Disabled and on the Work Programme: "Cold calling companies for 8 to 16 hours a week"

"Life is already extremely limited for me, but with the pressure of the Work Programme, I've just felt a lot more hopeless – about either getting a job or just feeling happy and well again."

Ross has bowel disease and depression. He’s 33 and living at home with his parents. He can’t afford the rent or bills and, eighteen months since being put onto the Work Programme – the Government’s welfare-to-work scheme – is still unemployed.

“My mental health’s suffered due to the treatment I've received and my physical problems are still with me,” he tells me.“No job vacancies were ever given to me.”

Ross is one of tens of thousands of people with disabilities and long-term sickness who have been forced onto the Work Programme but who have not found a job – many on employment and support allowance (ESA), and who, like Ross, had been told their out-of-work disability benefit would be cut or removed if they did not take part.

The Work Programme has been a failure even for the unemployed who do not have health conditions. Last week it emerged that some of the biggest firms involved have been penalised for poor performance: almost eight out of 10 unemployed people on the programme for two years had failed to get a long-term job.

The picture is even bleaker for the disabled and long-term sick. According to new data, more than 93% of disabled people put onto the Work Programme are not finding long-term work. Just 6.8% of those referred to the scheme in the latest three months have found employment.

Despite this, the Conservative Party conference launched with George Osborne’s pledge to practice “tough love” on the people who, having gone through the Work Programme, are still unemployed. Yesterday, it emerged the disabled and long-term sick would not be exempt from being penalised for the scheme’s failure. Leaked documents show Iain Duncan Smith is seeking ways to give jobcentre staff more powers to make people on ESA undergo further tasks to prove they are “trying as hard as possible to get back into work.” This includes forcing people with serious health conditions that have been judged as ‘time-limited’, to take up any offer of work. Department of Work and Pensions staff would be given the power to strip the disabled or sick of their benefits if they refused.

Ross was mandatorily enrolled on the Work Programme in January 2012, after his two-year-limited ESA had timed out. He was given the option of trying Work Choice, the scheme said to be designed specifically for people with disabilities and long-term conditions.  

“It was simply getting me to cold call companies for 8 to 16 hours a week,” he says of the reality. “An occasional meeting with the Work Choice advisers would allow me to hand over a list of the employers called, when, what happened and who I talked to.” It was the extent of the ‘support’ he received.

A DWP report released earlier this summer acknowledged that the Government had significantly underestimated the extra barriers to work many people like Ross, forced onto the programme, face. It suggested that, despite private Work Programme contractors being offered higher payments for finding jobs for harder to place clients, such as those with a disability, instead of giving them more attention, they have given them less.

“When I was on the Work Programme, I received no help,” Ross confirms. “I had occasional appointments which were only ever about getting me to do search for vacancies on their computers and fill in forms. My interactions with them in the five months before I left consisted of about two face to face appointments with an adviser and several jobsearch appointments where I was put in front of a computer and told to look for vacancies.” 

Ross tells me that from his induction onwards he was treated as if he was a JSA claimant and, as such, was given no acknowledgement that his illnesses meant he needed additional help.

“All the information they gave [including sanctions] was for JSA claimants,” he says. “The rules for those on ESA are different and they didn't give that information out at all. In fact they seemed to be confused as to the difference between the two groups.”

“No-one ever tried to understand the way my health impacted on my ability to find and retain work,” he says. “From the start it was clear I was simply being squeezed into a generic system that took no account of my needs and offered no real advice or support.” 

This lack of understanding was not only of detriment to his ability to find work but his ability to hold onto his benefits. As the DWP report disclosed back in the summer, the Work Programme’s model of ‘conditionality’ and ‘sanctioning’ – where a person has their benefits withdrawn for increasing periods of time – is particularly cruel to people who are disabled or ill. They are often unable to avoid being sanctioned because they cannot physically or mentally comply with the conditions they have to meet.

Ross asked at one of his adviser interviews what would happen if his disability prevented him from attending an appointment, either the day or so before or on the morning of one.

“They were very evasive and simply said it would be a problem,” he says. “They expected me to come in regardless or simply be sanctioned. I don't know how I could manage that if I were sat on the toilet or in bed with agonising gut pain or moving bowels. It left me very distressed.”

Such elements of the Work Programmetook its toll on Ross’s mental health, not only creating problems but also exacerbating existing ones.

“It's made me a lot more anxious,” he says.

In his old job working in the Scottish Government, Ross dealt comfortably with the public but says he now feels tension when having to speak to people, either on the phone, in person, or even writing a letter.

