Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is a lifeline for many people with an additional support need. It is not an employment related welfare provision, instead it is ‘assistance payment’ to help people with a disability continue their daily lives and cover the financial cost of extremities placed on them in the environment we live in. To many, it is a brilliant resource and I consider it to be one of the better items of public welfare support.
The recent Coalition Government ‘Emergency Budget’ announced greater measures of medical assessment for DLA claimants, and in a classic case of a clash of belief and political expression a lot of debate has come out of the woodwork as to the impact of this proposal. For me they have taken the wrong viewpoint to suggest that flouters are a drag on government spending, instead the so called ‘flouters’ are placing disadvantage (in many ways) on other DLA claimants. I read with much interest two articles in the Guardian by Anne Wollenberg (23 Jun 2010) and Rhydian Fon James (24 Jun 2010) covering this issue. Anne claims that DLA application is not easy, partially to which I agree. The forms are a mass sprawl of idiotic questions (for example, “if you regularly stumble or fall, how many times approximately have you done so in the past year?”), but the key issue I have is a method of a form itself. The majority of individuals are honest, but a form allows for exploitation, and equally not every claimant of DLA necessarily has to keep on the same level of payment and there is the opportunity to declare change of circumstances. But it can often be difficult to see this level of honesty among claimants.
To those who fear that an assessment will kill off chances of receiving DLA for hidden disabilities, I partly share your concern, but see my comments about the assessment professional. What the form also does is include questions that deliberately make claimants think to dramatise their situation, or at least you get the feeling that people must be heightening their case just to be listened. After all, with a high rejection rate, people will resort to advanced actions. I detest this about forms and questionnaires in general, in many fields of work. They are so badly formatted, judged and written. In the case of DLA this can mean that the ‘possibly deserving’ can be crowded out, the crafty can get through, and the noticeably deserved get through as well albeit sometimes not as highly as envisaged. I want to see this change. I want greater levels of DLA rates.
You cannot ignore the fraudulent applications, plus as I suspect more ‘geared’ applications, as they are a major injustice for other people with a disability as money is being taken ‘out of the pot’ for them by claimants who have either exaggerated their claim or have vastly improved health and support in other means that would comply with a lower rate of DLA payment. I’m not interested in the argument that it is affecting government spending, the theme the coalition has taken. I am purely discussing the effect one’s actions can have on other people because that is what I am passionate about in the concerns of my work. It is a case of biting the hands that feed you and really disheartens me. It does go on, and I’m sure you might read this and be sick of hearing about this kind of viewpoint, but I am sick of taking a blind eye to it. From experience it actually makes ‘striving for equality’ and ‘mobilising the non-disabled population’ more difficult if you profess the insignificance of flouting the system, as it incites more anger and against the minority of flouters, and in turn against disabled people in a lot of cases. It sadly is a revolving circle. This is not codswallop, I have seen it when working with the student body, working population alike.
With this into consideration a medical assessment should be appropriate for medium and higher rates of DLA, besides what have we got to hide? The only issue I concede to have is that certain people would be anxious to being assessed, but it comes as part and parcel of applying for support and needing to be consulted on the matter. I have spent a lot of time working on customer service principles, advisory services and counselling and the three combined would have to be in place at the assessment stage to support personal indifferences in making the appointment to be ‘examined’, ‘discussed’ and ‘briefed’.
The second article considers DWP monitoring into fraudulent applications, to which I have a degree of difficulty agreeing with, as it depends on how far the term ‘fraudulent’ extends, and I am unsure whether the DWP only includes in those figures people who aren’t disabled yet are claiming for DLA. “All for the sake of 15,500 fraudsters –who are likely to have been put on the lowest possible rates in any case – the entire caseload will be punished.” Firstly, the lowest rate is still a significant amount of money, again taking it from others in greater need of the DLA, others in the queue of applications who are delayed by that person dramatising their case.
