• Reduce the complexity of claim forms,
• Make crisis loans more accessible and immediate,
• Addresses the inconsistency of the earnings disregard across all benefits to ensure accidental fraud is not committed resulting in benefits being automatically stopped.

Last year the Community Links advice services were used by a total of 12,400 local people. At our drop-in advice sessions 37.8% were benefits related cases, of which 73% were a result of DWP error. Our advice services continue to be in high demand, services cost several hundred thousand pounds per year - funded by local authorities and the Legal Services Commission. This cost to the tax payer could be dramatically reduced by the simplification of the benefits system and increased competency with the administration process.

Research by AdviceUK in Nottingham reveals that 42% of the demand at advice agencies in the city is ‘failure demand’ - demand caused by failures in the system of public administration. Reducing this would save significant amounts of money and free up advisors to carry out valuable work with clients, supporting them to resolve their long-term problems.

Many of our clients have used our advice services in the past; some have had their benefits mistakenly stopped on more than one occasion. The knock-on effects are increased borrowing and debt, eviction problems and in many cases people falling into the informal economy, working cash-in-hand to cover costs as a last resort. Debt related advice has doubled, and our advisers believe this is in part due to the recession-related rise in claimant figures, and benefits being stopped or delayed as people struggle to find formal work.

Our campaign, Need NOT Greed has been calling for a simplified benefits system. A system which is easier to navigate could help prevent the rise of informal economic activity caused by people struggling to survive poverty. At the launch of the Need NOT Greed campaign in February 2009 Terry Rooney, chair of the DWP select committee said

“There is a treadmill of being in the informal economy out of Need NOT Greed. The striking thing is that the national benefits system is geared up to serve millions, but everybody is an individual - it’s how you can recognise everyone’s needs and requirements. You need a totalitarian system and there are enormous challenges - but ones that need to be faced and met.”

A local campaigner and user of our advice services said

“the system wears you down, I am constantly just surviving. Every time you pick yourself up and try to move forward the system lets you down again. It’s the same old problems for everyone and none of us round here trust it anymore. How can something you don’t trust be able to help you?”

Rising unemployment is increasing demand for welfare benefits at a time when public funding is under severe pressure. Spending time building productive relationships with people using services is time well spent; not an extravagance. These relationships are instrumental to efficient delivery of public services. We hope that a Welfare Commission is established as it is evident that change is necessary - but change must put the needs of the service user at the heart of the system.

It’s an issue we’ve been aware of for some time. About 12,000 people visit Community Links’ advice service every year for support with benefits, housing and debt. Last year we helped them claim over £1.3m in benefits they were entitled to but not receiving.

Last year’s Benefit Take-up Task Force, which we sat on, looked at the issue and some progress was made as a result. Targets for housing benefit take up have now been included in the Audit Commission’s Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE) for local authorities, and there is support from the Treasury to push this.

However the difficulty lies in the fact that, as always government departments do not work together very well. As different departments issue different benefits - HMRC for Working Tax Credits, DWP for out of work benefits, local authorities for housing benefit - it makes it very difficult to create and impose targets for benefit take up as a whole. There is a concern that targets will deter agencies, acting as a barrier to encouraging them to do more. This complexity is also one reason why people don’t access them in the first place.

Nevertheless it is clear something must be done. Citizens Advice highlight that four out of five low paid workers without children (1.2bn households) miss out on tax credits worth at least £38 per week, a total of £1.9 billion, and as many as half of working households entitled to housing benefit do not claim it. There’s a similar story with council tax benefit, pension credit, and child tax credit.

Access to these extra benefits could take households above the point of desperate struggle, into a situation where they’re able to look forward and plan for the future. There are many reasons why people don’t claim everything they’re entitled to - we frequently meet people who just don’t know about them, people who think they could get them but are left baffled by the complexity of the system, and those who want to but don’t know how.

Targets will ensure that local authorities, job centres, and other offices make active efforts to ensure people access all their benefits - better advertising, more support, more accessible information. Therefore we fully support Citizens Advice on this benefits take-up campaign.

The aim of the exercise was unclear. Was it to present to policymakers the everyday reality of their voters struggling through recession? To demonstrate how difficult it is to get by without a second-home allowance and a charge account at John Lewis? Or was the aim to portray the people living in social housing as workshy layabouts?

Just as the focus was unclear at the outset so was the documentary makers’ approach. At times hard-hitting exchanges, for example about drug misuse, provided a genuine insight to life on the estates. Yet the game show format meant challenging moments were  interspersed with exchanges which ridiculed stereotypes - the MP’s were each provided clothing by their hosts to make them fit-in resulting in a comedy costume competition.

