As well as being a Phd-er, I also volunteer at a homelessness charity, which specialises in helping clients with multiple addictions ( drugs and alcohol). Many of them have mental health problems, either pre-exisiting or as a result of sustance abuse. Most have shockingly low levels of literacy, and all of them have some form of contact with either the JobCentre or the DWP.
Which is where I come in. I have, like many academics I have known, the practical sense of a whelk. However, I am good at filling in forms, making tea, fielding phonecalls, and arguing a case. So, whilst my colleagues run our courses on woodwork, or run the Big Issue, I do advocacy.
This involves having a degree of knowledge about the rules & regs of Housing Benefit (needed to pay rent at the Night Shelter), JSA, DLA etc, listening to clients who have a problem or think they have grounds for complaint, and then, every month or so, going to the local JC to argue their case. As I did today.
I cannot go into the specifics of any of the cases with which I dealt today-to do so would be unethical as my clients are entitled to their privacy. Suffice to say that the issues that came up were : Sanctions applied for non-attendence at a course, HB complaints arising both from sanction-decisions & more generally, and a DLA decision so mind-blowingly inept, I am actually going to ask the client to co-post with me at a later date. Apart from the latter all these are pretty standard issue problems.
But today, there were a lot of them. A lot more sanctions than usual. "FFS, Anna, I was only five minutes late and they're treating me like I wasn't there at all! They know I can be bloody late, but I always turn up!!!And when I'm on time there're only three people on the f**ing desks anyway, they can run late, but I can't,.." and so on with added expletives. This speech is a paraphrase of about 3 speeches I've heard recently, but the content is the same in each case. There is one rule for the JC and another for clients.
So, along I trotted, past the security guards, and along to meet a liason person. Who was late. I bit my tongue & we went to work.
Sanctioning is JC-speak for either stopping benefit completely or deducting a portion thereof. Sanctions are commonly applied for lateness, non-attendence at a recommended course, failure to sign on, failure to apply for a vacancy that the JC has given the client, failure to attend a meeting with an advisor or failure to declare any earnings. Having sanctions applied to a client's cash benefits also results in their HB being affected, with immediate effect. It can have devastating effects, which is why, until fairly recently, it was used as a last resort.
Sanctions decisions are not made by individual advisors, they record actions taken and then any decisions about sanctions are passed up to 'decision-makers'. Until recently these people were based in the same building as the JC, and would often still do shifts 'on the floor'. This way they got to know clients, understood the pressures that staff faced, and could see the issues 'in-the-round'. This has now changed.
The decisions about sanctions are now taken from another office in another town. How it now works is that clients come in to 'sign on' and their attendence is recorded on a computer screen, which is networked to the other office. If the client is late etc, they get one phonecall to explain themselves, and then are recorded as 'non-attending'. Previously, their advisor might have tried again, or followed up their phonecall with a conversation with a colleague to say that this client is usually reliable, or that they've been down a bit recently..this discretion, based on a knowledge of individuals has now been removed. Recorded as late? You'll be sanctioned. Your HB will cease. And, in order to get back on track again, you will have to deal with an office in another part of the county that you cannot visit. You must write.
It is at this point that I must, of course, insert caveats. Yes, some clients do take the proverbial. But, most, in my frontline experience, do not. They do have often appalling timekeeping (most do not own watches/clocks however, or phones), and very short fuses. Which brings me to today..
If a client is late, they are sanctioned. If they make a mistake, or fail to remember something, or lose a piece of paper, they are sanctioned first and then have to prove their 'rectitude'. They are (rightly, even if the outcomes can be unfair) held to account.
My meeting today was scheduled in advance. The manager was late. She didn't have all the paperwork, despite my having provided her with a full list. When I went downstairs, there were only two desks working, as most advisors go on lunch simultaneously, whilst appointments for that time are still dished out-meaning that if a client's appointment was at 1, they can often wait for an hour to be seen. If a client raises this, they are ignored or told to wait. If they walk out, after that hour, they are recorded as late, or as non-attending. The JC holds all the cards.
Which is not to say all JC staff are sods. They know their clients (as one put it to me some time ago-"There's a world of difference between someone who is is really trying to find work, but who is late for appointments, and someone who turns up once a week, does the bare minimum and then buggers off. Guess who gets sanctioned?"). They do face abuse, which is now often as a result of decisions in which they have had no part. They're not very well paid, and many are on short-term contracts. They are human.
