Much of A4e's "news" i.e. PR output is focussed on Plymouth at the moment. They are part of something called "Plymouth Works Plus" which has an interesting website homepage. Under "Who we are" they say, "Plymouth Works Plus is a European Social Fund (ESF) and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) funded project. The organisations working together to provide this support are A4E, The Neighbourhood Learning Consortium, Pluss and RITE Associates Ltd. Our Team consists of trained advisors, consultants, employment engagement advisors and trainers." Fine. But the next paragraph, "What we do", is not reassuring. "Plymouth Works Plus are here to help imporve the employability of unemployed people. We do this by tackling barriers to worked faced by people with disabilities or helath conditions, lone parents, people aged 50+, ethnic minorities, those with no or low qualifications and anyone over 16 not in education., employmnet or training." This is copied and pasted directly from the website. So, a little exercise for you - how many mistakes can you spot in those two sentences? Why has no one from the organisation spotted them?
However, A4e's PR exercise in this area seems to be to associate themselves with the success of people who overcame handicaps to become stars. First we had AWARD WINNING PLAYWRIGHT TEAMS UP WITH A4E. I confess I'd never heard of Sue Torr, but her story is told in the Guardian. What does it have to do with A4e? Well, “A4e has teamed up with Sue to promote help for people to improve their basic skills in literacy and numeracy where A4e runs our Employability Skills programme in Plymouth and across the rest of the South West region.” What does that mean? “A4e is helping Sue with business support on her US tour by organising business cards, literature, and a Dictaphone courtesy of Apex Core Training.” So they have "organised" business cards and literature (the dictaphone, note, was supplied by someone else). Yesterday we got the story of A GENIUS PAINTER WITH A DIFFERENCE. Here we have an even more tenuous connection with A4e. They have "helped Eddy with displaying his works and with help and advice guidance on how he can develop his great talent for painting.” (I know that's not grammatical, but it's what's on the website.) I'm sure Eddy, and Sue, were grateful for A4e's support, but I can't help thinking that it's the publicity that matters. And in my treasury of A4e slogans there's a new (and ungrammatical) one from Carol Boyd of Plymouth A4e: "A4e has a talent of nurturing people’s dreams what ever age or barriers."
I don't want to harp on about standards of English, but they are a training company. So I have to point out that the latest story on The MyA4e Community escaped proof-reading by someone competent in English - particularly in the use of the apostrophe. It's headed "Congratulation's Kimberley!" (see http://community.mya4e.com/2009/08/congratulations-kimberley/).
ReplyDeleteI think A4e are too eager to rush out good news stories, proof reading is probably the last thing on their mind. I'm sure Sue Torr is now well known in the Plymouth area, and once she visits the US the national media may take an interest - which A4e will no doubt cash in. And it all diverts attention from the neagtive criticism they have had recently.
ReplyDeleteLooks like proof reading was the last thing on your mind too Gerry Attric!
ReplyDeleteI understand people's frustrations with the system, but did anyone actually stop to think that the contacts A4e run are written by the DWP, and that when they appear to be making unfair decisions and demands, they are in actual fact only following the contractual guidance that which is written by JCP and the Government.
Very true, Anon, as I've pointed out quite often. I've defended A4e myself when people have blamed them for matters they have no discretion in. However, how companies work within those guidelines and contractual obligations varies a great deal - and that's what is at issue.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree historian. But to slate the frontline workers as many do I feel a bit harsh. There are people who work in all sorts of jobs who do not care about their work or their customers - not just in A4e. I feel that those Advisors who do give all they can and endlessly fight to help those that come through the doors do not get the credit that is due. I'll get off my soap box now!!!
ReplyDeleteYou're right, of course. I used to know A4e employees who were good people doing the best job they could. But there are too many, totally credible, stories from both clients and staff of A4e (they were on my old website) which show that a climate of maximising profit by minimising costs can and does result in the demoralisation of the good staff.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience most of the A4e staff at the coal face were very helpful and dedicated. It's the bosses of A4Ee that give them a bad name,all they care about are increasing profits. A4e should be nationalised, it's the only way.