Building one-to-one, personal contact enabled a couple of MPs to express real concern about improving the circumstances of their hosts.  However what did the MP’s think would happen to the damp, mouldy bathroom after “their” resident had been re-housed? It would simply be occupied by the next on the waiting list - without changing the underlying conditions.

Whilst warm relationships were established with individuals each of the MPs, to different extents, demonstrated their distance from the lives of some of the UKs neglected communities. The audience watching on TV were invited to participate in the “Us”  side of an “Us and Them” equation, gazing at the residents of the Tower Block as if they were aliens.

We have written before about the process of  “othering” and referred to Ruth Lister’s definition

‘Othering’: people in poverty are thought about, talked about and treated as ‘Other’ and inferior to the rest of society. A dividing line is drawn between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and the dividing line is imbued with negative judgements that construct ‘the poor’ variously as a source of moral contamination, a threat, an undeserving economic burden, failures in the meritocratic race, an object of pity or even as an exotic species to be studied.

There is a long history of people living in poverty being viewed as “other” dating back to melodramatic Victorians exploring the “Internal Orient” of London’s East End this TV programme reverts to simplistic stereotyping of people in poverty and, in reality, adds nothing to our understanding.

This is my first blog about my experience of being unemployed. I was made redundant after 20 years of working. I had never really taken much time before to find a job and usually just took whatever I could find.

This time I was unemployed I had reached a stage in my life (aged 41) where I wanted to make sure I just didn’t do anything but something I really wanted to do.

Luckily I was offered a job, 16 hour part-time work in something I really wanted. However, the information I got from the Job centre was that I was not entitled to any benefits unless I was actively looking for full time employment. I have since discovered this is not true.

It seems that the Job Centre is obsessed in getting people into work even though it might not be the work they want to do. There was no real understanding of my situation and I was not really treated as a person who needed to be worked with and understood. It was all about looking for work regardless of whether you are ready or know what is right for you.

The way the media portrays people on low incomes is neither positive nor reflective of the true situation. Those covered are often the tiny majority who are also criminal or antisocial - the ‘visible poor‘. Meanwhile poor people of the past are portrayed as nobly struggling, while those of the present are seen as feckless scroungers. And young people often get a particularly raw deal in the media.

There was less agreement on why this distortion occurs. Some focussed on the role of journalists, highlighting how little many journalists know about the lives of those they report on, and how they often don’t take the trouble to find out. Others blamed it not on the journalists themselves but the media as a whole, where a desire to shock and sensationalise can override all other considerations.

On the other hand, perhaps charities have to shoulder some of the blame for being overly hostile towards those journalists who are genuinely interested. And politicians and their language have a powerful influence, both in promoting negative stereotypes, and reacting to them. Indeed, it could be argued that government have thwarted their own ambitions for tackling poverty by turning the public against poor people.

So finally, what do we do about it? There’s perhaps a role for better understanding between journalists and charities, ensuring they work together rather than against each other. Perhaps ignoring the mainstream media and producing your own content or starting conversations in communities is the way forward. And JRF’s excellent guide to reporting poverty is being taken into journalism schools and promoted to students, hopefully influencing the next generation of reporters.

However, I can’t help feeling there is more we could do. Is there room to seriously engage with politicians on this issue, pointing out that stigmatising poor people is a direct barrier to tackling poverty? Are there ways we could engage the media better with people on low incomes? An idea that hasn’t been mentioned this week, but that I’ve heard before, is of a citizens’ panel that holds to account media outlets offering negative portrayals.

This discussion certainly isn’t over, and perhaps over the next few weeks we can keep it going, on this blog or elsewhere. In the meantime we can challenge negative portrayals wherever we see them and perhaps come up with some more concrete proposals for harnessing the power of the media to better represent and promote the interests of people on low incomes.

It has been discussed elsewhere that TV programmes which contrast lives of those possessing wealth and power with communities who have little of either may not be to everyone’s taste. However these shows represent one of the few visible examples on TV of the significant poverty that affects many of the UK population. Whilst we are keen to see the issues seriously discussed in the media, packaging complex lives of the communities we work with into half hour “life-swap infotainment” isn’t the way to do it.

A programme purporting to conduct a serious analysis of an “issue” by introducing representatives from either side - will frequently put people into a situation where conflict is likely to surface, or is encouraged. Conflict provides the driving narrative of many entertaining “character-led documentaries”. For example an article in today’s Sun looks at how a group of MP’s fared when they undertook to leave their comfortable homes and spend some time living in social housing in different parts of the UK. The series “Tower Block Of Commons” airs next week on Channel 4. This could have been a useful exercise - we have often argued for policymakers to see how life is lived on the frontline where abstract policies become service delivery. In the TV project reported in the Sun politicians might have reached an understanding about how housing, employment and education, policies interact and play out at the grass roots in communities with very different life-chances than their own. However all the potential beneficial dialogue is lost beneath a “clash of cultures” representation which generates a little heat but sheds no light.

