Why do two sets of the same ESA related statistics fail to add up?

 

Posted by Nick in Ilegal


The difference between the two is the chaos 
which the DWP continues to hide

It stands to reason that records of Employment & Support Allowance claimants kept by the DWP should at least remain consistent.

Throughout my analysis of the DWP ESA statistics I have always measured them inclusively, rather than sticking to one set such as those relating to new claimants only, I’ve consistently factored in the numbers of new claimants to those who have been repeatedly assessed and also included those who have been through the incapacity benefit migration process. My argument is this gives us the overall figures rather than say a third of them.  I’m sure most would would agree it is best to measure them all together.

It also means that we can measure the ‘all inclusive’ figures from the Work Capability Assessment statistics against those which we can obtain from the overall claimant count. 

So lets take a look at the Work Capability Assessment statistics as one overall set and see how many claimants, by all accounts, should have come off (ended their claims) Employment & Support Allowance between October 2008 and June 2013 – the most up to date figures available from the DWP.

 
(1) Total number found ‘Fit for Work’

1,488,800 found ‘Fit for work’

Now let us look at those who ended their claims without being assessed according to the DWP’s ‘Work Capability Assessment’ statistics:

 
(2) Closing their claims without an assessment
1,393,700 claimants ended their claims 
without an assessment
 

Which gives us a grand total equalling the absolute minimum number of claimants who according to the DWP ‘results’ should have ended their Employment & Support Allowance claims.  

I say minimum because the grand total shown below takes no account of the number of claimants who will have ended their claims for many other reasons which are not directly attributable to a Work Capability Assessment finding (for example they may recover and end their claim of their own accord, they may move to another benefit and sadly some may die).  

None the less, we can look at a minimum number because in the majority of cases those found fit for work and those who close their claims before assessment will end their Employment & Support Allowance claims.

The first figure below is that which is derived from the DWP’s Work Capability Assessment statistics.

 
(3) So what is the minimum number of claimants,
who according to the DWP, 
should have ended 
their claims?

2,882,500 is the minimum number of 
claimants who should have ended 
their claims

(4) What’s the real number of Employment 
& Support Allowance claimants who 
ended their claims?

Tip: Don’t bother asking IDS,

it’s actually, 2,125,830 claims ended

(5) A three quarter of a million difference

>> of 756,670 claimants <<

A figure of 756,670 represents, by any means, a massive number of claimants.  

Remember though that the higher figure of 2,882,500 is a minimum number.  This is the number of claimants who have been found fit for work or who have closed their claims before assessment according the the assessment statistics.  It will be considerably higher when you add in the number of claimants who have ended their claims for other reasons.  The figure is taken from the DWP’s Work Capability Assessment statistics and shows the total number of claimants who have been assessed and those who have claimed ESA but not been assessed.  These represent the total of ESA claimants who have claimed as ‘on flows’.   The assessment figures do not show off flows as such.

However, any claimant who has ended the claim without an assessment is without doubt an off flowing statistics as is any claimant found fit for work.

The only exception to this is if a claimant who has been found fit for work appeals against the assessment result and stays on ESA. 

The lower figure of 2,125,830 is according to the DWP the total number of claimants who have come off (in other words ended their claims) Employment & Support Allowance between October 2008 and May 2013. This is as close as we can get to the June 2013 date used in the assessment statistics.  It will be slightly higher (as it omits figures for the month of June 2013) but we can’t show up to June 2013 because this set of figures is aligned to different quarters with the nearest one being May 2013.

A figure of over 750,000 is a clear indication that there are many more claimants locked in disputes over fit for work decisions than the DWP is prepared to concede to. 

It’s as simple as this, the assessment figures show how many claimants have taken up ESA claims and the off flow statistics show how many have actually come off ESA.

 
 
 
 

Post by nickd (Mylegal) on 21 hours ago

Here’s one simple question for IDS

Why are his department’s figures out by 
quarter of a million?

In the previous post I’ve dealt with all the technicalities which give rise to one question I’d very much like to hear IDS answer.

The question is this. 

Question 

In your department’s Work Capability Assessment statistics released in March 2014 and dated from October 2008 to June 2013, if we add up the total number of people found ‘fit for work’ from tables (1A) New Claims (1B) Repeat assessment cases and (10) Incapacity to ESA migration cases we get a total figure of 1,488,800 found ‘fit for work’ (1,00,800 + 244,600 + 243,400 respectively).  If we do the same for the number of claimants who have ‘closed their claims without having had an assessment’ we get a further 1,393,700 (1,194,400 + 156,600 + 42,700 respectively).

You have continually made out that all such claimants, a total of 2,882,500 when we add the two together, are ones who should by your reckoning be off the sick.  In other words an absolute minimum of 2,882,500 Employment & Support Allowance claimants should no longer be on the sick.

Yet when we look at another of your department’s tables which tracks the numbers of claimants coming off Employment & Support Allowance  the actual number coming off the sick is in fact when we measure it from October 2008 to May 2013 only 2,125,830.

The difference between the two is a very significant 756,670; over quarter of a million.

How come such a massive discrepancy Mr Smith? 

Read more: http://ilegal.org.uk/thread/7258/serious-flaws-governments-statistics?page=14&scrollTo=21560#ixzz3072oUkCy

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s