Page 60 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making
P. 60

found  that  the  trial  did  not  impact  on  the  quality  of  evidence  provided  by
               claimants. 160  Based on the findings of this trial the DWP stated that it would
               not implement the changes proposed by the Select Committee. 161  However, it
               is important to note that:


               a)  The trial did have an impact on the quality of evidence initially provided
                   by  work  coaches  and  the  evaluation  recommended  reviewing  the
                   procedures for referral of sanction decisions from the work coach to the
                   decision-maker.
               b)  There was variability in the role of work coaches and the extent to which
                   they supported claimants in gathering evidence as well as variability in
                   the  extent  to  which  decision-makers  engaged  with  claimants  (for
                   example via verbally gathering evidence).
               c)  Staff felt that they could have benefited from more time to prepare and
                   more resources to deliver the trial.
               d)  Some claimants felt that the 14 days might not be sufficient to provide
                   some  forms  of  evidence,  for  example,  from  GPs,  hospitals  or  former
                   employers.
               e)  Claimants  were  not  aware  of  the  range  of  good  reasons  against  a
                   sanction,  were  not  always  aware  of  how  to  provide  evidence  and  said
                   they  had  little  understanding  of  their  claimant  commitment.  Claimants
                   with medium or high support needs would have been unlikely to be able
                   to provide compelling evidence without assistance.

          2.75  Given the severe impact that sanctions can have on claimants’ lives, we agree
               that  there is  value  in  providing  claimants  with an  additional  opportunity to
               explain  their  reason  for  noncompliance.  We  therefore  recommend  that  a
               further  pilot  and  evaluation  of  an  ‘early  warning  system’  should  be
               carried out. This time, claimants should be provided with more than 14
               days  to  provide  further  evidence,  claimants  should  be  made  aware  of
               what a ‘good reason’ might be and what appropriate evidence might look
               like, and the DWP should ensure that communication with the claimant


          160  Government Social Research and the DWP, Jobseeker’s Allowance: Sanctions Early Warning Trial
          (2018).
          161  Work and Pensions Committee, Benefits sanctions: Government Response (see n. 155 above) para
          89.


          51
   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65