Single homeless people's experiences of the Work Capability Assessment (2012)

11.04.2012

The Work Capability Assessment (WCA) was introduced in October 2008 to assess entitlement to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). This research examines homeless people's experiences of the WCA. 182 homeless or previously homeless clients took part in the survey and 151 completed it. Almost half of the respondents (49%) were aged 45-54 years old. 65% of participants reported having multiple health conditions.

Key findings

The vast majority of respondents (81%) did not feel positive about their experience of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA).
Being asked to attend a face-to-face medical assessment made nearly all people (97%) stressed, anxious, and worried that their claim would be turned down.
Also, prior to the assessment, 85% worried that they were being forced into work.
During the assessment, nearly 50% of people felt that the healthcare professional had a poor awareness of the impact that homelessness had on their lives.
Nearly 50% also thought that the person conducting the assessment had a poor understanding of the complexity of their health issues and individual circumstances and needs.
Perhaps more worryingly, 40% of respondents thought the healthcare professional did not believe them and just under 30% thought their claim was not taken seriously.
The majority of people (58%) also reported feeling too nervous to give a good account of their condition(s).
This is particularly significant when the length of the assessment was deemed unsatisfactory by 61% of participants because it was too short for them to give a full and true account of their condition.
It is therefore not surprising that after the assessment 61% felt resigned to the fact that their claim would in all likelihood be turned down.
However, people’s experience of the assessment was much more positive if a support worker or friend had accompanied them. For example, 86% of those unaccompanied were dissatisfied with the length of the assessment, compared to 46% of those who had someone attend with them.
Over half of respondents (55%) were deemed not to have ‘limited capability for work’ and were moved off ESA.
However, outcomes varied greatly depending on whether clients were accompanied: 86% of those unaccompanied were deemed not to have ‘limited capacity for work’, whereas the figure for those accompanied was 39%.
Over three quarter of people were unhappy with the outcome of the assessment and thought that inaccurate assessment reports were to blame.
It is therefore not surprising to find that 76% appealed the decisions. A clear indication that there is a fundamental lack of faith in the system.