OPEN DWP - Social Benefits is an independently governed PHC Community Assurance project examining how social-benefit administration is experienced in practice and how unresolved administrative barriers affect individuals, families and communities. It combines voluntary participant journaling, structured PHC timechunk records, CLAMPED entity management, maintained Concern narratives, comment-derived evidence and periodic assurance reporting. Initial pilots will be deliberately limited in scale. They may focus on Universal Credit and DWP interactions while allowing relevant connections to other services to be recorded. The service is provided for public benefit rather than to DWP as a conventional client, although DWP will be invited to engage, respond and use the findings. Funding may come from humanitarian, philanthropic or responsible-business sponsors, but sponsorship will not confer control over findings, participant evidence or publication decisions. The project does not replace official complaints, Mandatory Reconsideration, appeal, welfare-rights advice, legal advice, safeguarding services or emergency support. Its purpose is to make experience, contribution, barriers, decisions and institutional responses visible enough to support learning, accountability and practical improvement.
📄 P369 Project Information — Revised 03 August 2026 📄 P369 Framing Questions — Revised 03 August 2026 📄 P369 Manifesto — Revised 03 August 2026 📄 P369 Strategic Plan — Revised 03 August 2026 📄 P369 Business Case — Revised 03 August 2026 📄 The Story of PHCThis proposal invites a responsible funder to sponsor the staged definition, readiness and possible pilot of P369 through the PHC Community Assurance Service.
The immediate proposition is not to fund a predetermined cohort or purchase a report that will sit unchanged after delivery. The sponsor is invited to fund a continuously maintained evidence base and governed decision process. PHC will connect Schedule, Concerns, Actions, Locations, People, Events and Deliverables with contribution, comments, evidence, decisions and versioned narratives.
Funding will proceed by explicit gates. The first funded stage will determine whether a safe, useful and proportionate participant service can be established, what capability it requires and what it will cost. A negative or conditional readiness finding is a valid assurance outcome. Recruitment will occur only if the agreed readiness gate is passed.
This proposal is a basis for sponsor discussion. Final scope, price, responsibilities, data arrangements, publication terms and liabilities must be confirmed in a project-specific agreement or statement of work before funded delivery begins.
A person may receive many benefit-system messages, tasks, evidence requests, warnings and decisions without gaining a coherent account of what happened, what remains unresolved or where qualified help is required. Case closure may end the administrative workflow and journal access without resolving the individual's confusion, distress or need for explanation.
P369 will begin by structuring the project lead's own documented Universal Credit experience as an initial evidence case, including an apparent ambiguity in claim-closure chronology and a formal DWP right of reply. It will then define and test the minimum safe service through which a small number of consenting participants might maintain their own structured records with appropriate support and referral.
The project does not replace DWP processes, benefits advice, Mandatory Reconsideration, appeal, legal representation, safeguarding services or emergency assistance. It will not promise a favourable entitlement decision or publish participant information as the price of support.
If readiness is demonstrated, a bounded micro-pilot will test participant usefulness, burden, accessibility, evidence quality, referral, institutional response, delivery workload, cost and harm. Any wider geographic pilot will require its own host capability, referral knowledge, funding and approval.
| Party | Proposed role | Current status |
|---|---|---|
| Responsible funder/sponsor | Funds an agreed stage, reviews evidence and makes progressive funding decisions without controlling findings or individual cases. | Not confirmed |
| Order Efficiency Ltd | Proposed contracting vehicle for the PHC assignment; contractual administration, agreed financial control and delivery coordination. | Existing company; P369 appointment not yet contracted |
| PHC project lead | Method leadership, project assurance, evidence structure and sponsor reporting within agreed competence and governance. | David Winter |
| PHC delivery team | Record support, analysis, administration, technical operation and reporting under defined roles and supervision. | To be named and contracted |
| Safeguarding/participant-support lead | Safeguarding framework, escalation, supervision and participant-safety challenge. | Required before recruitment; not confirmed |
| Welfare-rights/referral partner | Qualified advice or referral input outside PHC competence and local referral mapping. | Required before recruitment; not confirmed |
| Data-protection/accessibility input | Reviews information flows, consent, security, participant rights and accessible participation routes. | Required during readiness; not confirmed |
| Local host/referral organisation | Provides trusted access, local context and, where agreed, private assisted access and referral support. | Required for a location-based pilot; not confirmed |
| Independent adviser/evaluator | Challenges methods, measures, bias, adverse findings and gate recommendations. | To be agreed proportionate to risk |
| Participants | Voluntary users and contributors who retain meaningful choices about participation, correction and disclosure. | No external participants recruited |
| DWP and other public bodies | Evidence sources, respondents, recipients of findings and potential users of learning; offered correction and right of reply. | No endorsement or formal partnership assumed |
Delivery is proposed through three progressively authorised phases.
