Government's Welfare Reform and Disabled People - Book Report/Review Example

4. Criticisms: Benefit distribution Rather than spending the money on the sick and those with disabilities to provide support for them and their carers, the government is now going to use vary large amounts of it to sponsor programs that are designed to send these people to work. Some of them will not fare well with this, especially if they suffer from a fluctuating condition that causes them to feel well one day and be sick the next. It is these individuals that will fall through the cracks and be left out in the cold, as they will be considered hard to help clamance. They may be deemed unable to receive benefits, since they may not pass the new test that has been devised to see who can and cannot qualify because during the time they are tested, they may be feeling fine, which is not an accurate basis for determining whether or not they should be allowed to receive benefits. Should they fail the test, their lives could become disastrous as they will not have any income at all to provide for their needs. One good example of a government sponsored program that is designed for this purpose is a piloted program, known as Access to Work, which is put in place to help the mentally ill return to work and stay in work, as support will be provided should any problems arise with their conditions. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions James Parnell said that the cost for the support of the program has been doubled to 138 million. This is due to the government wanting to test out new methods that will provide help and support for those with mental disabilities, as well as their employers, enabling the mentally ill to remain self sufficient. The support will be in reserve, so there is no delay in receiving it should a person's mental condition worsen. The overall goal is that if a mentally ill person falls into crisis, there will be professionals that will respond quickly in order to enable them to get back on their feet, so they can continue on in the workforce. The DWP is working together with the Mental Health Charity to see what can be effectively done to provide flexible help for patients, so they will not have to return to receiving incapacity benefits (Parnell). While this sounds wonderful in theory, and while it is commendable that efforts are being made to assist such individuals, a great deal of money is being lost testing programs that nobody is sure will actually be able to deliver what they are promising. Rather than testing numerous programs to force people back into work who may end up failing because they were not capable of working fulltime and contributing to the community to begin with due to the severity of their conditions, money should be given to them and their carers to take care of their needs. Sadly, the government would rather spend large amounts of money testing new programs that cost more than the support that the sick and people with disabilities need. And what's worse, these programs are not even guaranteed to work. If the government is trying to save money due to an economic crisis, which is the reason they are trying to force the sick and those with disabilities back into work in the first place, of which some of them are not capable of holding a job, they are doing the absolute opposite of what they want to do. If the programs fail, then tons of money is lost. The government will be even further in the hole than they were before. That wasted money could have gone to support those that truly need it. A good example of a government program that was a complete failure is the Pathways to work. While it was designed to help people come off of benefits and get back into the workforce, it has failed miserably, as it has only helped a small fraction of people to achieve this goal. One article states that while the seven piloted programs with Pathways to Work had positive effects on the clients, as well as on employment, they did not last, as only one out of ten people were able to remain in work after being with the program for thirteen months. The vast majority of them return to benefits shortly thereafter (Dorsett). There were many variables that caused these outcomes. For instance, many of those in the programs were older, and they were suffering from debilitating conditions. Others were young; however, their conditions were long term, and there were no chances of significant improvements. In addition to this, there were people who were dealing with health conditions and disabilities that significantly limited their activities of daily living (Hales). While the intentions of the government are good on the surface, looking deeper will shed light on how detrimental they can be to those who are so sick to the point that being in the workforce is impractical. Yet, the government wants to bring about this welfare reform that promises that just about anyone can work given that they are provided a strong support system. There is also a great deal of tension, as the government would like to contract services to large organizations. Only a very small number of contracts were actually given to small organizations, such as charities, which would insure that the services and support that people with disabilities and the sick receive is of outstanding quality. Unfortunately, contracts were given to large organizations and big businesses, making everything seem appealing to them. Because the government has decided to do this, many have fallen through the cracks. Furthermore, a great deal of money was taken away from the sick and from those with disabilities to give to organizations that would provide profit. All of the money that is used to pay subcontractors high dollars could go towards supporting the sick and those with disabilities. There is another factor involved in the welfare reform that will cause money to be taken away from people with disabilities and