Jobcentre 'scorecard' shows how areas are performing on stopping benefits The Department for Work and Pensions produces a national sanctions "scorecard" that contains precise information about how jobcentre districts are performing on stopping people's benefits, it has emerged. The scorecard for January 2013 was sent to the Guardian after ministers and senior management denied that its information collection could be described as a "league table." It breaks down the sanctions performance by district, and includes a column headed "direction of travel," with red and green arrows showing whether a district is up or down on the previous month's performance. DWP ministers have acknowledged that they collect this data, but on Monday night Lord Freud told peers this was purely in order to "correct the anomalies." A leaked email from the Walthamstow jobcentre in north London, reported last Thursday, appears to suggest the scorecard can be further broken down into individual jobcentres, but no clear evidence of this has yet been seen. The email described Walthamstow as being "95th in the league table," with the manager telling his team that they had to improve their numbers. The senior Jobcentre Plus manager Neil Couling made clear in a letter to staff last Friday that this information did not constitute league tables. "We are quite keen to avoid any misunderstandings that there are targets attached to these," he told the Commons public accounts committee last week. But the mounting documentary evidence and reports from staff suggest that on the ground these scorecards result in targets and pressure on staff who are not meeting apparently expected levels of sanctions. Numerous jobseekers who have had their benefits stopped for weeks or months after being told they are not doing enough to find work have told of the hardship of being penalised and have disputed the fairness of the sanctions. The numbers in the scorecard are revealing. They indicate that in January alone more than 85,000 sanctions were applied or upheld against claimants, and that most districts were down on the previous month's performance. The spreadsheet shows detailed further information on sanctions: 24,000 of these "adverse decisions" came from referrals by work programme providers. Almost 1,400 decisions were made against recipients of employment and support allowance (sickness benefit). The figures include referrals to mandatory work activity (MWA), with 1,442 claimants sent to work for their benefit during January. Arrows show almost all districts were increasing the numbers of people they sent to MWA. Meanwhile, one of many jobcentre advisers to contact the Guardian in recent days has given a full explanation of the atmosphere and rules inside jobcentres. He said: "There is officially no target to achieve referrals to DMA [decision-making and appeals] officers, but in Greater Manchester central and Cheshire district the target we don't have is 6% of our live load. Furthermore, despite not having a target to achieve these figures, all but two jobcentres within the district have had office-wide PIPs [performance improvement plans] imposed by the district manager specifically focused on increasing DMA referrals to increase 'off-flow' - the term used to mean ceasing to claim jobseeker's allowance. Across the north-west region the story is similar, with Greater Manchester east and west district having similar targets, now referred to as benchmarks, imposed. Whilst my work colleagues and I fully understand and support the need for sanctions to be applied to those claimants who are not actively seeking employment, who become unemployed voluntarily, who refuse reasonable offers of employment and those who fail to participate in courses, schemes and provision to help them into employment, the reality is that when targets are imposed, the focus shifts not to those abusing the benefits system but to the most vulnerable and easy-to-hit claimants, those with language barriers, caring responsibilities and those moving from other benefits having been found capable of working. He continued: "Such is the focus on off-flow, the pressure to meet the targets creates perverse behaviours ... but sadly is in no way reducing unemployment. To illustrate, a claimant who receives a four-week sanction for failing to show proof of actively seeking employment may then fail to attend the jobcentre to sign for their benefit, as no there is no financial benefit. After the sanction is served, they will make a fresh claim to jobseeker's allowance. The office in question will claim the off-flow, and the statistics look favourable. However, the cost of making a fresh claim to benefit in real terms is around £500 and is therefore [a] false economy at its worst in order to try to climb up the league table - which, despite all assurances, do exist within clusters, districts and regions for all departmental targets. Simply put, the targets imposed for sanctions is a way for district managers to fudge figures in order that they are seen to be doing their jobs, whereas the government continues to stress that the off-flow should always be into sustainable employment and is being kept in the dark about the reality. All advisers at my place of work and most in the district have been given mid-year review statements (on which performance-related pay is based) which include a target to achieve 6% DMA referrals, although again this has been widely denied. A second adviser to contact the Guardian said he worked in a medium-sized jobcentre in the north-east of England, and said he was appalled at the attitude of management towards sanctions. I have been an adviser for many years and have always prided myself on the help I have given claimants, whilst still testing their conditionality and ensuring they were aware of their responsibilities. Now, however, the emphasis seems to be about persecuting claimants and all advisers are being pressured into referring claimants to the decision-makers in the hope that people will sign off and contribute to the off-flow target. At my last review I was told in no uncertain terms that I needed to start identifying more people to refer for sanctioning and, as my next review looms, I feel under pressure now to start picking on people, otherwise I will be put on a performance improvement plan.