Phase 1 does not presume a green light. Phase 2 does not guarantee recruitment. Phase 3 size and duration will be fixed only after capacity, safeguards and cost are demonstrated. Each phase requires its own authorised scope and funding.
The sponsor may challenge evidence, cost, governance and value. The sponsor may not select findings, suppress adverse evidence, direct individual cases, require participant publicity or override safeguarding, consent or right-of-reply decisions.
Indicative duration: Seven working days after access to the agreed starting information and stakeholders. Calendar dates and team availability will be confirmed in the statement of work.
Purpose: Determine whether the P369 proposition is sufficiently coherent and potentially valuable to justify funded readiness work.
Activities:
Outputs: maintained PHC project records; review findings; baseline Concerns and actions; readiness-gap assessment; proposed measures; Phase 2 scope and budget basis; and a Go / Revise / Pause / Stop recommendation. The output is not a guarantee that a participant pilot will proceed.
Duration: To be agreed from Phase 1 findings. No fixed two-month assumption is made.
Purpose: Build and independently challenge the minimum safe service before recruitment.
Activities:
Recruitment gate: external participants may be invited only when named authorities confirm that the critical readiness criteria are met and residual risks are accepted. Otherwise Phase 2 will be revised, paused or closed with its evidence preserved.
Duration and participant capacity: To be fixed at the Phase 2 recruitment gate. The number will follow funded support capacity rather than a promotional cohort target.
Purpose: Test whether the minimum service is safe, usable, proportionate and capable of producing valuable evidence.
Activities:
Final gate: recommend Continue / Change / Replicate / Pause / Stop. Replication in another location will require a separately approved local capability, referral map, budget and risk assessment.
Phase 1 expected outputs: a coherent and challenged definition set; structured initial evidence case; maintained baseline Concern portfolio; DWP right-of-reply record; readiness-gap analysis; and a costable next-stage scope.
Phase 2 expected outputs: named capability and responsibilities; approved safeguarding and referral framework; data, consent and publication rules; accessible operating pathways; tested PHC configuration; training and supervision arrangements; pilot measures; cost baseline; funded closure plan; and an explicit recruitment decision.
Phase 3 testable outcomes: clearer and more usable participant records; earlier visibility of barriers and referral needs; traceable institutional responses and corrections; evidence of recurring or non-recurring Concerns; reliable cost and workload data; and a defensible decision about continuation or replication.
These are not guaranteed impacts. The project will also report non-engagement, withdrawal, weak evidence, lack of institutional response, accessibility failure, distress, adverse events, excessive delivery burden and any finding that PHC duplicates existing support or does not add proportionate value.
Benefit awards, participant numbers, website traffic, public comments and expansion will not be treated alone as evidence that the service worked.
No standard hardware purchase is proposed. Equipment requirements will follow an evidenced host and participant-access assessment.
| Potential requirement | Decision basis | Current status |
|---|---|---|
| Participant or host devices | Accessibility and needs assessment; secure configuration; named custody | Not established |
| Connectivity/data support | Participant access barriers and local alternatives | Not established |
| Private assisted-access space | Host capability, safeguarding, accessibility and confidentiality | Not established |
| Printing/scanning | Minimum necessary document handling and secure disposal | Not established |
| Security/accessibility tools | Technical assessment and reasonable adjustments | Required to be assessed |
Any equipment purchase will require a named custodian, inventory, acceptable-use conditions, maintenance, data-wiping and loss/damage arrangements. A sponsor will not be asked to buy equipment simply to make the project appear tangible.
No named delivery-team commitment or valid people-cost total exists yet. Legacy rates, placeholder participants and named individuals other than the project lead are withdrawn from this proposal.
| Function | Minimum requirement | Appointment status | Cost basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| PHC project leadership and assurance | Defined authority, deliverables and time commitment | Project lead identified; contract not agreed | Quote by phase |
| PHC analysis/administration/technical support | Capacity derived from records, users and reporting cadence | Team not confirmed | Role, rate and hours to be agreed |
| Safeguarding and participant support | Competent lead, escalation and supervision | Vacant; prerequisite to recruitment | Specialist quotation required |
| Welfare-rights/referral capability | Qualified boundary and local referral support | Vacant; prerequisite to recruitment | Partner or specialist quotation required |
| Data protection and accessibility | Review, controls and participant rights | Vacant | Specialist input to be scoped |
| Local host/support | Referral, assisted access and local context where applicable | No host confirmed | Agreement and budget required |
| Independent evaluation/challenge | Proportionate review of method, measures and gate findings | Not confirmed | Scope-dependent |
Paid work, contributed time, participant activity and any humanitarian allocation will be recorded separately. Participation will not be described as employment or as creating guaranteed payment. Unpaid or underpaid labour will not be used to conceal an otherwise unaffordable service model.