I am always delighted to see Private Eye keeping on the case, so I approve of the piece in the latest issue. They say that "A4e has found a new way to make money from the government's struggling Work Programme: claim bonuses for people who already have jobs." Let's be clear, it has always been the case, from the old New Deal onwards, that providers could claim job outcomes when people already had an interview lined up before starting the programme. It wasn't uncommon for someone to turn up on Monday saying that they had an interview later that day. Great, the provider would say, just sign this form and phone us to let us know how you got on. As long as the form was signed, the client had started the programme, and the outcome could be claimed. If the client got a job before starting the programme, then they signed off. What the Private Eye item claims is that A4e (and, presumably, other providers) are getting people onto the WP when they already have a job lined up but haven't yet started it. That allows A4e to claim the attachment fee and the outcome payment. The DWP thinks that's fine, as long as the client hasn't already started work. But why would anyone want to attach themselves to A4e if they have a job in the pipeline? Well, the Public Accounts Committee was given evidence that the company was offering £50 vouchers to the clients. A4e denied this; and indeed, it may well be that the £50 was just the standard "bonus" offered to clients to help get the outcome form signed. They're not denying, however, that they offer sums to cover clothing, travel expenses etc. So it seems worthwhile to the client; and is hugely worthwhile to A4e.
You may remember the bizarre situation of the Cabinet Office giving a contract to A4e to "explore the application of payment by results and social finance to troubled families." Who better to offer dispassionate advice on the subject? Well, they've now come up with their report. I wonder if anyone is still interested.
Just a word to people who want to leave comments. I've been getting a spate of comments which I can't publish because they name particular offices and even people. Edit those out, please.
" I wonder if anyone is still interested."
ReplyDeleteWell I don't know if there's such a thing as a Virtual Waste Paper Bin but I guess that's where this report is heading.
Another example of A4e being paid taxpayers' money to come up with a scam that A4e can bid for (or should that be"4"?) and be paid millions (just like the money advice racket).
Surely they cannot keep getting away with this?
Just for clarification - Is it a4e who pay for these clothing vouchers & travelling expenses from their attachment and/or outcome fees, or is it reclaimed from the taxpayer, via DWP?
ReplyDeleteAlso, back in 1995, I qualified for a training course due to being unemployed for over six months. I've been told by a4e that I won't receive any funding for a similar training scheme unless I am in a "sustainable job" first (Whatever "sustainable" means).
With all these quangos & all this bureaucratic nonsense flying about these days, how can I be expected to get a job if a certain qualification I've held for several years (But now out of date) is prerequisite for me to start a job, but I can't get the funding to retrain for the relevant qualification, unless I get the job first?
I don't want to tell a4e if I get a start through my own endeavours, as they won't deserve a bean, but because my certificates are now worthless, I'm unable to do a job I'm qualified for and more than competent in - a job I've done throughout my career, until I was finished up a few years back.
It's another way of driving (formerly) qualified people into menial, NMW labour, in my opinion. And there'll be plenty of people who have even more desirable skills forced to work for NMW.
Such a waste. But as long as a4e get theirs.......
Re your first paragraph - the payments would be funded by A4e.
DeleteTo quote me ex (so called) "adviser": A4e do not fund training unless you can put forward a sound business case. For example, you were in the top two selected for a vacancy and the job offer was dependent on passing a specific course, in which case A4e *may* consider funding the course". In other words, a load of hogwash to try to mask the fact that no training was on offer, nor would ANY funding be forthcoming.
DeleteI've heard this before, about other providers. Does anyone have it in writing? If so, send me a "not for publication" comment.
DeleteHa! In that case, I want to go to the a4e office five days a week, every week, instead of the once-monthly-for-fifteen-minutes they can be bothered to spare for me now! (I go in, wait while she types up the email applications I've made, makes a new appt - and that's about it)
DeleteGiven their track record on what they've achieved for me, they'll end up paying out more in travelling expenses, than the attachment fee's worth :p
On a more serious note, does anyone know if a4e will provide a clothing voucher/grant, even if I don't have an interview? I've never asked them, but I've had interviews since I've been on the WP, and I could do with some new stuff, as my own isn't what you'd call in "tip-top" condition.
If this does not count as one of the biggest con's ever put on the Public Purse, I am not sure what is,based on results?...Inflated and distorted results,while claiming the programme is working in one hand ,but saying they need more money upfront in the other..Bloody Ponzi Scheme ...
