It's the middle of the night and I can't sleep, so I'm checking the news feeds ahead of the release of the performance data at 9.30 am. There's plenty of interpretation already. But the prize must go to the Express: "Jobs scheme 'helps 20,000 a month'". Yes, they've taken the ERSA's spin and published it as the facts, ignoring deliberately the reality that this is people who've found any sort of work, temporary, part-time, which got them off the books for a little while. "Almost a third of those who started the Work Programme in June 2011 have been supported into a job so far, said the ERSA. More than 64,000 people found work under the programme in the three months to September, it was reported." (The words "helps" and "supported" will startle many people who know that the providers had nothing to do with it.) But this is what Mark Hoban and the government wanted, of course. Don't bother with the facts - that the figures for sustained jobs are appalling - just spin dizzily so that Express readers get the propaganda.
The Independent goes with "Government's Work Programme only helps one person in three find a job". They do report the ERSA's figures, but understand the spin.
The Guardian has published the full data which the private companies have put out and asked readers if they can do anything with it. Good for them.
The Financial Times yesterday had access to the actual figures and reported that the best-performing company, Serco, earned nearly double what the worst-performing, Prospects, earned.
So as as we await the actual figures (and I hope I can get some sleep in before then) we can already see what the press are going to make of it. Accurate reporting? Some papers don't know what that means.
So basically the "Results" should reflect a 20% to 30% success rate and the WP Providers should be rolling in cash and be able to provide Training for all,sorry just woke up from this Fantasy...On a side note started my Work Placement,so far so good. But now for the question of the day? I have been scheduled to work between 45 and 52 hours per week If the JCP finds out will I be sanctioned? I have brought this up to the Provider and "we will get back to you" is the best they can do,any Ideas?
ReplyDeleteYes you could be sanctioned, the reason being any work that is over 30 hours a week is classed as full time employment, so you won't quaify for JSA anymore, also if you look in your Jobseekers Agreement form ES3JP, it states:
DeleteI know I may lose my Jobseekers Allowance if I:
. am not available for work for the hours stated in this agreement.
Looks like your in a catch 22. I'd go to your Jobcentre and resolve this quicksmart.
Hi Mkmky
Delete"I have been scheduled to work between 45 and 52 hours per week If the JCP finds out will I be sanctioned? I have brought this up to the Provider and "we will get back to you" is the best they can do,any Ideas?"
Has the employer been able to contract out of the European Working Time Directive? This does happen with some occupations. Quite a lot of the people whose jobs are on or around Southampton Water, near me, are not subject to the WTD because their working hours depend on the tides and the movements of the ships.
Does this work placement that you have been sent on count as Mandatory Work Activity? If yes, I would suggest that you Google "DWP Mandatory Work Activity." There are loads of links to the Provider Guidance, the Decision Maker's Guide(s) and the relevant Regulations. I don't want to mislead you by citing the wrong stuff, though.
Getting back to you "sometime" is not good enough. In your shoes, I would contact the Manager of your local JCP and ask for immediate, competent advice about what is permissible. Then I'd tell the Manager that I also require his/her oral advice to be confirmed to me in writing, immediately.
Day 2 "Mandatory Work Placement" went the same as yesterday,with the exception the car was acting up and "Paranoid as I am" showed up 1 hour early, but still enjoyed it(self respect?) Cold in the Valleys(9.15 Hrs today)Informed the site Foreman that by mid-morning Thursday I will have reached my 30 hours and explained the reasons why and I would need a ride back to the depot..not very happy as they have just got 4 jobs that have to be finished by Xmas,even more upset the Provider had not informed him of these rules. Fair play after only 2 days he invited me to the Xmas party.
DeleteOn Sky News this morning in the newspsaper review, Eamon Holmes and Michelle Dewbury highlighted the fact that the Work Programme Private Providers are only are only getting one person in seven into work, Michelle who went to one of these Providers to see what they acually do asked them in a meeting:
ReplyDeleteWhat is your ultimate goal?
Their Answer was: To make profit.
So there you have it, proof that their not in it to get anybody jobs.
First it's the moral failings of lazy people that cause unemployment, and now the cause of unemployment is the providers who need to "get their act together." But don't blame the Tories, they're just the government......
