Lots of new civil service posts.

Remember that Gordon Brown wanted to drop 100,000 posts from the civil service to save money? At the job centre we've just received details of some vacancies, at the Department of Constitutional Affairs.
What are these vacancies?
Executive Officer, pay rate £8.94
Administration Officer, pay rate £7.89
Administration Assistant, pay rate £6.83.
How many vacancies?
No figure is given, but there are sixteen sites listed, where people are needed.
Of course, they might be only temporary jobs, as the advert goes on to state that the minimum commitment (from the job seeker) is three months, but we don't know that for sure.
So why say that 100,000 jobs must go? Is it possible that the government are trying to fiddle the figures? Three people in my job centre took voluntary early release last month. Why not use them, and others taking VER for these DCA posts? This way, the tax-payer's having to fork out twice. Where's the sense in that?

Benefit differences.

If you have been on a means tested benefit for at least 26 weeks, you can expect some perks when you do succeed in getting a permanent job. A job grant, worth £250 if you have children and £100 if you don't is paid to you.
If you have been getting Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit these may continue for four weeks after you have started work, to tide you over until you receive your first pay packet. In some cases, Income Support may continue for two weeks when you are actually working, for the same reason. Income Support, remember, is a non-contributory benefit. If you've paid nothing into the system, you can get IS.
But what if you've been getting Incapacity Benefit? This is a contributory benefit. If you've never worked, you don't get it. However, if you're on IB, when you start work again there's no job grant for you, and no HB and CTB run-on.
I interviewed a claimant who had had a stroke, and wanted to do a college course to make himself more employable. (He was no longer able to do the job he'd had before the stroke, so wanted to retrain for something else). If he'd been on IS, he'd have got a reduction in the fees. As he was on IB, he had to pay the full amount. Or rather he didn't, as he couldn't afford it. So he never went to college, and was unable to make himself more employable.
Things like free prescriptions are also not available if you're on a contributory benefit.
Of course, if you're on IB it isn't means-tested, so you can have £5o,ooo.oo bank and still get it. However, not many of our claimants have much money in the bank, and if they did, it wouldn't last long if they were trying to live on IB.

Happy New Year

During the two days between Christmas and the New Year, we were supposed to offer a full service to the public. That's a laugh! We were very short-staffed, (due to so many people taking two weeks off) and those of us who were in spent most of our time standing around and chatting, except for my computer game playing colleague, who was single-handedly saving the earth from invasion by enemy aliens. To be fair, we were not very busy, as we didn't get many claimants in. People have better things to do than look for work at this time of the year!
One enraged claimant, on the phone to our processing centre, (which is in Wales, a nice long distance away) actually tore the phone off the wall and hurled it across the room. He had no money and nowhere to go, he said, and was still screaming and shouting when the police arrived to take him away. The processing centre had a reduced service as well, and he had even more trouble than usual getting through. No doubt the repeated message: 'You are held in a queue, and will be transferred to the next available adviser' annoyed him. At least the centre doesn't have the nerve to state: 'Your call is important to us' in the automated message.
Our job centre employs more than one hundred people. Is it necessary to employ so many? Well, claimants who genuinely wish to find work, (and they are many) will come in, look through our job points, select a job they fancy and ring the employer on one of our free phones to arrange an interview. They need no intervention from us at all. Those who want to enquire about their claim, or make a new claim, need to ring the processing centre. We do at present have an enquiry desk so officers can look up claims, but this facility is to be wound up.
What about advisers? New Deal is a period of intensive job search for those who have trouble finding work. It sounds good, until you consider that some people, particularly the young, (18-24) have been on New Deal several times. Our New Deal 18-24 advisers often lament this fact, but some of the young people are simply unemployable. Good results do sometimes come, however, from New Deal 50+ (for those over 50, obvious really) and New Deal for the Disabled, as the members of these two groups seem to be more committed to finding employment. It's fair to say, I think, that anyone who really wants to work will find something, especially in London. But I should think that the number of advisers could be easily halved (although I'm shooting myself in the foot here).
What about signing claimants on? This is a necessary procedure, although it can be, and has been done over the phone, (not a good thing to do, to my mind. I've signed claimants on by phone with a great deal of noise in the background. To me, it sounded exactly like a building site, although no-one could possibly be working and claiming, could they? The very idea!) Only six or seven officers comprise the signing on team, however.
Then there are those who check the claimant's documents, (passports, birth certificates etc) and
that is vital, but again it is a very small team.
The management wants to reduce 'footfall' which is the amount of people coming in to the job centre. They want to see only those with appointments, and those wishing to look for a job, so we'll have even less to do. One thing the management does want to encourage though is - targets! We get points if we put someone forward for a job or a training course. Naturally, they often don't attend the training, and then the training provider is supposed to let us know so we can stop the benefit. (Training providers are also paid by the goverment, meaning taxpayer). But do they? On Friday I had a visit from an indignant claimant who had wanted to go on a course to learn computer skills who told me that he had gone there, as arranged, every day for a fortnight, and hadn't as yet met his teacher. Could some of these providers be taking money under false pretences? Perish the thought!