There is much talk of bringing private sector values to the public sector. There is also much talk of clamping-down on scroungers, of toughening up the rules for claimants, of what is fair, and what is not. Today made me wonder-what private business would survive with the JC's approach to customer relations? Not one. The relationship between the JC and it's 'clients' is utterly one-sided, and if the Govt really wants to reform the welfare state, it could do a lot worse than to start by addressing this.
Wednesday 15 December 2010
Saturday 11 December 2010
Demonstrations.
Demonstrations have a long and honourable history in Britain - but unfortunately not a recent one. After yesterday, I went up into the loft & fetched one of my most treasured possessions-the South African Independent Electoral Commission's handbook on protest management.
I thought it might help me dispel my increasing sense of deja-vu, and maybe help me resolve some of the questions swirling around in my head ...
This guide was written against a backdrop of at least 30 years of inter-racial violence, with many casualties on both sides. The South African Police were routinely armed, had powers that would give Norman Tebbit palpitations, and had no history of negotiation. Why would they need to bargain? They were the state. They could kill at will, and there were literally no consequences.
The protestors, on the other hand were often young, scared, and although not 'armed' no strangers to violence themselves. The most repugnant form of violence? The 'necklace'. A tyre put round the neck, then set alight. Barbaric. Murderous. Iconic. And the first line of counter-attack, when people sought to criticise the police's conduct-'But look what they're up against'.
The divisions between the police & any democratic protestors were therefore entrenched and extremely bitter. The police were seen as murderers-and some undoubtedly were. The protestors were seen as violent scum, with no respect for lives or property-and some were.
The IEC was given the task of acting as 'honest broker' in setting guidelines, managing demos and addressing complaints. It was obvious a new model was needed, based on dialogue not confrontation. So, here's what they did:
Their starting point was: Everyone is a human being. Simple. All talk of 'fascist pigs'/ 'kaffirs' was forbidden. It is impossible to manage (as opposed to oppress) a large group of people if their humanity has been forgotten. Another starting assumption was that most people do not like committing violence. Including policemen.
The second point (and this imo is extremely relevent to protests here) was leadership & accountability. Every demo was to have named, identifiable leaders, responsible for good conduct, & who were the police's first point of contact.
Before every demo, preferably a couple of days before, police and leadership sat down, and talked. I was at some of these meetings, & the look on hardened coppers' faces at being addressed as Hendrik by 20-something ANC activists who until recently would have been locked up forever, was priceless. As was the look on the activists' faces when Hendrik brought biscuits. There were regular contact times established-so that communication became routine, not a matter of panic. That wasy, it's a lot easier to ask for help when it's really needed.
Forward planning. I was appalled when I saw the metal barriers being put in place this week. Want/think you need, a weapon? Here's one the police have thoughtfully provided...Madness. If something (and more about the importance of things later) needs protecting, then do it with people. Sort out multiple routes ahead of the protest-so if anyone goes off-piste the police can keep up.
Armed police were to be used as back-up only. That in turn meant, there was no plausible excuse for 'peaceful' demonstrators turning up with metal pipes etc. Stewards (you need a lot of these and they need proper training) were given confiscatory powers. Water cannons etc were on hand-but the leadership of the demos were to be warned before they were deployed, to give them the opportunity to sort things out. This had two beneficial consequences-firstly, it stopped any knee-jerk reactions by the police and secondly, it enabled the leadership to show their 'constituents' that it was in their interest to tow the line.
Kettling. What an inept method of policing. If people are rioting, then arrest them. If you want to disperse a large group of people, you need multiple points of dispersal-not just one. That way they won't panic, pick stuff up & chuck it at the police. Thereby creating a riot where previously there wasn't one. As happened this week...
So, what about when it all goes horribly wrong? What did the IEC do then? Primarily, the task of the leadership then becomes one of damage control. Children and other vulnerable groups were to be got out, pronto. If that means a fifteen yr-old who's chucked a brick gets to go home, fine. He can always be picked up later. Damage to property is less significant than damage to people. So if a crowd disperses across a park, let them go. Flowers can be re-planted. As Treasury doors can be fixed.
Afterwards? Firstly, de-brief stewards and police. Yes, that does mean that the police are questioned by civilians. Tough. Accountability cuts both ways. If a steward is found to have breached guidelines (which will include breaking the law, obviously), then they're handed over. No arguments.
Learn. And keep talking. Always keep talking.
