Saturday, 25 July 2009

Why it's so hard to claim job outcomes

New Deal providers can only claim a job outcome if the job is intended to last for 13 weeks or more and is 16 or more hours per week. A4e fell foul of this when they agreed with a recruitment agency to put temporary jobs down as permanent; but they were unlucky, since many providers have done the same thing. The problem is that so many jobs these days are on a short-term contract or casual basis. An article on the Recruiter website illustrates this. A big waste management company, Veolia, has engaged a recruitment company, Barker Ross, to supply "flexible" staff. We all know what that means. Then we're told "Barker Ross is also to supply locally-based staff to Veolia’s Sheffield site and is working with Action for Employment and the Jobcentre to place candidates." Great news for people who get work. But if the agency places A4e clients as "flexible" staff, without guaranteeing them 13 weeks work, they can't be claimed as job outcomes.


  1. The problem is... it is rather difficult to bring a fraud prosecution over this - not that they would anyway. Instead of having it written such as "will last over 13 weeks and must be over 16 hours a week" it is written as with intention.

    The loophole here is... to claim for it (this is fraud) but use the it was intended to last longer wildcard if caught. This means if caught A4e can simply negotiate to pay back the money.

    Very easy...

  2. I disagree with this, and I think you're seeing conspiracies where none exist. The 13-weeks, 16-hours bit was written into the contracts so that the government could claim that these were "real" jobs, and rule out the obviously casual work. But increasingly firms are employing people through agencies; and providers know that they have people signing off and going into what may well turn out to be full-time permanent jobs but they can't count them as job outcomes or claim payment for them. It may be tempting to get the agency to sign for them, but there's nothing to be gained by doing this as a sort of gamble, with no real penalty if they're caught. Nobody wants the sort of publicity A4e had over it. By the way, the government judges how many real job outcomes there are by counting how many people are paying tax, not how many have signed off JSA.

  3. I didn't say a conspiracy. I am saying that they always word things wrong.

    For example, whats the difference between a temporary job and a pemanent job where an employer gets rid of someone within in the probationary period (which makes it temporary) and claims the credit crunch is to blame?

    If the job is advertised as permanent then it "intends" to be permanent even though the employer can use a clause in the employment contract to termiante employment early.

    Would this be classified as intending to last that long where Job Outcome payment is made OR will it be the case of as it didn't last that period no payment is to be made?

    Real job outcome calculations has nothing to do with what a New Deal provider can claim for. It is rather like comparing the real number of unemployed against the JSA claimant count minus new dealers and those on work trials.

    I disagree with it being written into contracts I don't see it in the New Deal contracts I have.

    Did you know? If you was on New Deal and you change providers half way through both providers will get an outcome bonus even if theere was no outcome?

  4. Perhaps "written into the contracts" is semantics. The form for a job outcome claim asks whether it is intended to last for 13 weeks or more. It is the intention that counts, and the provider will get the form signed as soon as possible. It will still be a job outcome even if it only lasts one day. However, if the client left the programme for the job before the 13 weeks of the programme were completed, and the job hasn't in fact lasted for 13 weeks, the provider won't be able to claim the "rolled up weeks". You'll have to explain that last paragraph; it makes no sense to me.

  5. Where Participants are transferred from/to another provider, whether at Jobcentre Plus' request, on expiry or termination of this Contract or a particular Programme then, the new provider shall be entitled to payment of the remaining proportion of the On Programme Element (OPE) (calculated on a pro-rata basis) and both providers shall be entitled to full payment of the Outcome Element (OE) as set out in this Schedule 6.

  6. Okay. I would think that that's because it's easier all round than haggling about which provider was more responsible for the outcome.

  7. yeah, but surely it should either be a) halfed b) divided between weeks spent or c) given to only the last provider.

    It also sounds that both providers will get the money even if there is no outcome.

    What a waste of taxpayers money!

  8. No, they'll only get an outcome payment if there is an outcome! And there could be major difficulties splitting it. Under the current contracts it's not a huge slice of the maximum payment.

  9. I agree with both Historian and New Deal Scandal. The way the system has been set up makes it ripe for abuse.


Keep it clean, please. No abusive comments will be approved, so don't indulge in insults. If you wish to contact me, post a comment beginning with "not for publication".