I haven't responded either personally or in a work context.
DWP are rather jumping the gun a bit.
The issue of benefit take-up (and its measurement) needs to be considered in context of the introduction of Universal Credit.
For most people on low income, it rather looks as though 'Universal' is intended to mean 'Universal' - you claim on becoming adult and remain claimants until you reach whatever the current state pension age may be. Changes in circumstances being notified by your employer and yourself.
No doubt it is partly the policy intent to persuade people to dispauperise themselves and not claim if they have an eligibility.
On the other hand, I'd equally expect non-claimants to be seen as potentially surviving by criminal activity - so of interest to the authorities... e.g. Artful Dodger.
As now, I'd expect the non-claimants at the start to be people with a marginal eligibility due to family income or people who dip into and out of eligibility, where the extra hassle might not be worth the money.
There are rather a lot of relevant consultations out at the moment - we have one on changes to the Claimant Count under Universal Credit. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/user-engagement/consultations-and-surveys/open-consultations/the-production-and-dissemination-of-claimant-count-statistics-following-the-introduction-of-universal-credit/consultation-document.doc
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bivand
Associate Director of Analysis and Statistics
Direct Line: 020 7840 8335
Inclusion
3rd floor, 89 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TP
Tel: 020 7582 7221
Fax: 020 7582 6391
Inclusion website www.cesi.org.uk
See Inclusion's www.indusdelta.org.uk for the latest news and opinions in welfare to work
Consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please return the e-mail to the sender and delete from your mailbox.
The Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion is a company limited by guarantee. Registered in England & Wales number 2458694. Registered address: 89 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TP
-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Veit-Wilson
Sent: 05 October 2012 15:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: Response to DWP proposal to end take-up statistics
Apologies for duplication but some of you may not know of this consultation and may be interested in its implications for public statistics.
If any of you did send responses, Adrian would like to know about them.
Thanks,
John.
------------------------------------------------------------
From Professor John Veit-Wilson
Newcastle University GPS -- Sociology
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England.
Telephone: +44[0]191-222 7498
email [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson/
________________________________
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Sinfield
Sent: 5 October 2012 12:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Response to DWP proposal to end take-up statistics
This may be of interest to some members. The consultation refers to an earlier exercise that only received 20 responses, 10 external. That time DWP only consulted those who had already consulted them about these statistics.
I would be very glad to have responses any of you have made.
Best wishes, yours, Adrian
Adrian Sinfield [log in to unmask]
Response to the Consultation, INCOME RELATED BENEFITS: ESTIMATES OF TAKE-UP, PROPOSED CESSATION OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS SERIES
By Adrian Sinfield - responding as an individual and not on behalf of any group.
1. Do you use information from Income-related Benefits: Estimates of Take-up?
Yes, in teaching, research and campaigning. I have also made a point of directing social security-interested researchers and others outside the UK to these reports where they are not available in their countries. Many have expressed admiration that these statistics are regularly published and easily accessible.
2. What would be the effect of not having this information?
It would deprive policymakers and analysts of essential evidence for evaluating benefit effectiveness: Inadequate take-up is a particular risk associated with means-tested/income-related benefits, even though the problem is not confined to them. Regular and effective assessment of take-up is therefore essential. Abandonment of evidence on the actual take-up rate of benefits is neither acceptable nor responsible and may well lead to extra problems in policymaking and costing.
Failure to provide take-up data would weaken attempts to monitor and improve the delivery of income benefits and credits. Decreases in take-up rates would remain unrecognised to the detriment of potential recipients.
It would be an even greater loss given increasing reliance on means-testing: The routine provision of take-up data is even more important since more and more resources are being directed through means-tested routes where good evidence on take-up is essential for assessing efficient delivery - a vital element of ensuring some 'value for money'.
It would further weaken preventive strategies: Prevention of insecurity and poverty is likely to be even further weakened if even the benefits and credits which are available are not actually received, however inadequate their level. Higher priority given to prevention is already needed, and that requires closer, not a reduced, concern with take-up in scheme design including publicity, application design and staff training that develops sensitivity to factors that lead to non-take-up.
It would limit comparisons with new benefits: The proposed timing is such that any comparison with whatever take-up evidence is made available on the new benefits coming into force such as Universal Credit would be made more difficult. Many believe that this is one reason for the proposal to cease analysis now. And there is growing concern about the effort that will be put into evaluating take-up of UC and PIP. Given that part of the success of the UC is attributed to predicted higher take-up, this is all the more worrying.
It would hamper attempts to improve take-up: It would also make it more difficult to raise support for and target take-up campaigns on relevant benefits. Administrative and other difficulties including reduced staffing in relation to rising claimant numbers have made efforts to maintain take-up more necessary. These admittedly have had varying success, but even those with limited impact have proved useful in identifying reasons for non-application that could otherwise have remained unrecognised. In addition, problems such as the decline in take-up in benefits would not be recognised until it had become too big anecdotally to ignore at the cost of much unnecessary hardship.
It would deprive policymakers and analysts of an internationally recognised and valued indicator: The great importance of take-up and so statistics on it is evident in, for example, the detailed report by the EU Independent Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion in their report, Minimum Incomes. One of the major recommendations of their close review of evidence across the EU was that 'non-take-up is a very widespread phenomenon that needs to be addressed much more systematically' (EUNIE, 2009, p. 11).