the sick. This is known as conditionality. Conditionality means that the person receiving benefits or living in any sort of public housing will be required to follow certain guidelines or conform to social norms. He will be treated like a child, as he will be punished should he not conform to what society deems as acceptable. In regards to this subject, an article titled "Justifying conditionality: the case of anti-social tenants" states that some strongly feel that conditionality is justified because it insures that people living in public housing and receiving benefits will conduct themselves in a respectable fashion, not behaving indecent to others in the community. Proponents of conditionality feel that the poor are incapable of making their own decisions and must be socialized and taught how to behave (Deacon). Basically, should a person or members of their family have a different idea on matters that deviates from the dominant culture, they risk losing benefits, as well as being evicted from their homes. Conditionality would see to it that people receiving benefits and living in public housing lose their individuality. They must parent a certain way, and their children must behave a certain way. The article goes on to state that complexes who have already embraced the idea of conditionality go as far as to visit households several times a day on a daily basis. Visits are typically made once in the morning, once in the afternoon, once a teat time, and then another visit is paid to the family when children are being put to bed (Deacon). Such control is very unnecessary and disruptive to the household. Not to mention, it is very intrusive. In addition, children feel uneasy with strangers always intruding into their homes. No stability can be achieved with people constantly barging in and out, as if they were the Gestapo or Secret Police monitoring every move. Nobody should be living in that type of environment. Another way that conditionality causes people to lose benefits is that benefits are confiscated from parents who are infirmed or suffer from various disabilities when their children are truant from school. Deacon states that proponents of conditionality feel that if a child is truant so many times, parents need to learn a lesson. This lesson is usually at the cost of the children, as proponents of conditionality feel that parents will only straighten up if the lives of their children are made as wretched as humanly possible. The family is not only evicted from public housing, but they lose their benefits. It does not matter that the parents may be ill or dealing with the struggles presented with living with a disability. All the government agency cares about is how much control they can have over those receiving benefits (Deacon). Supporters of conditionality feel that agencies and complexes have a right to control those utilizing their services, as they should be grateful for what they can get. One proponent of conditionality holds this exact view, as he states that those who are more compliant are likely to receive help than those who are not. People must be grateful for what they receive and must do what they are told in order to continue receiving help from the community. The community is more than likely to have sympathy for those who have worked at one time, as well as towards those who can contribute in some way, shape, or form. Furthermore, people must not be defiant but compliant in every sense of the word (Van Oorschot). But what happens if a person is too sick to contribute What if a person is suffering from a disability that limits their activities on a day to day basis What if their sickness or disability was congenital and they were never able to work at all in their life What if the government agency is abusing their power and watching them like the Gestapo or Secret Police, and claimants have a serious problem with such violations Should they not be deserving According to Deacon's article, there is a very strong case against conditionality for numerous reasons. The reason is that conditionality only makes bad behavior worse. Rather than the government offering proper support and counseling for the disadvantaged and their children, they impose stringent rules upon them that they must follow. When these people are told what to do in this way, it often aggravates the behaviors, and they seldom improve if at all. A second reason why conditionality is harmful is that parents are harshly punished when children are unable to meet the requirements that are imposed upon them. Should a child not act in accordance with certain guidelines, benefits are revoked, and the family is suffering from extreme poverty and is thrown out on the street. Causing a family to be homeless and poor does not solve problems at all. Things actually become worse, as the parents, who are already in dire straights, will suffer more, and any hope of saving the children is lost. Every aspect of a child's being is effected by such brutal treatment. Thinking that they were punishing the family to make them right only created problems that were more severe. Not to mention, it is a violation of civil rights and liberties (Deacon). It is very unfair to treat people in a substandard fashion all because they are disadvantaged and needing to receive benefits. The poor have rights just as much as the rich, and if they should choose to live a different way and not conform to social norms, than so be it. Implementing conditionality is almost like punishing people with disabilities, as if their circumstances are their fault. With the new welfare reform in place, one can see that the sick and those with disabilities will have an even harder time than they do at present. Furthermore, there will be more ways for them to lose their benefits. This reform, as it stands will only make matters worse, as money will be taken from the sick and those with disabilities and be used on piloted programs that may not have any effect at all or be given to private sectors for the most profiting targets. While the government says that they have the best interest of the sick and those with disabilities at heart, as they are trying to give them opportunities to be successful, the new reform will actually accomplish the opposite, as many people will be left out in the cold for one reason or another. Opponents of the new welfare reform feel that it is not in the best interest of the sick and those with disabilities for the government to implement such stringent policies and privatize benefits for the sake of profits. 