The right to claim?

I am sitting opposite a customer who claimed asylum five years ago (from Eritrea). Someone with the status of asylum seeker is not allowed to claim benefits, but applies to the local authority for support. After this particular claim for asylum was investigated, the customer was awarded 'exceptional leave to remain.' This means, in effect, that 'we do not believe that you were persecuted in your country of origin, but for humanitarian reasons we will allow you to remain here for a period of time.' ELTR is usually given for a period of four years, after which the customer must apply for 'indefinite leave to remain.' This is very rarely refused. When given ILTR, they are subject to the same conditions of entitlement for the claiming of benefit as the rest of us. Or are they?
This particular customer had been claiming Income Support as a sick person since August 2005. Their ELTR had expired on 23/07/06. So why were they still receiving benefit on 03/01/07? Because they had produced a solicitor's letter stating that they had applied for ILTR. Without wishing to malign solicitors in general (well, it wouldn't bother me that much if I did) is a letter from one of them really enough to convince us that someone is entitled to taxpayer's money? Surely we should always insist on seeing original Home Office documents, to see if a non-EU customer has a right to claim benefits, shouldn't we? After all, how difficult can it be to fake such a letter? And when I did my training, (yes, a long time ago) we were always told, 'No official immigration status, no benefits.
Why don't we check with the Home office in such cases? First of all, the Home Office is always busy, and it's sometimes impossible to phone them, or get them to answer a fax. Secondly, it's up to the customer to prove they're entitled to benefit, or so I always thought. Obviously, I was wrong. How many more cases like this? I dread to think. But however many there are, no one will be brought to account for it. Nobody ever is. It would be a lot easier if our computers were linked with those of the Home Office, to enable us to check on things like that. Unless, of course, they asked EDS to link us up.

Employment Therapy

In the afternoon, I attend a meeting of a local community group, which aims to help the disadvantaged through 'dance, theatre and music.' When I arrive at the venue, a friendly receptionist shows me to a room where about 16 people are sitting in a circle, in front of a blackboard on which is written 'Therapy Group.' Seeing this, I think for one awful moment that we will all have to sit and talk about our emotions, but luckily I am only required to talk about the benefits of going into employment. I am introduced by a woman with a very posh voice, who proceeds to talk down to all of us (I don't know if the group members feel patronised, but I certainly do) and who actually says: 'Isn't it nice for us to have Annette here?'

Trying not to laugh, I give my usual talk about what the job centre can do to help as many as possible to obtain employment, and then invite questions. I am, as always, beseiged by questions about individual benefit problems. One man insists that the job centre owes him some money from six years ago, and actually pulls from his pocket records of every single payment he has ever had. Gasping, I point out that the only way I can answer these queries is for the person to come into the job centre, so I can look up their records on the computer. I advise him when to come into the office (on a day that I won't be there, I'm determined not to get stuck with that one) and pretend not to hear when he starts complaining about how the CAB haven't helped him at all, and neither have the law centre, and he's tried several times to see his MP, but she never seems to be available, (very sensible of her).