“[The experience has] tired me enormously and made me less trusting, less able to talk to people without a fear of what they will say and what they will do,” he says. “My depression got worse as I simply withdrew more. Life is already extremely limited for me, but with the pressure of the Work Programme, I've just felt a lot more hopeless – about either getting a job or just feeling happy and well again. I'm still on medication for my depression and had hoped to be weaning myself off them by now. But there's no chance while the Work Programme keeps making things worse for me.”

“Pressuring people into working, under the threat of losing their benefits, often serves to exacerbate their mental health problems, pushing them even further from the job market,” Paul Farmer, Chief Executive of Mind tells me. “Currently there’s still too little specialised support available and too much focus on sanctions and conditionality. People with mental health problems face significant barriers to finding and staying in work, such as stigma from employers, and often dealing with an invisible and fluctuating condition. The Government should be ensuring they provide tailored support to help people find appropriate employment.”

According to a new YouGov poll by right-wing think tank Policy Exchange, the public is rather in favour of workfare schemes instead – and has little interest in exempting people on grounds of disability or mental health. 75% said people who were ‘mentally disabled’ (judged fit) should be made to work unpaid for their benefits. 78% said the same about people with physical disabilities. 

It was a useful foundation to Osborne and Duncan Smith’s new measures, with Osborne, buoyed by apparent public and party support, pledging yesterday to force the long-term unemployed to take on unpaid work, accept a full-time unemployment programme, or attend the jobcentre every day.

It’s for people like Ross to deal with the practicalities, like affording to get to the jobcentre daily in the first place. For him, the Work Programme brought increased financial problems.

“Even though the Work Programme reimbursed me for the travel expenses of going into their offices, it was sometimes difficult to find the bus fare in the first place,” he says. “Once they ran out of petty cash and I had to wait until my next appointment to get the money back. That was nothing to them but really difficult for me.”

“I worry deeply about how I can pay for interviews and even how I can afford to pay my way when I do get a job,” he tells me. “The Work Programme offers no financial help with that, but what am I supposed to do until my first pay cheque comes in? None of those issues were acknowledged by the Work Programme and they made no effort to help with them.”

Ross has watched this week as the contractor that failed him, Ingeus, has been declared as one of the Work Programme’s better performing firms – and given more contracts as a reward. It doesn’t create much hope for the scheme’s future.

A year and a half on, Ross is back where he started. Though with increased anxiety and even less clear assistance in place.

“Last year, I was told that my status on the Work Programme had been switched from mandatory to voluntary due to my recent Work Capability Assessment [the test to see if I was fit for work]. They later claimed that was not the case,” he tells me. “I'm probably due to be mandated back to the Work Programme some time soon as I was given another period off it before Job Centre Plus would refer me back. The JCP, DWP and WP have lacked clarity over every issue I've asked them about.”

“I'm still on benefits receiving no help whatsoever,” Ross adds.

This week, the Government has confirmed their idea of help: when the forced Work Programme fails, try some forced unpaid work.

Jobseekers queue at their local Jobcentre Plus. Image: Getty

Frances Ryan is a journalist and political researcher. She writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman, and others on disability, feminism, and most areas of equality you throw at her. She has a doctorate in inequality in education. Her website is here.

Bennett Raglin / Getty
Show Hide image

How gendered are this year’s most popular Christmas present toys?

Meet the groups fighting back against the gendering of children’s toys over the festive season.

You’re a young girl. You go into WH Smith’s to pick out a colouring book for Christmas. You could buy the Girls’ World Doodling and Colouring Book, a "gorgeous gift for any girl". In this, the pictures range "from flowers, fans, feathers, to birds, buttons and butterflies". Or Colouring for Girls: Pretty Pictures to Colour and Complete, where you can colour in "beautiful birds, seashells, cupcakes, pretty patterns and lots more". The counterpart Boys’ Colouring Book has a range beyond buttons and feathers: "Planes, trains and automobiles – plus the odd alien spacecraft".

In the run-up to Christmas, this kind of gendered marketing is rife, particularly finding its way into the predominantly pink colour scheme of girls’ toys.

Take Amazon’s page "2016 Toys for Girls": a pink icecream trolly set, a pink light-up tablet, pink building blocks, pink and purple friendship bracelets and so on.

There are several groups taking action against the "pinkification" of children’s toys. One of these is Let Toys Be Toys, a group that targets large supermarkets with the aim of reducing the gendered marketing used on children’s goods.

The Let Toys Be Toys blog focuses on specific examples of targeted gendering within shops, catalgoues and online. A particularly revealing example of how prevalent this has become in recent years is in two pictures published from the Argos catalogue, one from the Seventies, and one from nowadays. The eye-wateringly pink page from now makes the 1970s page look dour by comparison. The lack of change over four decades of what kind of products are marketed at girls is equally striking:

Despite the efforts of campaign groups such as Let Toys Be Toys, the prevalence of gendering within the highest-rated children's gifts for 2016 is staggering.

