Supporting disbaled people unsustainable?

[SantasMooningArse]

here

I hate this sort of uncertainty. I have trained part and full time for seven years now alongside two disabled kids to get to the point where I was hoping to train in social work in 2013- but if DLA vaniushes it will be unaffordable. I feel we have lived up to every Tory ideal, battling redundancy, my DH's illness and the boy's SN with constant battles to get back on line, and now I think I might just give up after all- can;t train until thenas no childcare means DH must be working from home to care and he dosn;t qualify until then, and we will need to move and cannot do so with the SNU realistically until 2013 (a SW trained where we are in Wales cannot practice in England but we need to get back to family badly for support and help, both for them as they age and us as we try and fit in work).

Working in tesco woudln't ever cover the huge costs of disability childcare.

I acknowledge that this is a left wing article, there's a thread on this in SN with a less reactionary letter from teh NAS C&P's to it, but is this how big society was meant to work? Sorry disabled people, there's no money- saldy when it comes to ds3 there's no cure either- can I never afford to die then? Will there be any care left for him?

I know pk

last time dwp gave stats for fraud they lumped it in with pre-change esa figures- which everyone knows was a big problem. DLA though- the only people that fraudulently claim that are those who don;t declare a cure (new system won;t tackle that) or the professional fraudsters who will find ways anyway so the 20% becomes the innocents

The 20% figure will not be set in stone, it will just be guide for the treasury

A guide for how many they expect/hope to get off DLA though uyter, and I think we can assume they intend to aim for that figure.

Targets are a real thing. I'm not sure of the precise relationship between high-level targets like this random "20%", and the lower-level ones used to set the contracts with the private companies that deliver the "make-'em-work" programmes (or "hassle" for the disabled, as David Freud described it).

But they certainly have a day to day impact on the targetees. Here's what happens wrt Incapacity Benefit/ Employment Support Allowance:

"All prime providers set internal job outcome targets for advisers which had been lowered due to the impacts of the recession on their achievability. However, targets were still felt to be unrealistic," p4

"The influence of the outcome-based contract was highly evident in the operations and delivery of PL Pathways. All stakeholders felt that the contract was shaping the nature and extent of the Pathways support. A division of services emerged whereby prime providers served those customers who were considered more likely to enter work, while partner agencies attended to the not directly work-related needs of customers who were not immediately ready for employment." p3
"The influence of outcome-based contracting on Provider-led Pathways to Work", 2010, Policy Studies Institute on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions

(? a "job-outcome" = targetee got a job within 6 wks of the 5 mandatory Work-Focussed Interviews
? "sustained job-outcome" = targetee worked 16 hrs/wk for at least 13 of the previous 26 weeks.
The contractor need not have been involved in the job-hunting, disability adaptation or anything, to be paid.)

The JobCentres also have targets, but my subscription to Benefits and Work is playing up, so I can't at the moment check the "Confidential Jobcentre Plus Managers Updates" for the ongoing Job Outcome Targets.

Not sure the JOT's published there are broken down by benefit anyway, but the newsletters themselves are always a fun read.

I think the Government has to set targets so it can plan how to finance its programmes. Just because 20% has been set as the target it is far from guranteed that that will be that figure, it may be lower or higher.

"I think the Government has to set targets so it can plan how to finance its programmes"

Isn't that predict-and-provide?

Setting targets is a way of influencing outcomes: contractors and decision-makers are encouraged (financially or by exhortation) to take actions in order to "hit" the targets.

When this is something the targetee has control over (I must write all my Christmas cards by Monday), this can be useful. When the targetee has little or no control (I must have my neighbour write all her Christmas cards by Monday), it gets more problematic.

Cuts to the independent living fund

www.mirror.co.uk/news/health-news/2010/12/12/disabled-to-be-hit-by-cuts-to-independent-living-fund-115875-22778847/

That's it for cuts isnt it TIANC?

They cut the 20% and the 20% can do nothing. At all. They also get to save on carers for many of them too. the carer has the choice of abandoning teh cared for or extreme poverty (and I do eman extreme given that if they then don;t turn up to work for caring reasons they will cease to qualify for JSA etc).

In my experience of working in the disabled community as we ll as being part of it DLA has a huge problem with being under claimed not over. Sister and BIL almost lost their house recently when he had a potentially terminal illness (thankk god for the surgeons who manged the impossible- 32 yeras old with 2 kids) and sister worked every hour she could as well as cared for her kids as he was too weak.

Those 20% will catch a handful of fraudtsers if that; and many who are in need. At the same time as withdrawing other finance avenues (ILF, cold weather payments absed on DLA receipt) and the cuts will actively harm.

At least ds1 got his SNU palce today, gonna be ahrder for them toa rgue he has no issues when DLA comes up in June eh?

Government's own estimate for underclaiming of DLA is 40-60%, iirc (can't find source, but here are 2004 figures specifically for cancer sufferers. And remember cancer sufferers get what seems to be an automatic referral to disease-specific organisations like Macmillan, which advise about benefits and help with form-filling. So their claim rate should be higher than other conditions).

So pleased for you that DS1 got a place!

TIANC

I actually used to work for Macmillan, a fantastic charity offering amazing things- everybody should be made aware of their grant service JIC.

40% is disgusting; I know some people choose not to claima nd that's fair enough, we would not of there were any other options. But 40% should shame the government, not get it wanting to cut more.

I missed out on about five years of DLA - I was awarded it for two years, then it was refused on renewal despite no changes to my condition. I appealed but I was rejected I was woefully underprepared, I had no idea of the legal arguments I needed.

It took years for me to get up the confidence to re-apply, I was put off several times by various consultants who told me I wasn't really entitled (despite them having poor knowledge of welfare benefits and clearly confusing DLA with ESA) and that it was more damaging for me to claim as I would then 'see myself as disabled' .

I was finally awarded it again this year, at HRC and LRM. It's been awarded until 2015 but quite a lot of it is going towards repaying debts, as I had to pay out a lot during those years I wasn't getting anything at all; the costs of being disabled are high, and debt isn't cheap when you're on a low income.

And today:
'Independent Living Fund to be shut down by 2015
'Lord Morris, who was the first minister for the disabled, said: "This will not save money. If you make it harder for disabled people to live at home, it will cost more because more of them will have to be in hospitals and other places of full-time care.'

Thing is, I visited a few of the last hospitals becuase I started nursing just as they closed down and as a mass centre they cost far less per ehad than modern care: I honestly beleive the Government views community care (which they instigated to save money) as a failure and think they can save money by hoiking disabled people back in them if they can't work. No bloody chance!