But but but, I hear you splutter. What if there's a riot? what if a steward lies, or a policeman? Are we really supposed to let brick-chucking fifteen year-olds go home to Mummy. Should we trust the police? anarchists? Why would any reasonable person want to go on a demo after this week anyway? Should we trust police officers/students/hangers-on?
Yes. We don't, but we should do all those things. After all, we are all human, remember?
I thought it might help me dispel my increasing sense of deja-vu, and maybe help me resolve some of the questions swirling around in my head ...
This guide was written against a backdrop of at least 30 years of inter-racial violence, with many casualties on both sides. The South African Police were routinely armed, had powers that would give Norman Tebbit palpitations, and had no history of negotiation. Why would they need to bargain? They were the state. They could kill at will, and there were literally no consequences.
The protestors, on the other hand were often young, scared, and although not 'armed' no strangers to violence themselves. The most repugnant form of violence? The 'necklace'. A tyre put round the neck, then set alight. Barbaric. Murderous. Iconic. And the first line of counter-attack, when people sought to criticise the police's conduct-'But look what they're up against'.
The divisions between the police & any democratic protestors were therefore entrenched and extremely bitter. The police were seen as murderers-and some undoubtedly were. The protestors were seen as violent scum, with no respect for lives or property-and some were.
The IEC was given the task of acting as 'honest broker' in setting guidelines, managing demos and addressing complaints. It was obvious a new model was needed, based on dialogue not confrontation. So, here's what they did:
Their starting point was: Everyone is a human being. Simple. All talk of 'fascist pigs'/ 'kaffirs' was forbidden. It is impossible to manage (as opposed to oppress) a large group of people if their humanity has been forgotten. Another starting assumption was that most people do not like committing violence. Including policemen.
The second point (and this imo is extremely relevent to protests here) was leadership & accountability. Every demo was to have named, identifiable leaders, responsible for good conduct, & who were the police's first point of contact.
Before every demo, preferably a couple of days before, police and leadership sat down, and talked. I was at some of these meetings, & the look on hardened coppers' faces at being addressed as Hendrik by 20-something ANC activists who until recently would have been locked up forever, was priceless. As was the look on the activists' faces when Hendrik brought biscuits. There were regular contact times established-so that communication became routine, not a matter of panic. That wasy, it's a lot easier to ask for help when it's really needed.
Forward planning. I was appalled when I saw the metal barriers being put in place this week. Want/think you need, a weapon? Here's one the police have thoughtfully provided...Madness. If something (and more about the importance of things later) needs protecting, then do it with people. Sort out multiple routes ahead of the protest-so if anyone goes off-piste the police can keep up.
Armed police were to be used as back-up only. That in turn meant, there was no plausible excuse for 'peaceful' demonstrators turning up with metal pipes etc. Stewards (you need a lot of these and they need proper training) were given confiscatory powers. Water cannons etc were on hand-but the leadership of the demos were to be warned before they were deployed, to give them the opportunity to sort things out. This had two beneficial consequences-firstly, it stopped any knee-jerk reactions by the police and secondly, it enabled the leadership to show their 'constituents' that it was in their interest to tow the line.
Kettling. What an inept method of policing. If people are rioting, then arrest them. If you want to disperse a large group of people, you need multiple points of dispersal-not just one. That way they won't panic, pick stuff up & chuck it at the police. Thereby creating a riot where previously there wasn't one. As happened this week...
So, what about when it all goes horribly wrong? What did the IEC do then? Primarily, the task of the leadership then becomes one of damage control. Children and other vulnerable groups were to be got out, pronto. If that means a fifteen yr-old who's chucked a brick gets to go home, fine. He can always be picked up later. Damage to property is less significant than damage to people. So if a crowd disperses across a park, let them go. Flowers can be re-planted. As Treasury doors can be fixed.
Afterwards? Firstly, de-brief stewards and police. Yes, that does mean that the police are questioned by civilians. Tough. Accountability cuts both ways. If a steward is found to have breached guidelines (which will include breaking the law, obviously), then they're handed over. No arguments.
Learn. And keep talking. Always keep talking.
But but but, I hear you splutter. What if there's a riot? what if a steward lies, or a policeman? Are we really supposed to let brick-chucking fifteen year-olds go home to Mummy. Should we trust the police? anarchists? Why would any reasonable person want to go on a demo after this week anyway? Should we trust police officers/students/hangers-on?
