Dr China Mills shares her experiences of pulling together decades of evidence of deaths, protests and failures in the disability benefits system for a new timeline which holds the government to account
Philippa Day took her own life in 2019 after her disability benefits were stopped. Before she died, she told her sister that she knew the assessment system was going to kill her – “she felt that they were pressuring her to kill herself, she felt that she didn’t matter because she was disabled”.
In January 2021, the coroner at the inquest into Philippa’s death found that 28 separate “problems” with the administration of the personal independence payment (PIP) system had contributed to her death – concluding that these were not individual errors by DWP and its private sector contractor Capita and instead that these were systemic flaws.
Disabled people have been campaigning for over a decade about how welfare policies are killing them. As a researcher, who had been looking at the connections between welfare policy and suicide for a number of years, I knew there was so much evidence that connected the UK’s social security system to people’s deaths.
But it was well hidden – in the online equivalent of a building full of grey filing cabinets, in reports with no title and just a number, in responses to freedom of information requests.
In 2021, I asked John Pring, editor of Disability News Service and a disabled journalist, if he’d consider wading through the evidence together and finding a way to put it out into the world. He replied the same day and said yes.
Fast forward almost three years, and many emails later, Healing Justice London is launching the Deaths by Welfare timeline – a massive database of evidence showing how the disability benefits system creates life-threatening policies that lead to disabled people’s deaths.
From an initial draft based on Pring’s decade-long investigations and my own research into welfare reform and suicide, we created a draft timeline.
This was then shared with and added to by three disabled activists, Ellen Clifford, Dolly Sen and Rick Burgess, and welfare rights advisor Nick Dilworth, and then released for public consultation.
Where people’s deaths in the disability benefits system have been investigated, including by the DWP, they are often treated as private, individual cases. Bringing together all these documents into a timeline makes it possible to track patterns.
Patterns of harm that have led to people being left destitute, starving to death, and taking their own lives after encounters with the disability benefits system. These are patterns that remain hidden if we only examine individual ‘cases’. The timeline reveals other patterns too – damning evidence that the DWP, and its contractors, knew about these deaths and yet has repeatedly denied responsibility and refused to make systemic change.
Researchers like me often convince ourselves that we’re objective and removed from our investigations. But the experience of co-creating the timeline has been harrowing, heart-breaking and enraging. It’s the repetition that has worn me down and lodged in my heart – the number of times the government has been warned of harms, even from their own research, and the repetition of harms across so many people who have died.
Like many of us, I used to say that people’s deaths were the outcome of ‘flaws’ and ‘mistakes’ in the system – as though the system just needs tweaking to make it safer. But co-creating the Deaths by Welfare timeline made it frighteningly obvious that harm is much more deeply designed into the welfare system. It’s a feature, not a bug.
Yet the timeline isn’t one of despair – it is bursting with disabled people’s expertise, knowledge, activism, and creativity in resisting the violence of the welfare state. From protesting on the streets, holding up cardboard broken hearts bearing the names of just some of those who have died, to quieter resistance – relentless submission of FOIs and re-analysis of government data. It is threaded through with cross-disability and cross-movement solidarity, and solidarity between bereaved families and disabled people.
For example, in July 2021, when bereaved families write to the work and pensions secretary to demand a public inquiry into benefits-related deaths. And in 2012 and 2021, when Deaf, Disabled and Asylum seeking people came together, as part of the Disability Murals Project, to create a mural highlighting the barriers and state violence disabled asylum seekers face, including exclusion from the welfare system.
While justice means different things to different people, those campaigning for change know the problems lie in DWP systems, and many demand an independent inquiry into benefits-related deaths. Many see justice as coming from beyond the state – in demolishing the current system and creating life-affirming systems, with disabled people at the heart.
We created the Deaths by Welfare timeline as a tool for disability justice movement organising – a resource, a living document, that can move us towards accountability, transformation and justice.