ReplyDeleteI heard A4e had a weekly budget of about GBP 190 to spend on each New Deal client. Does anyone know what happened to this money because they sure didn't spend it if the overcrowding, and lack of computers is anything to go by!
ReplyDeleteDon't know where you heard that Trevor but it's not correct! The payments A4e receive not only covers travel, training, clothes and resources for the customer (I realise from other comments that this may not be the case for all but that is what should be available), but also the overheads for the office (rent, rates and utilities etc) and staff wages. These are all required to be able to deliver New Deal and other contracts in the first place.
ReplyDeleteDo the A4e staff undergo criminal records checks?
ReplyDeleteTwo good points. On the payments issue, the "on programme payments", the amount claimed per week per client, does indeed have to cover overheads. But it doesn't cover travel - that's claimed back from JCP. It only covers training fees for the over-25s; the FTETs' training costs can be reclaimed. It doesn't cover most clothing - that's paid by JCP e.g. to go to interview, except where special clothing or equipment is required for a work placement. Trevor's perception is right, however, in that it's common to economise on facilities in order to boost profits.
ReplyDeleteAmber, any staff who come into close contact with clients should have a CRB check. The recent Ofsted report for the Hull area A4e offices said that staff lacked those checks.
I just emailed Yvette Cooper (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) asking if she was aware that staff employed by providers of the New Deal program were not subject to a criminal records check. I'll let you know the outcome when I get a reply. In 2009 this really is a shcoking state of affairs!
ReplyDeleteWhat concerns me is that A4E secured a contract for delivering legal advice in Hull; little is known about the success or failure of that particular project; there is very little information public information where A4E are concerned. but the Legal Service Commission(LSC) has designated Plymouth a separate area from the rest of Devon in their procurement plan; which indicates they may be looking to put a CLAC (which is what A4E secured in Hull)in Plymouth at some time over the next 3 years (the longer time procurement time scale) This would be a huge blow to solicitor firms and NFP organisations such as CAB who have a well founded and specialist depth of knowledge in the provision of legal advice in the social welfare sector. It could mark the closure of many such agencies who have worked very hard to keep LSC contracts over the last decade. If A4E secures a contract in providing legal advice we will then be in the very unsatisfactory position of having A4E involved in the assessment phases of Employment Support Allowance (as they use staff under related partnerships - Maximus - Working Links - and so on - who work alongside the DWP in JCP when advising claimants). Not to mention their dubious involvement with JSA claimants; all of which becomes all the more unsavoury when A4E could potentially secure LSC funding to advise the very same claimants when they need to turn to someone to help them dispute the decisions the DWP (using A4E staff) are making! It's a real potential conflict of interest area and perhaps A4E's motives are more to do with not just securing funding for each claimant they purport to help back into work but making sure the very same claimants have little prospect of being able to dispute anything the DWP decide! And why is no-one looking more searchingly into just how much A4E is making out of all of this with doubts cast upon the integrity of their outcome claims (the subject of a DWP fraud investigation elsewhere). It all takes on a bit of a sinister twist when the good lady who started the A4E set up founded herself upon the award of funding from the long abandoned Manpower Services Commission; and look what happened to that! It's all looking very much like history repeating itself.
ReplyDeleteLet's be careful about imputing motives.
ReplyDeleteAfter the first three CLACs (the first went to a CAB consortium in Gateshead) it seemed that the government had decided that this wasn't a good idea. If there is one in the pipeline for Plymouth, the CAB may well have learned from experience and be able to secure the contract. Far better, of course, not to have the contracts at all.
You ask why no one is looking more closely. Actually, the financial figures are published. And at least one MP is asking questions, but not getting satisfactory answers.