Channel 4 News has just run an item revealing that A4e has managed only 3.5% job outcomes lasting 13 weeks or more.
They've got hold of figures which show that A4e are "improving the lives of very few". Since June 2011 only 18% of starters got work, and only 3.5% got "sustained" work, i.e. lasting 13 weeks. Margaret Hodge said it was "deeply depressing" - "an abysmal performance". Philip Hammond, a correspondent to this blog who has been on the programme for 6 months, said in an interview that it did not offer real support and called the WP a scam.
The reporter pointed out that in Newham, East London, A4e's performance of 3% was worse than that of the local authority's own scheme.
Ian Mulheirn of the Social Market Foundation says that the figures are worse than the DWP's forecast for no intervention at all. The DWP wouldn't comment, except to say that it would be "ludicrous" to talk about the figures now. A4e doesn't dispute the figures but wouldn't be interviewed either.
The item ended with the comment that although A4e is falling way below minimum standards it's unlikely that they will lose their contracts. It's critical to know how well or badly the other providers are doing.
The presenter at the end, said to solve the problem that a4e is failing is.. to give them more money..
ReplyDeleteThe DWP, will massage the figures, or find a new reason to delay it.. 10 months figures is ludicrous, but 12 months figures thats ok... they "earned" £46 million, just for the bums on seats attachment fees.
Just realised the 13weeks are for the "vulnerable" people. Not the normal work programme people..
ReplyDeleteNo, the figures are for all clients, with A4e and their subcontractors.
DeleteFace it we are a commodity ,end of,these vile creatures from Daffy Dave on down do not care,as long as they keep the masses down,I am convinced that they will massage the numbers..why..Ego's
DeleteEven so, its awful figures
ReplyDeleteYou only have to look at the "targets" board on any provider's office to see this. It usually says target 8 (per month for each "adviser"), the actual is like 0 or 1 on a blue moon. These people are failing miserably.
ReplyDeleteA couple of thinks strike me about the pathetic figures exposed by Ch4.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, A4e claim as they do on their website that they performed better than the industry average when delivering the New and Flex New Deal and Pathways to Work progs. If this turns out to be the case with the WP, then I'd love to see the figures for the rest of the W2W sector! It would place an already faltering WP in serious trouble.
It will become ever more difficult to justify. Of course, we all know Cameron, Greyling and D Smith are ideologues and have tied themselves to the mast of this rudderless vessel.
Secondly, if A4e's rivals delivering the WP have performed better than A4e, (better not necessarily meaning good) then they (A4e) will be singled out for its the worst performance amongst its other woes. Cameron, D Smith and Greyling will thus have to explain why they awarded the worst performing provider with contracts time after time.
I see difficult questions ahead. Whether they'll be adequately answered if at all is another matter.
So they,ve already pocketed (or pursed) £46,000,000 and produced a performance below that if nothing had been spent or done.
ReplyDeleteBut it's too early to tell if it's working so keep on throwing money at us.
If it is failing it's the government's fault for not giving us enough money - so give us more.
This is definitely cloud cuckoo land - or as it's known locally Thornbridge Hall. Great Longstone, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE5 1NY.
All donations welcome.
Gissajob
Throwing good money after bad, what is known as the "Sunk Cost Fallacy". To go with the "Just World Fallacy" so beloved of these "providers".
DeleteA4E claim on there Web Site they place someone in work every 7 minutes...Who does there accounting? or what country do they do this in?
ReplyDeleteProbably not which country they come from, more like which planet - it could be 7 minutes of Uranus-time for all we know.
DeleteI complained about the 7 minute statement to the ASA. A4greed withdrew the statement and told the ASA that they had done so which caused the complaint to lapse. A4greed then posted a statement rplacing "7 minutes" with "5 minutes". I have renewed my ASA complaint and await developments.
DeleteG.
The wording has changed slighly from the original wording I complained about but I have nevertheless cntacted the ASA.
Delete