Reform and the assessment process

In creating new assessment procedures for reformed benefits, the Government, argues Andy Rickell should be sure they are not alienating and disempowering for disabled people

We should be thankful that after George Osborne said the reform of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) would include a “medical assessment”, there was a rapid distancing by government from the term “medical” or its implications – they are learning!

Historically the state uses the clinical and social care professions to assess whether disabled people are “disabled” enough to receive state support – cash benefits or in-kind. This is based on several deep-seated assumptions – that disability is essentially an impairment issue that must be evaluated by people with professional expertise; that disabled people cannot be trusted to represent their needs accurately or intelligently; that such support is provided because you cannot do something rather than as an enabler to independence; that each bit of support requires an appropriate and different assessment, and that protecting the taxpayer is more important than people’s welfare.

To the voting taxpayer, the politician knows that “medicals” play to the populist idea of catching out the “scroungers”. To the disabled person, who recognises the assumptions behind the “medical”, it is understandable they fear such “assessments” as the unreasonable imposition of a disempowering process. Coupled with recent bad experiences of the Work Capability Assessment, “assessment” frightens disabled people, with good cause. This culture must be overcome, starting with the new DLA assessment.

It is absolutely reasonable to have some fair means of evaluating that a claimant meets the democratically agreed criteria for receiving a state benefit – otherwise non-disabled people could claim disability support without challenge! Equally it is absolutely reasonable that the disabled citizen should be provided with the most accessible and empowering process that gets them the benefits and state support the law allows, simply and quickly.

The obvious solution is to create a single assessment process for all of the support and benefits available to a disabled person, and one that the state helps the individual to navigate. In the meantime any new assessment, like for DLA’s replacement, must match those best design principles. Disabled experts and activists would be an excellent group to be involved in the design, oversight and review of such an assessment process.

Any actual “assessment” meeting must be done positively, encouraging and supporting the disabled claimant to best represent their case in an empowering setting, and the claimant be given the chance to challenge and give evidence that may refute any negative evaluations an assessor might make. Furthermore, the assessors should be highly trained in engaging with disabled people and understanding the diversity of issues faced by us. Indeed I believe that disabled people ourselves would make very effective assessors – our personal experience gives us a competitive advantage. And the assessor should not be the person who makes the state’s decision – so that the assessor’s job is only to get the facts that result in an accurate and fair decision – and any evaluation of assessor effectiveness should be on this basis alone.

A good and fair process will get disabled people’s support. Otherwise welfare reform will feel like the same poor system.