Skip to main content

How to NOT join up incapacity benefit with disability employment support

The government's disability employment support strategy is a sham

The Work and Pensions Committee published its report on the future of welfare to work this week. Its key message is that the government must focus employment support on people with complex needs, in particular expanding provision for people with substantial disability.

There is an obvious solution to the flaws identified in the design of the existing specialist disability employment scheme, Work Choice. And it is the same solution to some of the legendary flaws in the Work Capability Assessment, especially the problems with the WRAG, where people with severe ill health are put through a punishing back to work regime incapable of addressing their needs. Yet no one seems to have had the insight or will to name it.

The Committee did at least partially acknowledge that the government’s specialist disability employment programme is a perverse contradiction:

Work Choice is supposed to help those with “substantial disability”, who can’t be helped by Access to Work or mainstream back to work programmes, and need specialist support. But they have to be capable of working 16 hours per week or more within 6 months. Otherwise (the implication is) they are not worth investing in.

This is borne out by the fact that only 17% of the referrals to Work Choice comes from the ESA caseload. The majority are referred from JSA, meaning they are not disabled enough (by the terms of the WCA) to qualify for ESA. The referral system for Work Choice seems designed to cherry pick disabled people with the least complex barriers to work, perhaps to ensure that contracted providers receive enough outcomes payments to sustain their business model.

The UK is one of the very few countries where the assessment system for work-related incapacity (the WCA) does not act as a gateway to specialist disability employment support, according to the OECD

If our incapacity benefit and disability employment support system were rational and coherent, people put into the ESA WRAG should automatically be referred to Work Choice, or whatever replaces it, because the WRAG of ESA is supposed to be an acknowledgement of substantial barriers to work but not complete incapacity for work. The WRAG should be the gateway to Work Choice. Instead being assigned to the WRAG actually all but bars access to specialist disability employment support because JCP have to mandate WRAG claimants to the conditionality regime of the mainstream Work Programme.

This leads to a woeful situation for most people in the WRAG: they are not disabled enough for the ESA Support Group, where they get unconditional financial support, yet too disabled for Work Choice, and so are consigned to the brutal no-man’s land of conditionality and sanctions on the mainstream Work Programme. And they are now about to face a £30 per week cut in income to incentivise them to a miraculous recovery. As we know the WRAG includes people with chronic and progressive conditions like Parkinson’s and Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Tweaking the payments system for Work Programme and the referral criteria for Work Choice, as the Committee suggests, won’t solve this perverse paradox. 

The ESA WRAG and specialist disability employment support programmes like Work Choice should be seamlessly integrated. Iain Duncan Smith’s aspiration to reform the WCA to get more disabled people into work could be the perfect vehicle for achieving this. Work Choice has much better outcomes for disabled people than the Work Programme; surely it makes sense to put everyone with limited capability for work on a specialist scheme.

The only coherent solution is to refer everyone in the  ESA WRAG automatically to Work Choice, and if Work Choice providers believe they can’t be supported into work within 24 months they should be placed in the ESA Support Group.

Otherwise we are saying that some people are too disabled to be worth investing in with specialist support, so instead we will beat them with a stick and cut their income to the bone.


  1. dismissed for misconduct over a Batmancomic after disclosing I'd suffered from depression


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sickness and the Social Model of Disability

This is the first part in a series of blog posts that will explore the uneasy relationship between chronic illness and the social model of disability. From my perspective as a Sick person (more on that controversial word next time) I will explore why people with chronic illness often feel excluded from the Disability Rights Movement (DRM) that emerged out of the social model. But rather than reject the social model I’ll discuss how we, the Sick community, could claim it for ourselves and what a social model of chronic illness would look like. The crucial distinction between impairment and disability lies at the heart of the revolutionary Social Model of Disability that emerged in the 1970s – the model that underpins the disability rights and independent living movements. To paraphrase it simply, impairment is loss of bodily function, whereas disability is disadvantage imposed upon people with impairments due to hostile social attitudes or inaccessible physical environments. 

The politics of stigma with ME/CFS

Last month my “shocking” report with Action for ME, Close to Collapse was released, showing the massive failure of the UK social care system to meet the needs of people with the chronic illness ME (otherwise known by the dreadful term Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) For anyone new to M.E., forget the implication that we’re just “tired all the time”. ME is extremely debilitating, both physically and mentally. In fact, research shows the ME patient population has lower scores for physical function and quality of life of any chronic disease group . So 97% of the 850 people with ME who took my survey needed help with 2 or more activities of daily living like going to the toilet, dressing or getting to a local shop. In terms of the Care Act, this means they met the main threshold of eligibility for social care in England.  Yet only 6% were receiving a social care package.  The news was not “shocking” to the ME community. Neglect, lack of support and even hostility from healt

The future of assessments and social security for disabled people

This is a slightly edited version of notes for a presentation to the ESA roundtable meeting chaired by John McDonnell MP on 29th November 2018. The content is based on previous research work with Spartacus Network, independent research into ESA and the WRAG, research on Access to Work, as well as current research with the Chronic Illness Inclusion Project. The current benefits system was identified as the biggest source of social oppression faced by CIIP participants. We recently completed focus group on designing better social security for people with energy-limiting chronic illness. Introduction The first part of this presentation is four main principles for a new assessment framework. A set of tests that any new system must meet if it is to restore the Human Rights of disabled people. The second part covers points for further discussion. Highlighting areas of current debate and disagreement. Principles 1: Overturn the ideology behind the Hostile Environment, restore digni