our views – informed by lived experience – were not just unwelcome, but were completely dismissed.

For us at Evenbreak, being named as participants in the consultation process for some frankly shocking (and damaging to disabled people) policy decisions, has severely strained the trust our candidates have in us. See answer to next question.

3. Question 2

To what degree have there been benefits from engaging with DWP?

3.1 Question 2 response

The only benefit for us as a social enterprise is that by having our posters and cards in jobcentres we have been able to engage with more beneficiaries (disabled people looking for work), although many have contacted us in despair because they are unable to work, but have been declared ‘fit for work’ by the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) they attended.

The huge downside for us has been the lack of trust of candidates when they think we have been working with you to create unfair policies. For example, we were carrying out some research on the barriers that disabled people face when looking for work. In a call-out for participants on Facebook, there were a number of comments warning people not to respond as we were working on DWP’s behalf. We had to work hard to explain we have no direct link with you, and I anything, campaign on their behalf.

Otherwise, I haven’t seen anything change substantially as a result of activities I’ve been engaged with. The 20 metre rule still applies in PIP. Work Capability Assessments continue. Disability Confident scheme has been amended slightly, but hasn’t addressed the real problems that exist (e.g. moderating the assessors for consistency).

In my meeting with xx (DWP) about the ‘Model’ jobcentres, I suggested banning sanctions altogether, at least for disabled people. This would reduce some of the terror that disabled jobseekers face about real or perceived consequences when talking to their work coaches about the kind of work they might be able to do. He said they would do this in their model offices, but it turns out that as the giving of sanctions is embedded in legislation, it has to remain as a threat. Many of the work coaches I spoke to welcome the ability to sanction people, to ‘stop people abusing the system’.

The people who organised the focus groups may well have been given feedback on the input that was given, or an opportunity to comment in draft proposals, but I am not aware of them. Just the observation that the issues we were ‘consulted’ on haven’t changed.

4. Question 3

Based on your experiences, would you wish to engage with the DWP in future?

4.1 Question 3 response

I feel extremely conflicted on this issue. I am absolutely convinced that the only way DWP will make its policies fair, beneficial and inclusive to disabled people is through involving disabled people in developing or amending them. By not engaging, I feel it would be difficult to complain when things don’t change. However, by engaging, my experience is that at best our views are completely ignored, and at worst we publicly appear to have colluded with discriminatory and biased policies.

The record that DWP has, in the way it treats its own disabled staff and the disabled people who depend on its services, is far from positive. This is a downward spiral for the department. The worse its reputation, the fewer disabled people will want to work there, or engage in consultation activities.

I desperately want disabled people to be seen differently by the department and the decisions it makes. But while policies are based on the (erroneous) assumption that disabled people could work if they want to, but choose not to (as opposed to facing barriers to work that are not of their own making – lack of opportunities, inaccessible transport, poverty, lack of vital social care, the same negative perceptions of disabled people from most employers, lack of flexible working and so on), things will only get worse.

5. Question 4

Please tell us about other engagement you have had on disability issues with public sector or other organisations outside of DWP?

5.1 Question 4 response

We have engaged with a number of organisations in the public, private and third sectors on the subject of disability inclusion.

Mostly this has been a much more positive experience, due to a number of factors:

• The organisation voluntarily wants to up its game in this field (not just to gain the Disability Confident badge, but to more effective in many ways).

• The organisation sees disabled people as a valuable source of talent, not benefit scroungers.

• The organisation recognises that it needs to improve and is willing to do so.

• The organisation genuinely wants to listen and learn.

• The organisation values the feedback and is keen to form genuine partnership working.

• The organisation evaluates input and implements what it can.

• The organisation realises the crucial value of lived experience (and often pays for it).

• Effective 2-way communication takes place.

• Participants feel valued and listened to, and can see that their participation genuinely influences change, and so are increasingly willing to engage.

6. Question 5

In your view, can the DWP’s process of engagement be improved and, if so, why and how?

6.1 Question 5 response

Most of us (by which I mean disabled people, or those who work closely with us) know the answers to many of the questions you ask. How to improve Disability Confident. How to improve Access to Work. Both are great schemes in theory, but fall down on implementation. And policies which are wrong from the start, in terms of the assumptions they are built on.

Sanctions. Work Capability Assessments. Benefits. Universal credit. But those answers may not be palatable to DWP or its political masters, and so we tell you and are dismissed, or we don’t bother telling you, because what is the point?

It would be too easy to suggest DWP adopt the actions listed in the answers to question 4, but it is starting from a position of having to build trust with a group of people it has historically abused and ignored. Changing this will be far from easy.

The only way to even start building some trust and credibility would be to make some drastic policy changes which demonstrate a commitment to greater inclusion and fairness.

Even as I write this, I am cursing myself for wasting my time, as it will be dismissed as ever.

7. Question 6

Is there anything else you wish to add about this subject?

7.1 Question 6 response

I’ve probably said more than enough. I know there are some great people at DWP – I’ve met them. But the whole culture of the department is to implement the government’s policy decisions, regardless of the consequences to the people dependent on its services. I’d suggest it’s going to need more than superficial and pointless consultation exercises to change anything.