Public accounts committee chair to write to top official as evidence emerges of targets at more than a dozen jobcentres
A jobcentre. Robert Devereux, the DWP permanent secretary, had assured the PAC on 18 March that no targets or league tables existed. Photograph: Rex Features
Margaret Hodge, the chair of the public accounts committee, is to demand why a senior official at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) denied that staff at jobcentres were being given targets to enforce sanctions on benefit claimants' money.
This comes as the Guardian publishes another set of evidence of a targets culture; internal documents show evidence of this at more than a dozen jobcentres around the country. Civil servants had said previous cases were isolated incidents.
But the mounting documentary evidence and reports from staff suggests that across the country, on the ground these "scorecards" result in targets and pressure on staff.
Hodge is to write to Robert Devereux, the DWP permanent secretary, who, with his officials, assured the public accounts committee (PAC) in evidence on 18 March that no targets or league tables existed.
On Tuesday Lord Freud, the employment minister, accepted that the DWP gathers management information on the number of sanctions, which can be shown to department staff if their results are anomalous.
On 18 March, Devereux said: "All the manager is trying to do when looking at the rates at which people are sanctioned is to try to think whether that sounds reasonable."
Further new evidence of targets is revealed which includes:
• An email from management in Cheshire which tells their team they are falling behind others on their sanction rates. Apologising for the "harsh message", it says sanctioning is "in the key work objectives, it's part of our target."
• Several examples of "Performance Improvement Plan" [PIP] forms, where Jobcentre employees are being hauled in for not stopping enough claimants' money, referring to a "minimum expected level" of sanctioning. Some of the forms, from different parts of the country, contain the same precise calculation that each full time advisor should be referring 8.6 customers a month for sanctions.
• There are also written reports of "expectations" or pressure being put on staff in Macclesfield, Burnley, Dagenham, Birmingham, Glasgow, and several more in Derbyshire.
• Another email sent by a senior manager in the Derbyshire area says that sanctions are a top priority, , adding: "... Can I remind you that I do want daily stats on this as it was made very clear that we have to be tracking this and upping the game during the month if we know we will not meet the target."
• Meanwhile, a selection of reports gathered from jobcentres across Kent from the last five months shows the regular use of PIPs, in some cases for staff members who are otherwise performing well but whose sanction figures are deemed not high enough. In one report, a team manager is themself put on a PIP for refusing to discipline members of their team for not sanctioning enough.
In other developments, the shadow work and secretary Liam Byrne has written to Lord Freud asking him to agree the terms of reference of an independent review into sanctions.
Asked about the evidence, the DWP said: "These are isolated examples and it's not our policy to have a target."
Neil Couling told the Commons' public accounts committee last week: "We are quite keen to avoid any misunderstandings that there are targets attached to these."
The Guardian also has a copy of a letter sent by a jobcentre employee last month to their local MP in the west of England: "Not only are there targets, the level of bullying and threats that some staff are under in some offices to sanction claimants is unprecedented," the letter states.
"As a consequence of the policy it seems that those claimants that do not understand the system … are most likely to have their benefits sanctioned as they are easy targets … there will be suicides over this, mark my words."
Guardian
This comes as the Guardian publishes another set of evidence of a targets culture; internal documents show evidence of this at more than a dozen jobcentres around the country. Civil servants had said previous cases were isolated incidents.
But the mounting documentary evidence and reports from staff suggests that across the country, on the ground these "scorecards" result in targets and pressure on staff.
Hodge is to write to Robert Devereux, the DWP permanent secretary, who, with his officials, assured the public accounts committee (PAC) in evidence on 18 March that no targets or league tables existed.
On Tuesday Lord Freud, the employment minister, accepted that the DWP gathers management information on the number of sanctions, which can be shown to department staff if their results are anomalous.
On 18 March, Devereux said: "All the manager is trying to do when looking at the rates at which people are sanctioned is to try to think whether that sounds reasonable."
Further new evidence of targets is revealed which includes:
• An email from management in Cheshire which tells their team they are falling behind others on their sanction rates. Apologising for the "harsh message", it says sanctioning is "in the key work objectives, it's part of our target."
• Another office in Kent emailed its staff offering overtime on a Saturday for "botherability" interviews – a phrase currently in use in some offices meaning to trip claimants up or "hassle them into giving up claiming benefits at all," according to one staff member.
• There are also written reports of "expectations" or pressure being put on staff in Macclesfield, Burnley, Dagenham, Birmingham, Glasgow, and several more in Derbyshire.
• Another email sent by a senior manager in the Derbyshire area says that sanctions are a top priority, , adding: "... Can I remind you that I do want daily stats on this as it was made very clear that we have to be tracking this and upping the game during the month if we know we will not meet the target."
• Meanwhile, a selection of reports gathered from jobcentres across Kent from the last five months shows the regular use of PIPs, in some cases for staff members who are otherwise performing well but whose sanction figures are deemed not high enough. In one report, a team manager is themself put on a PIP for refusing to discipline members of their team for not sanctioning enough.
In other developments, the shadow work and secretary Liam Byrne has written to Lord Freud asking him to agree the terms of reference of an independent review into sanctions.
Freud saw off a Labour attempt in the Lords to require the review to look at the issue of DWP staff being disciplined for failing to sanction a sufficient number of clients. He said he did not want the terms of the review to be locked down at this stage.The first evidence came in an email leak on Thursday from the Walthamstow jobcentre referring to it being "95th in the league table," while a follow-up story at the weekend revealed that minutes from a meeting in a Buckinghamshire jobcentre show staff were issued targets and a threat for non-compliance.
There was also a photograph from Derbyshire showing sanctions marked by stars, and a title saying "as an office, we should be looking to make at least eight referrals … a day," followed on Monday by a newsletter to staff in Malvern telling them they needed to up their sanctions numbers.
Neil Couling told the Commons' public accounts committee last week: "We are quite keen to avoid any misunderstandings that there are targets attached to these."
The Guardian also has a copy of a letter sent by a jobcentre employee last month to their local MP in the west of England: "Not only are there targets, the level of bullying and threats that some staff are under in some offices to sanction claimants is unprecedented," the letter states.
"As a consequence of the policy it seems that those claimants that do not understand the system … are most likely to have their benefits sanctioned as they are easy targets … there will be suicides over this, mark my words."
Guardian
