Guest Post From MIND #WCA
Sue and Kaliya have kindly agreed to
host this blog on their sites, as I was keen to communicate with as wide an
audience as possible about the work Mind is currently involved in around the
Work Capability Assessment (WCA). I’m sorry about the length of the blog, but
there’s lots of background to cover!
18 months
ago, Mind, working with Mencap and the National Autistic Society, submitted a report
to Professor Harrington, the independent reviewer of the WCA, about changes we
wanted to see to the criteria used in the WCA. Harrington had asked us to
produce this report after recognising that the assessment was not working well
enough for people these organisations represent.
Translating
our concerns with the system into specific proposals was not an easy task.
Based on what we had been told by the people we represent, we identified two
key aspects of the ‘descriptors’, used to score applicants, that we believed
needed changing:
·
We
didn’t feel the descriptors really took account of the fluctuation and
variability inherent to many of these conditions and we wanted to make sure
that our descriptors could collect this information.
·
We
wanted assessors to be able to ask applicants directly about the areas covered
in the assessment rather than trying to select the appropriate descriptor based
on tangential questions.
We made an
attempt to address these issues in the proposals we produced, looking at models
of fluctuation used in the equivalent Australian assessment. But we recognised
that our descriptors were not perfect and didn’t address some of the
fundamental issues with the WCA, such as what ‘work’ and ‘fitness for work’
actually mean.
After
refining our proposals through consultation with other groups and collaboration
with a ‘scrutiny panel’ of health experts convened by Harrington, they were
submitted to the DWP. The Department responded that the proposals were too
radical and not backed up with sufficient evidence.
Meanwhile,
at Harrington’s request, another group of charities (MS Society, National AIDS
Trust, Parkinsons UK, Forward ME, Arthritis Care, and Crohn’s and Colitis UK)
were submitting proposals
for how the descriptors could better address the type of fluctuating conditions
they focus on. This report built on our descriptor proposals and made more
general recommendations for improving the assessment.
They
received a similar response to us from the DWP and the whole endeavour might
have been dead in the water at that point, were it not for Harrington arguing
that the DWP should carry out some testing on the proposals. This suggestion
was accepted in principle but in the ensuing months there was no real activity.
Then, about six weeks ago, the
charities involved were invited to the DWP to discuss how the testing would
proceed. We were told there was Ministerial commitment to the project,
resources allocated to make it happen, and a tight timetable to work to.
This turn of
events provoked mixed feelings: it would be the first time that the current
descriptors had been properly tested, with the outcomes they suggest compared
to the view of an expert panel on whether the applicant was actually fit for
work. It would also be a good opportunity to test out some of our ideas for
improving the descriptors. But we were wary of the project being driven by the
DWP, with Mind’s name attached to it, and the possibility that we wouldn’t be
comfortable with how the testing was designed or carried out.
Overall
though, we felt it was too good an opportunity to turn down and since then we
have been involved in intense and long meetings with the DWP and the other
charities involved to try and finalise a common set of proposals that can be
tested.
Mind knows
this is fairly unique opportunity and we are acutely aware that the
circumstances aren’t ideal: our proposals were suggested reforms to problems
with the current assessment, not a perfect alternative; we are not experts in
producing assessments; we are not in control of the design and timeline of the
project; and there are many people not round the table who could make important
contributions. However, it is clear that the DWP will go ahead with or without
us and so we feel that it is important to try and make the process as rigorous
and constructive as possible.
It’s been a
hectic few weeks, but we want to make sure we find the time to keep the process
as open as possible to disabled people and the disability sector. We’re pushing
to relax the timetable to make more time for consultation but we’d welcome any
comments or questions that people have at any point in the process.
Tom Pollard – Senior Policy & Campaigns
Officer, Mind
This blog represents the views and
experience of Mind, not necessarily those of other charities involved in this
process
0 comments:
Post a Comment