Life changing exposure can be devastating to participants unused to public profile. People are given their “15 minutes of fame” in a voracious TV schedule which swiftly moves on “after the break” to cover an entirely new topic leaving the unsupported “Reality TV Star” as yesterday’s news. Closer examination of the offers to participate reveals that there is not even a reward for people participating other than “being on the telly”. All the production team get paid and the TV channel generates advertising revenue from the broadcast, yet the “star of the show” gets nothing. I feel sure we will continue to get requests for participants (maybe media people don’t know any poor people themselves) but we will continue to argue for reasoned, serious analysis of the complex issues.

This was the situation six years ago, where world poverty was high on the then chancellor’s agenda and the media was seen to play an important role in combating it. He acknowledged how the media worked; how stories had to be new and shocking to sell and that this reality presented a huge barrier to keeping the interest of the general public and making a practical impact when addressing poverty. Unfortunately six years later it does not seem that this has changed, if anything is has got worse over the years. It may be that tools for communication have advanced to the point where there is so much information instantly available that we are much more likely to register the most shocking of stories. Or that we are so swamped with information that we pass off the familiar as old news, yesterday’s stories.

Yet in recent years there has been increasing coverage of poverty in the UK. One leading paper even created a post for a poverty and development correspondent. Yet coverage of poverty in the UK remains very different from poverty in developing countries. It is largely assumed that people here do not go hungry because of poverty, that the welfare system supports people who would otherwise be poor and that being poor is a result of laziness, an unwillingness to contribute to society. It is shocking to hear that there are still people who spent this particularly cold winter without heating, that there are people, families, in the UK that had to rely on food donations over the holiday season. It seems peculiar that these stories are not told in the same way or hold the same interest as they are as shocking as the poverty Gordon Brown spoke of a number of years ago. Surely the same principle applies ‘we cannot be this rich and see people that poor’ Then maybe the problem is that we do not see people here as ‘that poor’.

We at Community Links, like many similar organisations, are often contacted by journalists seeking out a family or individual to be a case study for a poverty story they wish to report on. This can be a great opportunity for individual people to get their voice heard and counteract stereotypical portrayals of people experiencing poverty; however it remains incredibly difficult to find people who want to speak about their experiences. People we have spoken to say hesitation comes from a fear of being judged and misrepresented by the media. Poverty has become an entertainment story of life styles, benefits and worklessness, social mobility, fraud and even horrendous crimes of abuse, probably because these are shocking to read about and therefore sell papers.

There does seem to be a journalistic appetite for real honest stories but there is also a lack of willing ‘case studies’, real people with real stories to share their battle with poverty with the rest of the nation in order to convince them to care. If done right it can be an incredibly empowering experience but if it is a negative, limited story it doesn’t help solve the problem, in fact it makes it worse. We don’t currently have a famine in the UK with the horrific pictures in Michael Buerk’s famous reports and we shouldn’t need one to get poverty reported with the same respect.

As a campaigner I question why we are trying to get poverty in the media: to bust myths or to get the nation to care and take action to end it? Must we keep shocking readers with poverty stories to spur this country into action again?

Unfortunately I think that the two are interlinked -to get the public to care, and for government to prioritise tackling poverty we must first tackle the stereotypes that currently exist and maybe this requires putting people in a vulnerable position as case studies to make the nation realise that poverty does exit in the UK and it is no less inexcusable than in developing countries.

Liam Purcell works for Church Action on Poverty, whose annual Poverty and Homeless Action week starts on Saturday.

It’s interesting that the Community Links blog is focusing on poverty in the media this week. Right now, we at Church Action on Poverty are in the middle of preparing for our biggest annual effort to raise the public profile of poverty issues. Each year, we work together with our partners Housing Justice and Scottish Churches Housing Action to run Poverty & Homelessness Action Week.

During Action Week, which runs from 30 January to 7 February, we mobilise churches and groups across the UK to run events in their community. It’s a fantastic opportunity for us to make ordinary people more aware of the existence of poverty in their communities, and to generate support for initiatives working to make a difference.

Mobilising grassroots supporters like this is a really effective way for us to get more people to hear the authentic stories of people in poverty. It lets us circumvent the mainstream media completely, and get ordinary people in churches to hear the stories of those in poverty directly. Feedback from previous years shows that this experience has opened many people’s eyes to the reality of UK poverty, and inspired them to get involved in making a difference.