The next few questions are of the 'why does my friend/brother/neighbour get more benefit money than I do?' variety, so I refer them to the previous answer. Then someone wants to know if you can still get housing benefit when you are in full time employment, and on being informed that you can if you are earning a low wage, asks me if I can get him a job as a sound engineer. I inform him that a great many young people wish to work in that field, and invite him to tell the group how he thinks he would go about it, and what qualifications he would need. He looks at me with the gormless open-mouthed stare, he hasn't thought about it at all, he just likes the sound of the job. Did he get no careers advice at school, I ask him? This seems to annoy him, and he gets up and walks out, slamming the door loudly. The posh-voiced woman apologises to me, saying that Duwayne (at least I think that's the name although I might have got it wrong) has always been difficult.

What is wrong with Duwayne and a great many more is that they expect to be spoon fed. This is partly the fault of the benefit system, and the industry that has grown up around it, because we do spoon feed people, and have done for a long time. Why would anyone bother to do anything for themselves when they can sit back and have it done for them? What is needed is a complete overhaul of the benefit system, so that there would not be a choice between work and claiming, and no one would be in the ridiculous situation where they would be better off if they did not work. Frank Field MP was given this job, and was told to 'think the unthinkable,' and when he did, he was sacked.

The Processing Centre

I visit one of our processing centres this morning, as I need to brush up on certain aspects of claim processing. (I haven't worked on processing for a long time.)

When someone makes a claim for benefit, they need to dial the contact centre on a freephone number. That is, it is free from a landline, but if you dial from a mobile, there may be a charge. This is an 'inbound call.' The operator determines which benefit you want to claim, tells you what documents you need to make the claim, and then sets a time to call you back, an 'outbound call.' When they call you back, (if they ever do), the claim is made, with the operator asking the questions on the claim form and entering your answers directly into the computer.

The full claim form or BID (benefit input document) is then sent through to the processing centre. This is supposed to occur on our computers as the result of an electronic 'push.' About half our 'pushes' fail, so the BID is sent to processing by courier. (I think the computer programming was done by EDS).

After the claim is made, an appointment is made for the customer by the contact centre at their nearest job centre, to which they are told to take their documentation to be checked by us. How long does it take to process a claim? At the moment there is an official backlog of up to six weeks, although I do know someone who's been waiting since February, (it's now December).

When I walk into the processing centre, I see piles of BIDs everywhere, piled up on the desks, on spare chairs, even on the floor. I have to remove a heap of them before I can sit down and drink my first cup of tea of the day. Then there is a little light gossip, mostly revolving around last night's TV, and finally the processors get down to the serious business of handing out Christmas cards.

How many people work in a processing centre? In this one, about half. The rest make cups of tea, chat, read newspapers and surf the Internet. The well-known gambit of walking to and fro with a clipboard is much in use here. A frazzled young man staggers in from the post room with another pile of claims, and is told to 'stick them in that cupboard there.' He protests that the cupboard is already full, and is instructed to 'just shove them in somehow, don't worry about it.'

I admire the new information technology, and wander round the centre, chatting to people I know. In one corner, a fierce argument is going on between several people as to whether full time students are able to claim Income Support. Each of the participants has a different opinion, and each is convinced that theirs is the correct one. There are more than fifty different benefits, and the benefits system is so complex that situations like this often develop. I think they should just ask the claimants, as they know all the answers. (A full time student can claim Income Support, if they are a 'prescribed category of person' such as a lone parent). I sit down to listen to the arguing, but contribute nothing, as it's best never to admit you know something. You may end up having to do it.

Drug addicts.