5. Criticisms: How change Will Happen According to an article written on the Labor Party's website, David Cameron states that the poor are responsible for their situations because they do not make enough of an initiative to get out there and make a way for themselves. James Parnell backs up the argument by further stating that the white paper promises support; however, claimants must take a job, no matter what it is. Refusal to take a job shows a lack of responsibility on the part of those on benefits, hence they will not be rewarded (The Guardian). Basically if they are given a job that is substandard with low wages, they are supposed to accept it. Should they refuse the job, then they are looked at as being thankless because they did not accept the help, even though the job was one that was boring, redundant, and nonmotivating. Such jobs are not good for one's health and can contribute to mental breakdown, as stated in chapter three. People with disabilities have the right to work jobs that they are satisfied with, just the same as everyone else. They don't have to just accept any and everything, especially if they possess a degree in a certain field. They deserve jobs that are stimulating, motivating, and fulfilling. Just because they turn down a job they dislike doesn't mean that they are thankless and irresponsible. They have a right to choose where they work. Work is only healthy if it is uplifting and stimulating to the mind, which a redundant and boring job is not. Proponents of the new reform never took into account that such jobs will not provide enough support for a family, even if the parent working the job were to work from morning until night while leaving the children to fend for themselves, which is impractical for raising children in a proper fashion. Not to mention, it is neglectful. Such measure will not eradicate child poverty but make it worse, since people will be required to work jobs that pay practically nothing. The Family and Parenting institute expounds further on this subject, as they respond to the proposed reform with their concerns. They state that it is unfair to expect parents who are sick or living with a disability to take up a job that is substandard. Furthermore, they feel that such stringent policies that require compulsory work could be detrimental to the family for a number of reasons. One reason that the Family and Parenting Institute is concerned about the proposed reform is that they feel that it will be a threat to single parents in that benefits might be confiscated due to them failing to attend an interview all because the interview was scheduled at a time that was not convenient for them. Another reason the Parenting and Family Institute is concerned about the new reform is that they may be held liable if they lost a job due to lack of childcare arrangements or caring for a sick child. The institute is also concerned about single parents who have found themselves in this position du to fleeing from domestic violence, as they may be written off (Family and Parenting Institute). None of this is considered in the white paper. Another change that is to take place is that incapacity benefits and income support for the sick and those with disabilities are supposed to be done away with completely by the year 2013, and they are to be replaced by a stream lined system that consists of working-age benefits, which are the Employees Support Allowance (ESA) for people who are not able to work due to severe health conditions and the Job Seeker's Allowance (JSA). The Job Seeker's Allowance is for those who are able to work, and the idea is to find support while they are finding a job. On this new system, those on JSA are expected to be responsible in taking a job, and they will receive assistance and support in return. James Parnell states that this will allow for more opportunities for the sick and for those with disabilities to contribute to society and feel good about themselves. (The Labor Party). Keep in mind that it does not matter what type of job they get. They need to just work so they are no longer a burden to the government. Basically, this is a nice way of telling the sick and those with disabilities that they are a burden and that they are no longer wanted. If they get a job, even if it is picking up trash in the street for minimum wage, the government will be able to wash their hands of them and so-called reward them with a better life, if life can get much better when working at a job where one can and will never rise above being poor. It does not matter to the government, as the employers will be paying out money, not the government. According to an article published in the Guardian, a large number of people are worried that the government is just pushing their problems off on other agencies. While they make it seem so simple for people on benefits to return to work, it isn't that simple, since there are a lot of missing links. For one, the process for implementation of these plans is not clear. Furthermore, not much is said about how to deal with employers who do not want to hire people with disabilities (Working Model: Charities Respond to Green Paper on Incapacity Benefit Reform). Why is the government doing this to these people Where are they getting their advice in regards to these reforms