Where this DLA situation comes in with the ‘marginalisation’ of disabled people is a tricky one, because I firmly believe that if you are applying for a financial support (in the same way as for a financial incentive, of which DLA is not one), you have to verify your position first. In a similar scenario, I strongly condemned the ease at which banks were able to lend out money to people without effective verification as to their financial standing before the recession took hold. I don’t believe in flinging money out without evidence based verification.
In an ideal scenario I would propose that added tiers be placed in the DLA system, rather than a simple ‘low, medium, high’ format, it should be done as ‘zones 1-5’. A new lower rate (zone 1) of a smaller financial quantity and regular assessments should be tied in to look at whether your support needs are maintained, advancing/progressing or in some cases improving. Additionally the existing lower rate would be retained as Zone 2 similar in financial value and more applicants be reassessed onto this rate where it is clear their means suit this level, and the medium and top rates increased in value (zones 3 and 4) but the criteria amended so that greater scrutiny is given before these grades can be selected for claimants. A new Zone 5 system for the very highest needs should be introduced to serve the existing claimants with high or sensitive support needs that the current DLA does not cater for fully, for example to cover the costs of a lack of social care. In my opinion, this system would still provide value for money and directing the support to those who need it the most, while reassessing claimants who have had a change in circumstances that means even the current low rate is a higher proportion of money to their needs arising from the costs of their condition.
I dismiss the idea that a set ‘rate’ of DLA continually is a right to people, but agree that a rate variable to need is. When the extremities of a condition ensures that a person cannot lead their life properly, it is a right to have the government on side to necessitate that life change financially. But it has to be appropriate to living within people’s means.
I would like to see greater clarification and legislation on what the Disability Living Allowance should be paid for, for example, but only in a proportion of a claimants payments. I see no problem in having to comply on certain basic rules for an allowance I am receiving from the state and not having to pay back. Surely this is an item of fairness?
The professional that should be an assessor should not be the computerised call centre operative. It should be an experienced person with background in both the medical and social model of disability. Regardless of your opinion on either, it is imperative they have clear knowledge of the two. I would detest a situation whereby DLA applicants are assessed in the robotic way that the likes of Student Finance England operate. Could the Disabled Students Allowance (DSA) assessment process, despite its sometimes lesss than savvy procedures, be carried over? I’ll leave that for you to decide.
There is little money left, aside from the age old debate of War and Trident scheme costs and the idea we could pull out of the Middle East tomorrow, and pay for things like this, which I don’t want to be entangled. I would ideally love to see DLA budgets remain at the same rate, but instead I have proclaimed these ideas to highlight that a redistribution of funds is needed instead and savings would only be made at the lower end of the claimant scale. It is unfair to directly hit those of greatest need. I do consider DLA as a welfare payment that can achieve savings, but that the rhetoric of ‘scroungers’ affecting the government financial bill is the wrong way forward. Instead I profess that it is they and a government ambiguity as to what DLA stands for who are spoiling the environment DLA brings to disabled people. I consider that the internal distribution of DLA funds should be changed to push funding towards those assessed in 2013-14 to be in the greatest need, and a new zonal system launched for claimants with slightly more stringent criteria. Even a DLA payment that is £10 above what a person’s needs (multiplied for many people in similar position) can be a substantial cost and instead of total withdrawal of state spending this should be redirected to higher zone claimant provision.
All I ask for is honesty – to downgrade when appropriate, upgrade when appropriate, and for a greater proportion of the allowance to be directed at given uses. I also ask for the government not to be unwise in determining who should be the assessor and what background they should have. In any case, they should be extremely aware of different disabilities and the environments forming the social and medical models of disability (pros and cons of either). I also ask the Government to be aware that it will be nigh on impossible without a high level of expertise in the assessment process to provide DLA in the correct amounts effectively.
Please appreciate that my post is not going to be for everybody to agree on, but in the interests of working to mobilise people to reduce prejudice it is hard to exercise that any financial welfare, DLA included, or indeed a financial contribution/payment in any industry should be given without a better method of verification.
Thanks for looking,
Chris
Chrisadvisor 