Yes. We don't, but we should do all those things. After all, we are all human, remember?
Friday 3 December 2010
What price a happy childhood?
Yes, I know, I promised you a blogpost about workfare, but frankly, the dogs have all barked and the caravan moved on..
However, fresh material arrived today in the form of Frank Field's report on child poverty, entitled 'The Foundation Years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults'. This interests me both personally (I have a child) and professionally (child poverty is my 'thing').
Before I get into the meat of his report, let's consider the terms of Field's remit. He was tasked with, inter alia, generating 'a broader debate' and coming up with recommendations consistent with the Government's fiscal strategy. I fear the latter part may end up having priority over the former.
Poor children, (using the current definition of those living in households receiving below 60% of median income), tend to arrive at school less well-prepared, have reduced educational outcomes, and therefore go on to enjoy reduced life choices re employment and quality of life. We know this, because a. numerous studies have demonstrated it over the years, and b. Frank Field has just researched it all over again.
He comes, however, to a rather different conclusion than his forebears: for Field, what matters in tackling child poverty and its effects isn't simply the amount of money going into households, but the quality of the interactions within them, especially between parents and their children. In fact, he seems to think they matter more.
On the face of it, this seems rather commonsensical. After all, money can't buy you love, right? What Field ignores ( unlike some, I don't believe he does so wilfully), is that without money, everything else becomes a lot more difficult. Living in poverty, on a very low-income, is stressful, and as any parent will tell you, stress makes sub-optimal parents of us all.
Which leads to me to the personal. I have been a single parent living on benefit. This arose after the death of my partner. However, I neither want nor deserve pity. It was my choice to have my son, my choice to keep him and my choice to remain at home with him until he was 3 1/2, and I returned, first to volunteering, and then to work.
But, our situation does give me an insight into Field's hypothesis and I think he is wrong. Firstly, of course the strength of the parental bond matters more than cash. Naturally, reading with one's child is good. But if, whilst you are doing these things, there is a steady drip-drip of anxiety about the gas going off, or how to pay for a school trip, in my experience, you cannot be as fully 'there' as you would be otherwise.
I assumed that reading was good. So we joined the library. But children should have their own books too, and we didn't have the money to buy them. I knew listening to music was good-but taking CDs out of the library incurred a charge.And then there was the day that James threw his shoes in a pond...
I also fear that the practical applications of his ideas will not actually work, if undertaken. Take for example, the proposal that rather than increasing tax credits year-on-year, that cash should be put into building the Foundation Years. Not only does this not seem very Big Society, as it removes choice re expenditure from the individual & places the money at the disposal of the State, there is another, worse problem.
Tax credits as with other benefits, are up-rated to allow for effects of inflation. Food and fuel inflation are predicted to spiral higher in the near future. Food and fuel represent major expenditures for low-income households. After all, you can buy second-hand clothes, toys and books, but a secondhand apple? Not so much. So in order to pay for the shiny new Foundation Years, poor children will actually get poorer in real terms.
Another snag, could be how families, in need of this intensive interaction will be identified. Field proposes that Local Authorities pool data and that DWP data be made available to the LAs. Government. Big databanks. What could possibly go wrong?
The report says, repeatedly, that the child poverty targets set by Labour, were laudable, but ultimately unsustainable. What it ignores, is the fact that because the targets were never reached, we can never know what the effects might have been had they been attained. He assumes that 100% success would have made no difference.
There are things that are good about this report. The idea that Childrens' Centres should become 'one-stop shops' where parents are able to register births, and complete benefit forms is good, as is the premise of continuity of care from pregnancy to school, and beyond. The latter, will of course require staff, lots of staff. Remember the fiscal strategy? Hmmmm.
I think Frank Field is a good man. I also know, both from personal experience and from research that inter-generational poverty, is one of the toughest nuts to crack. However, given his remit, and given this Government's philosophy, this report misses the point-poverty is about money, and no amount of research can get us away from that.
However, fresh material arrived today in the form of Frank Field's report on child poverty, entitled 'The Foundation Years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults'. This interests me both personally (I have a child) and professionally (child poverty is my 'thing').
Before I get into the meat of his report, let's consider the terms of Field's remit. He was tasked with, inter alia, generating 'a broader debate' and coming up with recommendations consistent with the Government's fiscal strategy. I fear the latter part may end up having priority over the former.