DeleteChannel 4 News are on the case:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.channel4.com/jackie-long-on-social-affairs/work-programme-results-the-long-wait-is-over/421
I'm interested in the FT's claim that Serco have been the best-performing Prime. I remember reading an article on Watching A4E a few months ago, where historian quoted a man from Serco at some length. (With apologies to Serco, I cannot remember their man's name.) The Serco man's comments seemed to me to be a realistic, accurate appraisal of the Work Programme scheme. If Serco then applied their man's analysis in their approach to providing the Work Programme, I'd have expected that Serco would come out on top.
Also, hasn't Alan Cave from the DWP agreed to join Serco? Alan Cave struck me as being a very sensible man when I saw him on TV In May 2012, giving oral evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. Mr Cave seemed to know exactly what he was talking about; he also avoided exaggeration and vague waffle, I felt.
I'm not surprised that Prospects are alleged to have been the worst-performing Prime. I believe that Prospects were the Prime under whose auspices the sub-subcontractor Close Protection UK Ltd left all those youngsters under London Bridge during the night before the start of the Jubilee River Pageant in June 2012. In my view, Prospects deserve to be sued for allowing that fiasco and there is still plenty of time for any relevant litigation to commence.
I'm now waiting for someone to explain the DWP's figures in a way that I will be able to understand! I can't do graphs and number-crunching. I am only able to understand words, please....
OK Judi - some words for you! Inevitably some numbers too I'm afraid:
DeleteThe true figures are even worse than reported! The BBC/DWP have quoted a 13 month period whereas the target quoted (5.5%) relates to the 12 month period from the start of the programme up to 31/5/12, The 5.5 % is the “non intervention figure” of 5% +10% giving what the DWP refer to as a “Minimum Performance Standard”. As time goes on the Minimum Performance Figure is supposed to improve. By 31/5/13 (2 years in) the minimum performance figures for the 3 WP groups are supposed to be: JSA 18 to 24 =33%. JSA 25 and over (the largest group) 27.5% and ESA Flow = 16.5%!!!!!
Taking the largest group and interpolating for 1 month after 31/5/12 (i.e. the 13 month period they have used) the Non Intervention figure should be 6.875% (not 5%) and the minimum performance level should be 10% higher at 7.5625%. The scale of the underperformance is staggering!
I have used the DWP’s Invitation to Tender document as a source for my figures:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-prog-itt.pdf
para 3.14
Question 1 - Why haven't we been given the figures at 12 months?
I make 3.53% to be about 1 in 28 people NOT 1 in 3!!!
And the figures are actually below the Non Intervention figures (even with the fiddling!).
The BBC are asking people to tell them of their experience’s on the Work Programme, go to the link below and scroll down to the bottom of the page.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20499836
Additionally Radio 4 today until 1 pm are discussing The State Of Welfare. If you have already missed some of it, it is available later on the Radio 4 website.
ReplyDeleteYou can also make comments on Channel 4 News on the work programme on the link below.
Deletehttp://blogs.channel4.com/jackie-long-on-social-affairs/work-programme-results-the-long-wait-is-over/421#comment-1281
Just had may say on the WP failure on BBC R5L! First caller on!
ReplyDeleteInterstingly, (but not surprisingly), the Tory MP they had on to defend the WP praised a couple of callers, one a chap who's WP provider was simply duplicating the same vacancies he saw at his local JC but had his CV re-done by the provider and another, a young woman who found an apprenticeship. However, he ignored my more critical comments.
Again not surprisingly, no-one from the DWP was available for comment!
Let's have IDS ON THE NEWS, where is he? all this was his idea.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC say that the official success rate is 3.53%.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20499836
This vindicates Channel 4 News and their coverage in October 2012, based on the leaked figures from A4E, where A4E's own success rate was about 3.6% according to Channel 4 News.
Emma Harrison of A4E declined Krishnan Guru-Murthy's invitation to be interviewed again once the DWP published their official figures. However, she did say airily that she was sure that "someone else" from A4E could be interviewed instead.
I wonder whether anyone from A4E will have the bottle to pitch up in front of the Channel 4 News team today?
IDS on Radio 4 now, claims the work programme has been a glorious success.
ReplyDeleteIan Duncan Smith must think the UK public gullible. So the work programme continues as before ..... Irresponsible and sick in my opinion.
DeleteIt's all over the news channels now.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC seem quite biased today they keep running 'success' stories with people who have found work through the programme and have nothing but praise for it, I'm sure the work programme has helped a tiny minority but it is severely failing the vast majority.
ReplyDelete