Look no further than the Ultimate Christmas Gifts Guide from Toys R Us. One of the most immediately obvious examples is the way in which the pink/blue colour schemes are used to market identical products. This is repeated again and again:

This identical drawing board is uniquely packaged to the binary colour codes that are so common within children's toys stores.

The same applies with this keyboard, where the young girl and boy are pictured almost identically, save for the coordination of their clothes to the colour of their toys.

The message is a hugely limiting one: one that allows little movement away from the binary of pink/blue. The effects of this are longstanding. A recent poll from YouGov shows that "only a third of parents approve of boys playing with Barbies". The data goes on to explain that "while most parents approve of girls playing with toys marketed to boys, a minority of adults approve of the opposite".

Images like this were the inspiration behind Let Toys Be Toys, back in 2012. The campaign began on Mumsnet, the forum for parents, on a section called "AIBU", which stands for "Am I Being Unreasonable?". One parent posted the question: "Am I being unreasonable to think that the gendered way that children’s toys are marketed has got completely out of hand?" The heated discussion that followed led to a sub-section with the founding memebers of Let Toys Be Toys.

This aside, Let Toys Be Toys has made signifcant progess since it began. It targets large stores, focusing on gendered signage both in store and online. In their four years, they have campaigned for signs like "girls' toys" and "boys' toys" to be removed from retailers such as Boots, Debenhams, Morrisons, Toys R Us and TK Maxx. It is the go-to hashtag on Twitter for examples of the often shocking gendering of children’s toys.

"This is ostensibly about toys, but what we’re really talking about is gender stereotypes that shape our children’s worlds in an apparently very unassuming way," says Jess Day, a Let Toys Be Toys campaigner. "It seems very innocent, but actually what we’re doing is giving children very clear instructions about how to be a man and how to be a woman."

These clear instructions work beyond colour coordination: where girls are sold the image of the pink "girly girl", for instance. This is evident in children’s fancy dress costumes. Early Learning Centre’s (ELC) children’s fancy dress range imposes very rigid gender roles. To give examples from the current christmas range:


Credit: ELC

Again, the predominant colour sceme is pink. The roles offered are mainly fairies and princessess: generally make-believe.

“I found it really interesting that there were almost no ads showing girls doing anything," comments Day. "Physically they were very passive. The only physical activity we saw girls doing was dancing. They weren't really moving around much."


Image: ELC

By contrast, young boys are offered the possibility of pretending to be a firefighter, a policeman or a doctor, among other practical, professional roles.

This year's Toys R Us Christmas advert follows on from this, with girls mainly dressed as princesses, and boys dressed as knights and kings. Much like the pink/blue colour scheme that we see all over children's shops, these fancy dress costumes create an unnatural binary. They send out a message that restricts any kind of subversion of these two supposedly polar opposites.

What's more, the subtext is one that is deeply rooted in expectations, building up a picture where careers such as that of a policeman and fireman come more naturally to boys, who have been socialised into these roles from childhood through fancy dress costumes of this type. Instead, girls are later forced to learn that most of us aren't going to become princessess, and none of us fairies – and so the slow process begins to unlearn these expectations.

There are certainly groups who try to counteract this. Manufacturers such as the toy brand IamElemental aims to break down the gendered distinctions between boys' toys and girls' toys, by creating female action figures.

“We always say that we are not anti-doll or anti-princess, but that if you give a girl a different toy, she will tell a different story," says Julie Kershaw, a member of the organisation. "As the mom of two boys, I always say that it’s just as important to put a strong healthy female action figure in a boy’s hand as it is a girl’s”.

Like the campaigners behind Let Toys Be Toys, IamElemental sees children’s toys as the starting point.

“We want kids – both girls and boys  – to internalise these messages early and often,” says Kershaw. “While there are certainly biological differences between girls and boys, gender-specific toys are not a biologically dictated truth. Toys are not “for girls” or “for boys”  – toys are for play; for exploration and creative expression.”

This attitude is ingrained in a child’s early years. Only through reconfiguring the gender sterotypes of the toys we buy for our children can we begin to break down their expectations of how to behave in age. We challenge you this Christmas to avoid these highly gendered products. Below are our three favourite Christmas presents for children this year, for girls AND boys, as approved by Let Toys Be Toys:

Mini Table Tennis (£7.99)


From: The Little Toy Box

Djeco Intro to Origami - Animals (£3.99)

From: Rachel's Toy Shop

Seedling Make Your Own Dino Softie! - Dino(sew)or Kit (£5)


From: Gifts For Little Ones