ENERGÍA PARA COMENZAR TU DÍA!
SUBASTAS PUBLICAS
‘Anything ESA related you were just handed a sheet with telephone numbers on or told to use the phones when they were there. The Jobcentre staff weren’t interested’ (John).
This section considers interviewees’ thoughts on the help available through back to work support, specifically in relation to those who were engaged with The JCP and The Work Programme (WP). A number of claimants had not been engaged with these services as they had been placed in the SG for a period of time and were unable to consider employment as an option or hoped to but felt that support was not forthcoming; this is discussed in more depth in the following section. Those who had engaged with the JCP noted issues to do with the lack of appropriate and accessible support available to them. This was often in relation to the one size fits all approach that was largely adopted and members of staff being unable to offer suitable support, particularly for those claimants who were educated to a degree level or higher. A number of interviewees also noted that similarly to assessors, members of staff were sometimes impersonal; however, this was not always the case.
One example of the support available was explained by Steve, who had been previously employed and was educated to degree level before becoming visually impaired. Steve described his experience when attending a meeting with his adviser at JCP. He felt that although his adviser listened and aimed to provide support, they had neither the qualifications nor the resources available to give
the appropriate help. Steve was only offered training such as attending a CV writing class and therefore chose to seek employment independently:
‘Well I stopped going after the last time I was there, the employment adviser said that I probably know more about disability employment advice than they did… so I thought well there’s no point in going back there’ (Steve).
The idea that advisers are willing to help, but are limited in the level of control and availability of resources for claimants who are hoping to get back into employment, was echoed by Jack:
‘Generally whatever I asked for she [the JCP adviser] would try and do as much as she could you know’ (Jack).
Narratives such as these illustrate the lack of appropriate support available to help ESA recipients who want to enter employment. In some cases, it means claimants even disengage with JCP as a way of getting back-to-work support in favour of independent job search strategies. It is evident that there are two elements at play: the staff attitudes and the discretion they have over allocating limited resources and training, as suggested below:
‘[On JCP staff] …they are usually quite helpful or as helpful as they can be. I feel in some cases I’ve gotta be honest I feel for the people who are on the front line because they can only tell you what’s written on the screen and if the information, they’ve got in front of them is poor… I do sometimes feel sorry for the staff I do but I do think that some of the attitude is absolutely appalling’ (Specialist Welfare Officer).
This dual dynamic of staff attitudes towards those claiming benefits and the inability to provide adequate support for job seekers can mean often support was both inappropriate and inaccessible to those engaging with the JCP or WP. Claimants discussed the hardening of JCP staff attitudes and their existing
judgements of claimants often leaving people feeling like they needed to defend themselves when engaging with the JCP:
‘Jobcentre is a joke; it’s an absolute joke and it really pisses us off. The woman that I dealt with was really patronising. I mean there was a huge distrust in me like I was doing everything that I was asked, I was filling out the booklet, I was applying for jobs and, you know, but to be honest I don’t think it has anything to do with the individual, I think it’s the system’ (James).
James also discussed how, following being upset in the JCP, a member of staff had told him to calm down or she would have to call security. This raises
questions around the changing roles of JCP staff which has increasingly become more concerned with enforcing conditions and ensuring claimants are meeting the jobseeker contractual obligations rather than supporting people to enter the labour market. The presence of security guards within the building, although only noted by two interviewees, also reflects a shift in the way the JCP administers the service and can reinforce the feelings of mistrust claimants already describe as so detrimental. This links to the criminalisation of claimants and reflects ideas of deviant behaviour associated with claiming benefits
(Fletcher and Wright, 2018) and can feed into the environment which is more concerned with punishing claimants as discussed earlier.
It was evident that there was a divide in thinking around staff being constrained by the system and choosing to act based on underlying assumptions, and it can be argued that both these elements come into play when delivering back to work support for ESA claimants. One KI also suggested that there was a divide in the way claimants and non-claimants were treated by JCP staff when describing attending an appointment with a service user:
‘…It was pretty bad though cos I actually went with [Carl] to the
Jobcentre and I stood back and the way they treat [Carl] was appalling, really bad and when I stepped forward, they changed the attitude’
(Volunteer Advocate speaking about the experience of attending the JCP with Carl).
This narrative portrays the stark distinction in the way that JCP staff treated those who were attempting to claim ESA and those who are not. If this
attitudinal divide holds true, this could infer that there is a significant level of personal or institutional discrimination that impacts the way back to work support is delivered.
Experiences of inflexibility in the system continued in relation to the level of support offered by the WP, with those who had engaged with the WP suggesting that the support was often unsuitable for their needs:
‘they give one size fits all training, so I’ve got people who’ve got a degree and post-graduate qualifications have been oh ‘Do you know what a CV is?’ (Team Leader).
The lack of training within the WP for people who were educated to a degree level or higher and had previously been engaged in employment was reflected by Tracy. She was initially placed in the WRAG and describes being left to it due to lack of suitable resources for her skill level:
‘In the end the man at [WP Provider] actually said to me that he trusted me to look for work erm and that he didn’t think he could help me
anymore and that he would just leave me to it, he was perfectly happy to do that and that was probably not really entirely legal but he said he would sign for the fact that I was coming often so it was a bit dodgy you know?’ (Tracy).
Tracy’s experience highlights how WP staff can use discretion to alleviate conditions placed on claimants by the system. In this instance, the removal of the condition meant she was able to self-determine her own work-related activity. However, this was not a common occurrence amongst claimants and this was based on judgements linked specifically to Tracy’s education and work background.
In contrast, another claimant noted that being engaged in the WP actually erected further barriers to employment. He discussed experiences of having to turn down independently sought out employment opportunities in order to comply with mandatory training through the WP. He chose to do this, although
feeling that the mandatory training was at an inappropriate level, in order to avoid sanctioning. On one occasion he described being engaged in a Citizens Advice training course, which had the potential to progress into a paid role. However, due to WP obligations, he had to disengage with this before gaining the intended qualification. By engaging with the WP, he, therefore, was moved further away from employment and disengaged with meaningful, work focused experience. This is a clear example of counterproductive compliance (Dwyer et
al., 2018) and also demonstrates how certain elements of the system
significantly erodes claimant’s ability to exercise self-determination.
Another reason that claimants disengaged with the JCP was when they were unable to comply with the imposed requirements. Andy disengaged with the JCP following being re-assessed and moved into the WRAG. When discussing receiving several phone calls from the JCP that he was too ill at the time to deal with, he described the impact that this had on his mental health:
‘Massive, massive, [impact] honestly, I’m not joking, it sounds really, really, bad and you’re only a young lass like but I could have topped myself easy’ (Andy).
The section has considered the main issues identified by claimants about the level of back to work support they experienced. Claimants described either disengaging with support in favour of independent job search strategies or being constrained by the WP, therefore contradicting its aim of helping people back into the labour market. The level of support was particularly inappropriate for claimants who had previously been employed or had a high level of education. The following section specifically considers the experience of those placed in the SG who were not required to engage with back-to-work support or work-related activity.