Poor children, (using the current definition of those living in households receiving below 60% of median income), tend to arrive at school less well-prepared, have reduced educational outcomes, and therefore go on to enjoy reduced life choices re employment and quality of life. We know this, because a. numerous studies have demonstrated it over the years, and b. Frank Field has just researched it all over again.
He comes, however, to a rather different conclusion than his forebears: for Field, what matters in tackling child poverty and its effects isn't simply the amount of money going into households, but the quality of the interactions within them, especially between parents and their children. In fact, he seems to think they matter more.
On the face of it, this seems rather commonsensical. After all, money can't buy you love, right? What Field ignores ( unlike some, I don't believe he does so wilfully), is that without money, everything else becomes a lot more difficult. Living in poverty, on a very low-income, is stressful, and as any parent will tell you, stress makes sub-optimal parents of us all.
Which leads to me to the personal. I have been a single parent living on benefit. This arose after the death of my partner. However, I neither want nor deserve pity. It was my choice to have my son, my choice to keep him and my choice to remain at home with him until he was 3 1/2, and I returned, first to volunteering, and then to work.
But, our situation does give me an insight into Field's hypothesis and I think he is wrong. Firstly, of course the strength of the parental bond matters more than cash. Naturally, reading with one's child is good. But if, whilst you are doing these things, there is a steady drip-drip of anxiety about the gas going off, or how to pay for a school trip, in my experience, you cannot be as fully 'there' as you would be otherwise.
I assumed that reading was good. So we joined the library. But children should have their own books too, and we didn't have the money to buy them. I knew listening to music was good-but taking CDs out of the library incurred a charge.And then there was the day that James threw his shoes in a pond...
I also fear that the practical applications of his ideas will not actually work, if undertaken. Take for example, the proposal that rather than increasing tax credits year-on-year, that cash should be put into building the Foundation Years. Not only does this not seem very Big Society, as it removes choice re expenditure from the individual & places the money at the disposal of the State, there is another, worse problem.
Tax credits as with other benefits, are up-rated to allow for effects of inflation. Food and fuel inflation are predicted to spiral higher in the near future. Food and fuel represent major expenditures for low-income households. After all, you can buy second-hand clothes, toys and books, but a secondhand apple? Not so much. So in order to pay for the shiny new Foundation Years, poor children will actually get poorer in real terms.
Another snag, could be how families, in need of this intensive interaction will be identified. Field proposes that Local Authorities pool data and that DWP data be made available to the LAs. Government. Big databanks. What could possibly go wrong?
The report says, repeatedly, that the child poverty targets set by Labour, were laudable, but ultimately unsustainable. What it ignores, is the fact that because the targets were never reached, we can never know what the effects might have been had they been attained. He assumes that 100% success would have made no difference.
There are things that are good about this report. The idea that Childrens' Centres should become 'one-stop shops' where parents are able to register births, and complete benefit forms is good, as is the premise of continuity of care from pregnancy to school, and beyond. The latter, will of course require staff, lots of staff. Remember the fiscal strategy? Hmmmm.
I think Frank Field is a good man. I also know, both from personal experience and from research that inter-generational poverty, is one of the toughest nuts to crack. However, given his remit, and given this Government's philosophy, this report misses the point-poverty is about money, and no amount of research can get us away from that.
Monday 8 November 2010
It's all about me..
As you have been foolish enough to venture thus far,I thought I should introduce myself properly.My name is Anna Hedge.I am,amongst other things, a Phd student in behavioural economics and a volunteer at a project working with those who have drug/alcohol problems.I am always a mother.Sometimes a good one.
Why blogging?I have things to say.Mostly about economics,particularly about how economic policies impact upon the poor and the vulnerable.Education is another area that interests me,both as an interested party (parent and student) & as it impacts on my own work.Cakes,antique jewellry and wine.That's it, really.I reserve the right to go off piste as and when I feel like it.
So,that's me.Spooks is on,so if you don't mind...
Why blogging?I have things to say.Mostly about economics,particularly about how economic policies impact upon the poor and the vulnerable.Education is another area that interests me,both as an interested party (parent and student) & as it impacts on my own work.Cakes,antique jewellry and wine.That's it, really.I reserve the right to go off piste as and when I feel like it.
So,that's me.Spooks is on,so if you don't mind...
Well here we are....
Well here we all are.At the insistence of oooh tens of people,I now have a blog.I expect to be blogging on..actually as it's my first attempt,you can choose the topic.This one's on me...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)