When I first joined the DWP, I was amazed to discover that drug addicts and alcoholics were treated as though they were ill, and paid Income Support accordingly. I had the vague idea that these conditions were self-inflicted, but obviously I was wrong. I'll admit straight away that I don't drink, never have and never will, because I just don't like alcohol. (Yes, I am actually English, hard to believe though that may be). To me, alcohol tastes just like disinfectant smells. When I was young, I'd sit in the pub pretending to enjoy gin and orange, or vodka and lime, but now I don't pretend any more, and I'd much prefer a nice cup of tea. As for drugs, I was a teenager in the seventies, but we tended not to get many illegal substances at the church youth club. So, it's hard for me to understand why people become alcoholics or drug addicts, and even harder to understand why the tax payer has to fork out to support them. Perhaps I'm unreasonably harsh, I don't know.

Not far from the job centre is a chemist with a 'clean needle exchange.' Addicts can go there, receive fresh needles and inject their drug in a little room at the back. Here also, addicts who are trying to come off heroin with a 'methadone script', (a prescription of methadone, which is a substitute for heroin, from a doctor), get their legal methadone dose in a small glass, and have to swallow it in front of the pharmacist, in case they sell it to buy heroin. (Sometimes they sell it after they've swallowed it, and then it's called 'spit meths.' Think about it, or maybe you prefer not to. Very wise.) I do realise that HIV and other unpleasant conditions are spread by addicts sharing needles, so I suppose places like that are a good thing. Would it be a good thing to legalise drugs altogether? I'm not sure about that. Since at least half the crime in Britain is drug-related, and ensuring a clean, legal supply of drugs would put a stop to a great deal of this, it might be a good idea. However, the poor old tax payer would have to pay up yet again.

Drug addicts who come into the job centre are, frankly, frightening. It is mostly they who 'kick off,' that is shout, scream, and sometimes even try to attack us, or do actually attack us, when they have not received their money, usually because they have not complied with a condition of their benefit. Nearly everyone else can be reasoned with, but not junkies. It's as if the desire for the drug takes them over to such an extent that there's no human being left.

But then, if they were not on benefits, what would happen to them? They often come to us as a last resort, after having lost their job, (if they ever had one) their home, (not so much through not paying rent, because there is housing benefit, but residents are sometimes evicted from public housing if their home becomes known as a drug den) and often, if female, their children, who have been taken into care by Social Services. I remember talking to a 28 year old man who had never had a job since he left school at 16, because he'd been on drugs all that time. He'd made several attempts to come off them, and failed each time. Moving from Glasgow to London to try yet again, he'd fallen into conversation with someone at King's Cross station, and Bob's your uncle. I asked him 'Why do you keep doing this to yourself?' and the answer I got was: 'Why not?'

Should they be put forcibly into detox as a condition of receiving benefit? While I consider that idea to have some merit, there are those who say that detox will not work unless the person really wants to come off their drug. (I can't see why they wouldn't to come off, actually). But supposing that to be true, all we are doing is just paying them to be junkies. As for those prisoners who recently won compensation for being being taken forcibly off their drug when sent to prison, (going to prison is an entirely voluntary act, by the way), all I can say is 'What are we like?)

I used to have a friend who worked in a detox unit, and got myself invited to a meeting there, on the grounds that it would help me in my dealings with addicts at work. (I actually just wanted to see what went on there). At the meeting, a young woman told us that she had been a prostitute to fund her habit. She said that it was either that, or stealing to pay for her drug, and went on to state how hard it was giving up, and that the best solution to drug addiction would be somewhere people could go to obtain a free, safe supply, and help to come off 'when they were quite ready to do so.' Unable to keep quiet, I said that an even better solution would be not to start taking drugs in the first place, and that's why my friend is no longer my friend. She said that people take drugs to blot out the pain of their unbearable lives, to forget problems such as homelessness. I said that when I was homeless I didn't start taking drugs, on the grounds that I had enough problems already without that, and she's never spoken to me again.