It's tedious to have to do it, but I need to respond to a Guardian interview with A4e's Jonty Olliff-Cooper. Part of it concerns his previously stated view that "the lines drawn between the public, private and voluntary sectors are becoming meaningless". Many of the comments under the article make the obvious distinction; profit. But there's more to it than that. During the life of the last government many charities were drawn into getting all their funding by competing with the private sector for government contracts. You could argue that that puts them onto the same footing as the likes of A4e. But they are still charities, having to put any profits back into the organisation rather than paying out dividends to shareholders. Of course, it's in A4e's interests to blur the boundaries. Cooper says, "If you're a business that wants to make social value everything you do, then we get into this really anxious territory. I want to understand why that is, and how we can change it." Well, where to start?
You can't imagine any of the other outsourcing companies talking in these terms. So why is A4e trying to rebrand itself as something other than a profit-making business? That is, perhaps, obvious. But it won't wash.
He wants more money for the Work Programme. I don't need to spell out the objections to that, other than to say that many clients report that absolutely no money is being spent on them. The article says: "He certainly has solutions at hand: more exposure for organisations such as A4e, describing why they're important and should be valued; government flexibility to take on contracts across a range of sectors to create a joined-up support system." On the first point, be careful what you wish for. The exposure suffered by outsourcing companies this year has not exactly been favourable; the more the public understand it, the more they resent it. On the second point, this is A4e clinging to the ambition of the "super-contract". Not even this government is going to go down that route.
The last paragraph of the article is blether with a startling obscenity - though it apparently isn't startling in Jonty's world.
Well 20 days until the results for the WP are published,I will hold judgement until after they are made public as to the accuracy of these figures.
ReplyDeleteWill the spin doctors(JOC) hire outside consultants to crank out excuses or at least confuse the issues? His tone in the Guardian article already appears to be changing and it seemed as he is setting the ground work to deflect any criticism (similar to the way Emma does) that it is in no way A4E or the WP's fault for failure.
"Cooper says, "If you're a business that wants to make social value everything you do, then we get into this really anxious territory. I want to understand why that is, and how we can change it." Well, where to start?
ReplyDeletePlease, historian, don't tell him!
If I were i/c A4E, Jonty would not be allowed to discuss any of the company's business with the media or in any other sort of public fashion.
For the period June-Oct 2011 370,000 people were referred to the work programme. Of that number, 332,000 actually started and the provider was paid an attachment fee.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying not to work out what £400 x 332,000 comes to as I'd only get annoyed!
The above is from a DWP doc - Work Programme Referrals and Attachments: Inclusion Analysis.
http://stats.cesi.org.uk/website_documents/WP_referrals_Inclusion_comment21Feb2012.pdf
I know this is totally off subject, but as far as I'm aware A4e advisors are supposed to forward our cvs to vacancies they hear about. Has anyone ever asked their advisor for a list or how many of these vacancies they have passed their cv to? Do they keep a record? I'm just wondering because I only know of 5-10 vacancies they've told me they sent my cv to in the last year.
ReplyDeleteThe article says: "He certainly has solutions at hand: more exposure for organisations such as A4e, describing why they're important and should be valued;......"
ReplyDeleteA4E is not important and the public has no reason to "value" that which A4E does with such startling ineptitude at such vast public expense.
At least Nick Buckles of G4S eschews this sort of meaningless, sanctimonious, immature waffle.