Of course, running an awareness-raising week like this is also a great way of getting poverty issues featured in the media. Last year, we produced a play called Voices from the Edge, which presented the stories of people in poverty and homelessness in their own words. Simon Callow (Four Weddings and a Funeral) appeared in a performance, which led to us having the opportunity for one of our subjects to recount his own experiences of homelessness in The Times.

This year is a bit different. We’re using the week to ask some bigger questions about the root causes of poverty. We want to challenge the dominant ideology - which is reinforced powerfully by the media - that focuses on consumption, economic growth and selfishness. Our supporters are getting involved in projects that tackle poverty by building stronger, more sustainable communities. We’re promoting initiatives like credit unions, cooperatives, allotments, furniture reuse, LETS schemes, and many more. It’s already attracted a lot of attention in local and national media.

If you’d like to use Poverty & Homelessness Action Week to raise awareness of poverty in your own area, check out the website - it’s full of free resources. I’d particularly recommend the 12 Baskets booklet, which lists lots of exciting projects and ideas.

Mike Chitty is a trainer, adviser, consultant and writer on the themes of enterprise, entrepreneurship, leadership and management

“We can help turn your dream into a reality* ”
*subject to eligibility

So says an enterprise marketing campaign aimed at some of the poorest communities in Leeds.  But it could be just about anywhere.  The enterprise fairytale is ubiquitous.

“We can build your confidence, hone your business idea, develop your business plan, manage your debt, and you too can live the entrepreneurial dream.  All it takes is hard work and entrepreneurial spirit - we can teach you the rest.”

We have had Fast Food and now we have got Fast Enterprise.  “Free 3 half day workshops, a little bit of test trading and  Bob’s yer uncle!”

The enterprise fairytale puts the blame for poverty squarely on the poor, promising to overcome decades of benefits culture with a sprinkling of magic dust from the Dragons, Apprentices and Secret Millionaires.

We need enterprise professionals to use the media to tell the truth about enterprise.  That it will always be a double edged sword.  That it carries substantial risks as well as rewards.  That it requires enormous reserves of skill, energy, hard work and dedication.  That it is best not rushed into.  It may take years to gain the experience needed to make a success of it.  That you might need to build a managerial team if you want your business to succeed and your dream to come true rather than be transformed into a living nightmare of debt and long hours.  And that building the right team to work is in itself a risky proposition.

We need enterprise professionals who recognise that the starting point for some of the poorest in our society might not be running their own business or rushing in to self employment.  We need enterprise professionals who are able to start where their clients are at - and not where the funders would like them to be.

So let’s stop filling the media with the enterprise fairytale as some kind of panacea for poverty and lets look a little more imaginatively at how we create enterprising communities.

Spectacle are an independent television production company. A recent project looked at how the media portrays people in poverty, working with individuals featured in documentaries like The Tower and Rich Kid Poor Kid. Claire Sharples, project coordinator, reflects on whether poverty can ever be properly portrayed on TV.

Poverty is a problem faced by both individuals and society. Society commentators are an exclusive group, selected via a hierarchy and instated within a system. How representative can their voice be of the individuals who, because of the restrictions of their experience, do not rise through this?

The stories that find their way into the mass media produce a profound impact on the public subconscious; all mediated by the editorial chain. The commissioning editors of both BBC and Channel 4 documentaries present similar priorities in their commissioning guidelines: Their requests come in loaded language - requesting proposals to match.

Hamish Mykura, Head of Documentaries for More 4 lists ‘harrowing’ ‘obsessed’ ‘extreme’ and ‘compelling’ in the descriptions of previous successes, the titles of which are equally charged: Eight Minutes to Disaster; Killer in a Small Town.

Alternatively, there is a focus on the ‘cheeky’ (BBC3), with BBC3 and 4 seeking ‘onscreen talent’ just as Channel 4 emphasises ‘presenter-led’ documentaries; encouraging programmes that focus less on content and more the ‘entertainment values in their DNA’ (BBC3).

None of these criteria are detrimental in themselves but with this blanket approach to issue-based programming, there is an obvious conflict of interests.

Mass appeal and commercial viability are not criteria that encourage varied and responsible programming. They actively encourage those looking for a commission to seek these reactions in an audience above all else.

Is it possible to draw a large audience to more thorough and balanced documentaries about poverty? Is it useful to try and explore poverty and connected themes on television or does the nature of the platform predetermine failure?

Poverty is a problem faced by individuals and society. Using individuals, who bring their own stories, as props on whom to hang a debate will always blur the two. To choose one or the other as the emphasis is the only reliable option. In the meantime film-makers owe it to their subjects and audience to present the whole story rather than imply only one side, through editorial omissions.