It would be interesting to hear peoples’ views about the DWP/LGA proposals for Link-Age services. See www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2004/linkage/ and Rightsnet news item of 26th August. It is clear from the Link-Age document and the associated web based information about joint teams and Associated Offices that the DWP see the implementation of joint advice teams with local authorities as part of a much bigger scheme. I am also aware that the Association of London Government is very supportive of joint teams.

My self and otehr advice workers have serious reservations about joint teams, yet it feels like there has been little public debate in the advice world about the hazards. While only something like 11 or 12 local authorities currently have joint teams with the DWP, they are clearly continuing to push them as the only way forward and they offer some initially attractive aspects – the alleged simplification for customers only having to provide information once. Surely it’s time for us to lobby against these developments? Where will this all end?

In my view the case against joint teams can be summarised under the following headings:

Hazards to local authorities:

· Not all LAs operate Fairer Charging
· The LA becomes associated with DWP services and any failings
· It becomes difficult for LA staff to actively challenge negative decisions or poor practices – there will be at least a subtle organisational pressure against active advocacy involving a partner body
· DWP staff are not CRB checked – unlike LA Social Services staff who visit the public
· DWP and LA staff have very different conditions of service – a recipe for conflict and an increased pay bill for LAs
· Joint teams require yet another layer of bureaucracy in the shape of a joint board. This also has implications for the further erosion of LA independence. Even if joint teams were a good idea, LAs need another joint board like they need a hole in the head.
· Joint teams are not a one- stop service because PC is administered regionally, AA/DLA elsewhere and CA in yet another place. Customers will still get multiple requests to provide information to different places. If an appeal is needed customers have to go elsewhere and advice on less common benefit issues will also have to go elsewhere (the national DWP/LGA Accord sys DWP staff will only give general advice about benefits other than PC – what use is this?
· It may be unlawful for DWP to administer charges – do LAs want to risk a legal challenge to the validity of their charging scheme?
· What about advice for people under 60?
· There will not be independent audit and quality assurance of joint teams unlike in-house welfare rights service and voluntary bodies who normally have the CLS Quality Mark and other quality management systems
· LA staff will have to carry out DWP functions – notifying about benefit overpayments, communicating about benefit refusals. If nothing else many LA staff don’t want to do this and LAs will be associated with the bad news that DWP frequently have to communicate. This won’t help public perception of LAs one iota

Hazards to customers

· Advice on benefits is not value free and inevitably, even the most enlightened and well meaning DWP employee will be bound by the DWP policy and interpretation of matters such as overpayments, marginal entitlement to AA/DLA, notional capital, etc, etc.
· Evidence shows that many PS staff are insufficiently skilled to advise to a high enough standard.
· Joint teams will be targeting a small section of older people. The dynamics and LA priorities inevitably mean that the wider group who miss out on benefits will be ignored.
· Joint teams are not a one-stop service – see above.

Hazards to advice agencies

· Some LAs have already merged welfare rights resources into joint teams.
· It is going to be very difficult for LAs to justify spending on advice services when DWP are offering to do so for free. While the DWP and LGA intention is not to reduce spending on advice bodies, the reality of the immense pressure to control local authority finances means that cuts will occur and the rationale will be given that a joint team is doing it for less (i.e. it is Best Value). Anyone who has every worked in a local authority will know that such an arguments are used by senior managers and councillors to justify difficult decisions.
· Some LAs are already reviewing grants to voluntary bodies because of joint teams and requiring them to change their focus.

I’d be interested in hearing other peoples’ views and also what lobbying is being proposed against these poorly thought-out proposals.

Agree with the concerns that you raise. DWP figures show that there are apparently 12/13 JTs operating already, although there is some scepticism about these figures. The rumour is that the DWP aims is to have a 100 operating by the end of the year. NAWRA is attempting to put together a response to the proposals, and there has been some discussion within the NAWRA Steering Group.

Hi Jim

Is there any progress on NAWRA response to joint team proposals. Meetings are going ahead between Southwark and the Pension Service with a view to setting up a joint team in the borough. Welfare Rights Unit share Neil's concerns. It would be useful to have NAWRA's responce and to know what's happening about this in other welfare rights units.

