Take-home
points
There is significant variation in the proportion of the
various WCA assessment states across English Local Authorities after accounting
for population size. The percentage of Fit for Work judgements, for example,
ranges from 15.00% to 43.82%.
As the life expectancy of an area increases, the
proportion of claimants found fit for work decreases.
In areas with higher levels of health deprivation, there
is a trend to find more people fit
for work.
As an area experiences more socioeconomic deprivation,
there is a trend to find more people fit for work.
Both health deprivation and socioeconomic deprivation act
to lower life expectancy, which then acts to lower the proportion of people
found fit for work. This model accounts for 21% of the variance in the
proportion of fit for work judgements.
When comparing the 25 areas with the highest proportion
of “fit for work” judgements (average 36.03%) with the 25 lowest (18.49%):
- The average life
expectancy for people living in the areas with the highest proportion of “fit
for work” judgements was 3 years less than those living in the
lowest-proportion areas
- People living in
the high-proportion areas suffer experience more health deprivation and
disability
- Significantly
more people in the high-proportion areas (30%) are living in England’s
poorest 20% of areas, compared to only 3% of those in the low-proportion
areas.
From this data, I conclude that people living in the
poorest and unhealthiest parts of England are being put at a significant
disadvantage by the Work Capability Assessment for Incapacity Benefit
reassessments.
Image 1. The relationship between life expectancy and %FFW with line of best fit
Image 2. Proportion of LA population living in England's 20% most deprived LSOAs
Data
I compiled data from the DWP (Quarterly
official statistics bulletin, Issue: 30 April 2013, Table 11, http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/index.php?page=esa_wca) and the
2010 English Indices of Deprivation (Local Authority level) and
collated this data into one database, available here.
All Ns = 324, all *s = p < .05, all **s = p
< .001 and all tests are two-tailed unless otherwise specified.
Data were analysed in SPSS and Amos.
Data were analysed in SPSS and Amos.
Description
Employment
and Support Allowance data
A summary of the ESA caseload is below.
Work-Related Activity Group
|
Support Group
|
Fit For Work
|
Closed Before Assessment
|
Awaiting Assessment
|
Total Caseload
|
233,110
|
167,590
|
168,270
|
20,660
|
14,720
|
604,350
|
Table 1. ESA Caseload as of April 2013.
The proportion of the various ESA states across the 324
Local Authorities (LAs) is shown in Table 2. As you can see, there is a lot of
variation between LAs across the various ESA state, with the percentage found
Fit for Work ranging from 16% to 46%.
Assessment Complete
|
Awaiting Assessment
|
||||
Raw data
|
WRAG
|
Support
|
Fit for Work
|
Closed Before Assessment
|
Awaiting Assessment
|
Maximum
|
5480
|
3980
|
5180
|
570
|
360
|
Minimum
|
30
|
40
|
20
|
10
|
0
|
Mean
|
719.48
|
517.25
|
519.35
|
63.77
|
45.43
|
Standard Deviation
|
701.53
|
409.55
|
569.35
|
63.40
|
55.72
|
Percentages
|
|||||
Maximum
|
57.78
|
40.00
|
43.82
|
10.00
|
10.24
|
Minimum
|
27.09
|
18.83
|
15.00
|
1.41
|
00.00
|
Mean
|
38.75
|
28.49
|
26.45
|
3.58
|
2.72
|
Standard Deviation
|
4.63
|
4.57
|
4.76
|
1.03
|
2.10
|
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of ESA states across
English Local Authorities
Health
and deprivation data
England’s mean male life expectancy at birth (‘life expectancy’) was
78.87 years with a standard deviation (SD) of 1.68. The minimum life expectancy
was 73.60 years and the maximum was 85.10. The mean health deprivation score
was 1.86 (SD = .63), ranging from 0.26 to 3.45. Higher scores indicate more
health deprivation and disability, and includes factors such levels of
work-limiting disability.
The mean LSOA deprivation rank was 14734.05 (SD = 5532.88), ranging from
2399.12 to 28228.06. Higher scores indicate higher levels of socioenomic
deprivation. The second deprivation measure was the percentage of local people
living England’s quintile of most-deprived areas. The minimum was 0%, with a
maximum of 83% (mean = 14.75, SD = 16.97).
As expected, both health measures strongly correlate (r = -.876**),
indicating that as health deprivation decreases, life expectancy increases.
Both deprivation measures were highly correlated (r
= .871**).
For simplicity, the deprivation variables were
factor-analysed and reduced to a single variable (“Deprivation factor”)
accounting for 93.56% of the variance, with both variables having a weighting
of .967. Increases in score of this variable indicate increasing levels of
deprivation.
Analysis
Fit for
Work Proportion
The percentage of ‘fit for work’ WCA judgements
(%FFW) was significantly related to life expectancy (r = -.459**), health
deprivation (r = .379**) and the deprivation factor (r = .389**).
When controlling for health deprivation and the
deprivation factor, the relationship between life expectancy and %FFW remained
significant (r = -.262**).
When controlling for life expectancy and
deprivation, the relationship between %FFW and health deprivation was no longer
significant (r = -.070, p = .209), as
with the deprivation factor when controlling for both health variables (r =
.046, p = .410).
Thus, it appears that health deprivation and
socioeconomic deprivation are exerting an effect on %FOW by affecting life
expectancy, and an analysis of this will follow. This relationship was
modelled, as in Image 1. This model was a very good fit for the observed data
(GFI = .998, x2=1.611, p =
.447, df = 2, RMSEA = 0.0, 90%CI 0.00 to .103, Tucker-Lewis Index = 1.001).
Every parameter was significant at the p <.001 level.
Image 3. Structural equation model of relationship
between health, deprivation and %FFW variables (PFOW = Proportion of Fit for Work judgements)
In an independent-samples t-test the 25 areas with
the highest %FFW had significantly lower life expectancy (3.06 years,
t(48)=9.989**), higher levels of health deprivation and disability (t(48)=7.279**)
and a higher proportion population living in England’s most deprived quintile
of areas (2.63% vs 30.36%, t(26.442)=7.004**). Image 2 shows the relationship
between life expectancy and %FFW