Kaliya Franklin, a leading independent disability campaigner and member of the Spartacus network has published her paper on the efficacy of the Work Capability Assessment.

Available from The Centre for Welfare Reform, in this important paper she carefully analyses how it is government policy that has undermined the objectivity of the medical assessments used by the private medical firm Atos.{jcomments on}

While Atos have been the primarily been blamed for the high numbers of successful appeals against their assessments, Kaliya explains that the real cause of the problem probably lies in the system used by the DWP to manage its contract with Atos.

She states that the Work Capability Assessment operates to a norm-referenced system. When statistical norms are applied to a process they deliver the same outcome as targets.

There seems to be no evidence that the norms themselves are based on any empirical evidence as to the real impact of disability on someone's ability to work.

The very low success rate in helping disabled people to find work suggests that these targets were artificially imposed by the DWP and serve only to save money by cutting the incomes of the poorest.

Moreover, the process of setting norms and managing to those norms, further corrupts the assessment process and seems likely to have undermined its objectivity.

Today this is a grave problem within the use of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) process which is used to restrict access to the Employment Support Allowance and to assign people to either the 'Support Group' or 'Work Related Activity Group'.

Furthermore this norm-based methodology will damage any system of assessment in the future. 

It should be a concern to all tax payers that:

  • Systems for the assessment of disability are being created that lack proper empirical foundations
  • These systems are managed in such a way that their objectivity is likely to be undermined
  • The process is becoming both more unfair, unreliable and expensive

Kaliya's article draws on a wide range of evidence, including comments from sources who prefer to remain anonymous.

The fact that professionals need anonymity should be an additional cause of concern.

Download her full paper here



Write comments...
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.

Be the first to comment.

We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.