According to an article published by the Compass, the government is being pressured by large, wealthy companies to make the changes. These companies are doing everything humanly possible to convince the government that these changes are for the better, when it seems that they are more interested in the money than anything else (Lawson). The government is falling for it, as people, such as James Parnell, feel that just about everyone should be working, even if they may be suffering from challenges that may inhibit them from doing so, even if the job that is available is one that is unmotivating and pays below minimum age. It's all about money here and who can save or make the most. The welfare reform seems to offer very little consideration for the sick and those with disabilities, though it proposes very simple fixes for getting everyone jobs. Privatizing benefits and giving money to large companies through large contracts is hardly compatible with how our current system works. While it is not perfect, the sick and those with disabilities do not have to be uncertain about where their next meal is coming from or where they might live. The current system, though it could use some major polishing up, does offer much more than the proposed reform, as promises are just not made out of blindness with no strategies on how they are to be fulfilled. 6 Conclusion As this dissertation largely deals with predictions, it is very difficult to see at this point how the sick and those with disabilities will be affected. Furthermore, it is colored with emotional reactions of those who it will impact the most, such as interest groups that pioneer for the rights and freedoms of the sick and for those who have disabilities. At this point in time, there is a great deal of skepticism concerning the promises of the white paper. Wile others are opposed to it one hundred percent, deeming it to be a complete and total failure, there are others who welcome the new reform with caution, while at the same time, they deeply scrutinize every promise made, as they are aware of the many current flaws in the system that must be addressed before any new changes can take place. Therefore, it will then be advantageous to provide evidence for any predictions that are made, whether or not they are made by people on the opposing side, in order to remain objective throughout the research concerning whether or not the white paper will be successful. One thing that we do know, however, if any reforms are to be made, a great deal of research must be done in order to figure out the best possible solution for all parties. Furthermore, there has to be a better system in place that will help those with disabilities who are able to work to find a job they like and obtain the proper support to remain in the workforce. People must not be forced to take jobs they will dread all because it is all they are being offered and because the government merely wants to hurry up and push their responsibilities off on other agencies. Efforts need to be made to educate employers on how to handle employees with chronic illnesses and disabilities, and the doctors must work alongside them. Knowledge is everything, and when these employers possess the proper knowledge concerning those who are sick or are suffering from a disability, then they will be more receptive to hiring such workers and be more understanding to their circumstances. The change in perception will result in more people entering the workforce and working at jobs they actually enjoy, not jobs that are at the bottom of the totem pole that offer low wages. The sick and those with disabilities who still are able to work will be able to make something of themselves. The plans as to how the reform is to be implemented needs to be more refined. As of late, the promises that are being made are much too broad. For instance, promises are being made to the sick and to those with disabilities; however, there is no talk about how they are to be achieved. Consideration must also be given to the crowd who have never been able to contribute to society and who will never be able to work. These are those who are in poor health due to a congenital disease. These people should not be ignored or denied benefits because they never worked a day in their lives. Before the reform takes place, it is wise for the government to consider their circumstances and not turn a blind ye or a deaf ear toward them. They did not choose this plight for themselves, as some would like to believe. The reform will only be effective if everyone with all types of disabilities were taken into account. Only then can the sick and those with disabilities be winners in this game. Work Cited Deacon, Alan (2004)'Justifying conditionality: the case of anti-social tenants', Housing Studies, 19:6,911 - 926 Dorsett, Richard. "Pathways to Work for new and repeat incapacity benefits claimants: Evaluation synthesis report." Department of Work and Pensions. 2008. 30 April 2009 . Hales, Jon. "Pathways to Work: the experiences of existing customers." October 2008. Department of Work and Pensions. 30 April 2009 . Lawson, Neall. "Academics advocate fairer welfare." Compass. 2009. 30 April 2009 . "No One Written Off: Reforming Welfare to Reward Responsibility-A Response From the family and Parenting Institute." Family and Parenting Institute. 21 October 2008. 30 April 2009 . "Public Administration Select Committee: Press Notice." 9 July 2008. UK Parliament. 30 April 2009 . Parnell, James. "SMF launch of Mental Health and Welfare Reform." 8 October 2008. Department of Work and Pensions. 30 April 2009 . The Labor Party. 2009. 30 April 2009 . Van Oorschot, Wim. "Who Should Get What and Why On Deservingness Criteria and the conditionality of Solidarity among the Public." Policy and Politics 28(2000): 33-48. "Working Model: Charities respond to green paper on incapacity benefit." the Guardian. 23 July 2008. 30 April 2009 . Read More