To access the timeline visit www.deathsbywelfare.org
For our podcast episodes (all captioned and translated into BSL) please visit https://healingjusticeldn.org/deaths-by-welfare-project/
Dr China Millsis the Disability Justice Lead at Healing Justice Ldn. She manages the Deaths by Welfare Project, exploring how welfare policies harm people and what can be learned from the strategies of disabled people and bereaved families in fighting for justice.
I also thought there would be specific examples leading to concluding paragraph.
Anecdotally, I do know someone who is disabled and after he changed his address he stopped receiving payments completely, and it took about 18 months to reestablish payments and every time he talked with someone over those 18 months he had to completely re-explain the situation and how many times he had already changed his address just how they were asking him to within their system and confirmed with the last person that he had talked to that he had changed his address in their system but had not received a single payment since the first time he changed his address.
At the end of it they finally confirmed that he had been missing payments for over a year and they would start trying to reimburse him.
He lives with his brother who works so he wasn’t homeless, but if he hadn’t had family, then the system could have easily killed him.
The article is about a timeline of events, which is linked at the bottom, as well as many other links in the body of the article that lead to much more info and examples, I’m not sure what more they could have done.
As for your anecdote, I can second it, since I had a similar thing happen to me (moved to a new area, had my benefits stopped while they re-assessed me in the new area). This happens due to privatisation and a breaking up of the system so that each area is managed by a different contractor, and they don’t really communicate (since none are designed to give the claimant the best outcome, so why would they). I knew my benefits had been stopped and it still took a little over a year to get everything going again (with significant support).
The timeline, behind a five-click-introduction that explains and teaches you about the structure of the timeline itself, is an impersonal wiki list of bureaucratic events that led to a poorly run and maintained welfare system, it is a dry read on a cluttered page.
The article could easily include a couple testimonies or anecdotes to show people reading the article how the poorly run system is affecting real people.
As much as your comment pisses me off, it does have some value, in proving the title perfectly accurate - people need to start listening to disabled people more, because this is obviously an issue for many of you.
The article did include a couple of stories, you just didn’t care enough to click through to the examples (or to read a shock horror short introduction to the literal information you are demanding).
And since you clearly don’t give enough of a shit to make the effort, neither will I, have a copy pasta and go on with your life of wilful ignorance:
you could have clicked more than one link in the article, and reached this(“people’s deaths”), which links to:
https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/dwp-disability-benefits-claimants-fail-whistleblowers/
https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/dwp-disability-benefits-assessors-pressure-ramp-up-numbers/
https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/legacy-benefits-claimant-astonished-judge-justified-discrimination/
https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/dwp-cut-back-my-disability-benefits-feared-homelessness/
All of which contain many other links, and also:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/esa-outcomes-of-work-capability-assessments-including-mandatory-reconsiderations-and-appeals-december-2022/esa-work-capability-assessments-mandatory-reconsiderations-and-appeals-december-2022
Or this(“contractors”)
which links to:
https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/dwp-disability-benefits-assessments-pip-westminster-debate/
https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/dwp-refused-pip-deducted-universal-credit/
Never mind the timeline the entire article about, which, if you scroll, will provide you with relevant links and information about individual deaths as well as the big picture
https://deathsbywelfare.org/timeline/#mps-refuse-to-question-minister-over-deaths-by-welfare-timeline
All you had to do was give the tiniest of shits, the information is all there.
My comment has value because of what we know about how people read articles and engage with causes.
If you just want to write a diary, then you can structure it however you like.
If, however, your intention is to raise awareness of a situation or minority, then it behooves you to make it as engaging as it is credibly informative and comprehensive for as wide as audience as possible. If you are actually trying to raise awareness through an article, all of those elements must be satisfied.
This short article contains thirteen links, many of which lead to statistics or bureaucratic processes.
Trying to raise awareness by obligating the reader, who may be learning about this for the first time, to click literally over a dozen links that require further clickthroughs is not going to help engagement with the article or raise awareness and support as much as you apparently think it is.
Neither is being insulting or making assumptions based on your own misapprehension of my comment.