I understand that where teams are up and running - or are about to be - the actual teams are made up of Social Services Fairer charging assessors and DWP staff - welfare rights teams are not part of the set up, primarily for the reason that they would otherwise lose their independence and freedom to act for the client up to whatever level necessary.

I have never seen the sense in Pension Service assisting with claims for Benefits such as AA which they cannot follow through to recon and appeal etc. Any welfare Rights team which does allow itself to become part of a joint team therefore will find themselves being reduced to little more than general advisers and form fillers.

ps: these are my views and not necessarily those of my LA......

Yes most (not all) Joint Teams consist of Fairer Charging & PS staff. But the DWP "vision" in the joint DWP LGA Link-Age document is for many other LA staff (including WR staff) to be in the Joint Teams. The document makes no mention of the need for independent benefits advice nor for the case for a mixed economy of advice services.

We really could do with some active opposition to these proposals.

If nothing else, given the 20% staff cuts in the PS, is it wise for LAs to be taking on board PS benefit verification and related functions?

Kathy

'Is there any progress on NAWRA response...' The short answer to your question is probably 'very little'. There have been some general discussions at NAWRA meetings about JT, and I seem to recall a workshop at some point in the past. It was raised again recently among members of the Steering Group, and I think it's fair to say that we weren't sure how to respond e.g. should we consult all the members? should we make it a focus of discussion at a future meeting? should the Steering Group draw up a response for consultation with the membership? There is a Steering Group meeting on October 26th at which these issues will be discussed. When we arrive at a considered response we then have to decide how to communicate it to members and if we are doing that for information or consultation.

I have been concerned about the joint team agenda for quite a while now. One of the problems is that it seems such a logical move forward to those who believe that assessing benefit entitlement can be reduced to a series of 'ticked boxes'.

Many welfare rights services have become vulnerable (especially those in local authorities) and many more are likely to become vulnerable in the near future unless some clear messages are sent to DWP/LGA. If welfare rights services are not allowed to remain clearly seperate from benefit administrators/decision makers, then there are implications for access to, and the development of, social justice.

The DWP clearly want to make the case that, if they can improve their processes, then there will be no need for advice services. This will leave them free to cut local services and transfer their functions to joint teams and 'alternative offices'. It shouldn't be too difficult for them to show that this has been a success since there will be fewer appeals (caused by the fact that there are so few representatives left rather than the fact that there is no longer a dispute about entitlement!).

The original Third Age proposals from Mark Stone in 2003 included a vision of joint teams which included Welfare Rights teams. Just the mere inclusion of such an idea showed at the time that the DWP had little real idea of the difference between someone who just helps clients complete claim forms, and a Welfare Rights specialist. As I recall, the final version envisaged welfare rights teams working alongside of a joint team, but not actually members of it.

This is the way that I gather some Authorities are going - their social services financial home care assessors and PC local team officers will make up the teams, with their welfare rights workers maintaining their "independence".

However, when you ignore all the hype etc, and look at exactly what these teams will be able to do, then you do wonder whether (a) they are going to be cost effective and (b) whether they are going to have a limited shelf life. Their biggest failing is the fact that they have a limited captive audience - those clients who recieve services from Social Services.

The Local PC service talk about being more than willing to help clients with completing AA and DLA (60 to 65) claims, as they now apparently consider these as part of their "core" business. What they cannot do is any follow up work in the form of Recons and appeals - and one must question their how up to date their knowledge is of case law.

We have asked the local Service if they would refer a client who has notified them that their AA/DLA application has been turned down: the stock answer seems to be that they don't get many anyway: no straight answer to the question. You get the impression that for PS to refer anything to an outside agency would be against their religion/ethics/moral code.

"The DWP clearly want to make the case that, if they can improve their processes, then there will be no need for advice services".

The only way the DWP can improve their processes to the point where there will be no necessity for Welfare rights services is to improve out of all recognition the standard of decision making. The success rate of representatives at reconsideration and Appeal levels, particularly in AA & DLA cases, in the past decade speaks for itself.

We would be reasonably happy to work with DWP, just as we are to work with any other voluntary or statutory Agency - but in the case of PS, it seems that they expect the traffic to be travelling in one direction only.

Mike

Note: Any views expressed are personal, and do not necessarily reflect any official view or policy of the Authority.