ReplyDeleteJust heard that the EC (European Commission) is to start prosecuting bankers who did what Barclays did recently, fixing lending rates.
ReplyDeleteA4e is fixing outcomes by claiming outcomes for those who have secured an interview and worse still claiming for those who have gained employment BEFORE becoming one of A4e's WP clients. The DWP should wise up and be just as tough on A4e (and any other provider) conducting such dodgy business as the EC is about to be on the banking sector!
The reason they offer to pay the travel and clothing costs is so they can justify the "support" they have offered the client, which in turn is added to their A4e desk IT system and when they are PAT audited, they use these payments as justification for claiming the attachment fee and subsequent job outcome/ sustainability payments
ReplyDeleteI realize my Job is getting a Job,what I fail to understand is that the WP offers ,no help "We have no money available for training" Yes they have re jigged my CV,but little else...What is the point,Why are they here? That Bloody Black Box excuse is wearing thin.
ReplyDeleteIf DWP audit any provider and look at the customer journey prior to them getting into work, they are within their right to claw back the job outcome payment. So basically if the journey implies that the customer had received a job offer prior to signing up with a provider DWP can claw the outcome fee back.
ReplyDeleteBut the DWP is unlikely to do this because, as historian says, they don’t have a problem with this practice. Anyone in the real world would be miffed if a company invoiced them for a service that hadn’t been provided, but in the looking-glass world of the Work Programme it seems that it’s perfectly acceptable. It’s beginning to look as though the DWP will do just about anything to help support its contractors.
DeleteMind you, this doesn’t chime at all with Osborne’s Plan A, since it’s quite obviously a waste of public money.
I have a question. Does a person have to apply for jobs via a work programme computer via their email? or is it posssible to to do this at home?
ReplyDeleteOf course it's possible to apply for jobs from your home computer. If your WP advisor wants evidence that you've applied for a minimum number of vacancies s/he might insist that you apply via their computer using their email. That's where some see a problem; that an application will be automatically ignored because it comes from there. So you could apply both ways. It would be interesting to see if which way is more successful.
DeleteI have never been asked to apply for a job using "their" email. How would this work? Whose name would the email be in?
DeleteMy adviser just asks for screen shots of my job application folder so the number of jobs I applied for is easily visible. If you have a yahoo, hotmail or gmail address then you can use it on any computer and it is always your email, unless you let someone else know the password.
Unless, Historian, you are implying that business are blocking anything at all that is sent via A4E's computers?
No. I'm speculating that some providers insist on the client setting up a special email account. I don't know whether this could be part of their own system. Staff of companies have company-based email addresses; could that be done for clients? I don't know, Polly.
DeleteIt probably could, they could have something like
Deleteyour name@custa4e.co.uk
but since we know that companies are turning down applications if they come from A4E (and possibly other providers) they would hopefully have the sense not to.
When logging on to work programme computers, i wonder do the computers have password trackers? im not saying they do, but does anyone have any opinion on this?
ReplyDeleteIt'd be illegal if they did as I for one don't have a special account for job applications. Where do you think they'd find the time to make use of this anyway? It's one thing to get hold of the passwords, but quite another to have the time to look through emails.
DeleteI have heard the non-computer literate people saying they can't use their email because they've forgotten the password, and one of the advisers comes in and fixes the problem so I think what they do is to make those sort of people a hotmail account and make sure a staff member knows the password.
The thing they do need to look into though is that some people are so hopeless that they leave themselves logged into emails and agencies and so on when they leave. It'd be quite possible for another client to sabotage someone's chances of getting a job.
"I have heard the non-computer literate people saying they can't use their email because they've forgotten the password, and one of the advisers comes in and fixes the problem so I think what they do is to make those sort of people a hotmail account and make sure a staff member knows the password."
ReplyDeleteIn that case, are all the passwords the same? A dozen or so clients all having different passwords would be a nightmare for an advisor. Unless they're written down. Either way, it's a security risk.
ive just finished the A4E programme and had an interview with the job centre.During this interview i explained that A4E were telling me that they could not fund specific courses to assist in gaining targeted jobs, however, they could support travel costs. The Jobcentre told me that this was not in fact the case and A4E were funded. i feel this is a case of "parking' certain people. i have been advised that i need to raise the complaint against A4E, who actually controls who here???? where do you go for the truth ???
ReplyDeleteIt's the "black box" model. A4e and other providers fund training out of their income; if they don't want to pay, they don't.
Delete