Similarly, an OECD review concluded: 'Low or declining rates of take-up of welfare benefits may be a cause of concern for policy makers, as they reduce the probability that welfare programmes attain their goals (e.g., to reduce poverty through higher benefits), lead to unjustified disparities of treatments among eligible clients, and reduce the capacity to anticipate accurately the financial costs of policy reforms' (Hernanz et al., 2004, p. 4).
More analysis and research on take-up, not less, is urgently needed to inform and improve means-tested/income-related policies: It is highly desirable to have greater discussion of the data and trends over time supplemented by further research. Much more could be done to inform policies on and discussions of take-up by further analyses. The potential value of analyses by various groups as well as beneficiary populations is needed to monitor fairness and identify any patterns of discrimination.
At present take-up is given for individual benefits so that the total potential impact for individuals and households across benefits is not clear. One excellent example of more combined work is the modelling carried out by the Child Poverty Unit. On the basis of their estimates, the poverty of one in seven UK children in poverty in 2008 would have been prevented if they had received all the benefits and tax credits to which they were entitled (Child Poverty Unit, 2009, p. 1). In consequence the child poverty strategy that emerged shortly after proposed increasing take-up - one of the few examples of specific government policy being related to take-up. Unfortunately it does not appear to have succeeded: 'Improving take-up of support for families with children was identified as an important element of the agenda to tackle child poverty. However, Department for Work and Pensions take-up statistics show a downward trend in the take-up of most major benefits among families with children since 1998' (DWP DE, 2012, paras 37-38). This report from the DWP and DE themselves clearly indicates a need for more, not less, research and analysis on take-up and the problems leading to lower take-up and preventing improvements.
3. Have you any other views or comments on the proposal to discontinue the statistics?
The political and administrative salience of the proposal is not acknowledged. There is no indication, let alone recognition, in the consultation document of the significant political and administrative salience of the disappearance of these statistics. Successive governments have been challenged to improve delivery of means-tested or income-related benefits or to keep universal benefits in part because of the clear evidence provided by their own statistics on the much higher take-up problems with the former. There is no doubt that some ministers and officials, past and present, have been unenthusiastic, to say the least, about the availability of take-up statistics and their subsequent use. In recent years there has been even greater official and political pre-occupation with overpayment rather than non-take-up. So cessation of take-up statistics could be even more problematic, removing the limited protection of such data.
The consultation reports an earlier feedback exercise with users that only had 20 responses, ten of them external. But 'external users were identified as those who have contacted the take-up team with queries relating to the take-up of income related benefits' (para. 1, note on exercise attached to consultation). This is a narrowing of the field outside the DWP that is both astonishing and puzzling. First, the DWP and ONS know that many more people use their data than the few who contact them about these statistics. Secondly, research and other staff in both the DWP and ONS are well aware of various jiscmail and other networks that could have been used quickly and at no cost to reach many more actual or potential users of take-up statistics working in relevant fields who might well have been expected to reply. Through such networks I have heard from many working on social security issues who were very concerned about the proposal to cease the analyses: not one had been consulted in the earlier exercise. This included one network with over 800 members, very many of whom had interests in social security research and teaching.
This narrowing of the feedback exercise only adds credence to those claiming that this is a largely political decision, maybe both large and small 'p'. The fact that so few staff internally responded to the earlier exercise adds some force to the comment that officials as well as ministers have had little interest in and even regretted the availability of data used to inform campaigning. It reminds me of the years of the Benefits Agency when officials were regularly questioned on take-up and replied that this was not part of their responsibilities and of the description by senior officials of research and analysis funded by the Department as 'an own goal' and 'shooting oneself in the foot'.
The lack of priority given to take-up, given its salience for means-tested benefits, is underlined by the fact that in the past and, apparently, even today DWP staff have been individually rewarded for identifying 'welfare fraud and abuse'. I have yet to hear of staff being encouraged to pay more attention to improving take-up, and stories continue to circulate about staff refusing to provide information on related benefits to claimants. The failure to inform and to assist in application may be made worse by discrimination and obstruction, seen as more likely with certain minority groups or those perceived as less deserving, and that indicates more needs to be done to identify take-up rates for groups as well as benefit populations.
4. If you are not in favour of the main proposal, which if any of the options do you prefer and why?
The analyses must continue to be carried out and published. None of the options are acceptable given the basic dependence on good take-up of means-tested and income-related benefits and the greater reliance on these types of benefits. Routine evaluation of take-up is therefore essential.
DWP and DE indicate that more research is needed to inform and improve means-tested/income-related policies: This is discussed above in section 2.
I would add that I am in contact with many social security academics, researchers, officials and campaigners in other countries. Many have expressed great surprise as well as concern that the UK is proposing this. Much work in other countries has been stimulated by the example of the UK evidence.
References:
Child Poverty Unit (2009) Take Up - The Challenge: the role of local services in increasing take up of benefits and tax credits to reduce child poverty, A report by the Take Up Taskforce, London: Child Poverty Unit.
DWP DE - Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Education (2012) Child Poverty in the UK: The report on the 2010 target, London: TSO.
EUNIE - EU Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion (2009) Minimum income schemes across EU member States; Synthesis report, Brussels: EU Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion.
Hernanz, V., Malherbet, F. and Pellizzari, M. (2004) Take-up of welfare benefits in OECD countries: a review of the evidence. Social, Employment & Migration Working Paper 17, Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development.
Adrian Sinfield [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Professor Emeritus of Social Policy, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, 8 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, Scotland
0131 447 2182 and 650 3924 4 October 2012
****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|
