Wednesday 9 January 2013

Don't mention the Work Programme

Have you noticed that the Work Programme doesn't exist any more?  Up to last Autumn it was dropped into every pronouncement by Tory ministers; but after the publication of the performance data it's as if an edict has gone out saying don't, under any circumstances, mention it.  Too embarrassing.
Even today, when Chris Grayling was doing the rounds to talk about his latest brilliant idea - outsourcing the Probation Service on a payment-by-results basis - hardly any journalists brought up the failure of the WP.  Their short memories are very convenient for the politicians.  They lose interest very quickly.  Only the Telegraph has published anything about A4e's accounts.
But something must be going on behind the scenes, surely.  The providers, if not losing money, are not making any profits, and updated performance figures will have to be published sooner or later.  Who will blink first?  Will a provider pull out of the contract, or will the government pull the plug on the whole thing?  Is Mark Hoban trying to renegotiate the contracts?

It seems that there's been a backlash over the language being used about people on benefits.  The Independent is leading the way in reporting this.  Last Friday it publicised a poll commissioned by the TUC showing that "a campaign by Tory ministers is turning voters against claimants – but only because the public is being fed 'myths' about those who rely on benefits."  The article goes on: "According to YouGov, four out of 10 people think benefits are too generous and three in five believe the system has created a culture of dependency. However, people who know least about the facts are the most hostile towards claimants. More than half of those who are 'least accurate' about the system think benefits are too generous, while fewer than one in three (31 per cent) of those giving the 'most accurate' answers agree."  Today the paper reports that the Tory campaign team has been told to tone down the language.  "Mr Duncan Smith was appalled by a Tory online advert last month showing a man on a sofa, asking whether the Government should support 'hard-working families or people who won't work'".  Nice.  Apparently one Tory minister told the paper: "Some people who lose their jobs and many people on tax credits, are strivers not scroungers."  (my italics) How generous of him.  Methinks he doesn't get it.  Two of the Lib Dems, Sarah Teather and Vince Cable, are completely unequivocal that the language is wrong and damaging.

13 comments:

  1. This Striver/Skiver, Shirker/Worker rhetoric doesn't just affect peoples perceptions of claimants, it In my opinion affects employers, some may think the unemployed are skivers etc so why should I bother hiring people like them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Don't mention the Work programme"! Good headline Historian. It does seem to have gone awfully quiet out there. Very little mention of the "flagship" programme - maybe because it's sinking fast?
    I listened to channel 4 news last night. An interesting little mini debate on the proposal to outsource a huge chunk of the probation service using the payment by results method that has been such a huge success with the Work Programme. Jon Snow was on the ball enough to criticise the proposal to give the service to profit making corporations - and cited A4e as an example.
    Well done (again C4).
    On that topic would we really want companies like G4s, Serco, A4e etc. running the probation service.
    Watch Chris Grayling talking B******s here:http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/090113
    and the mini debate here:
    http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/090113
    A4e classified "raw commercial bidders" - whatever happened to "Social Purpose"?
    and "A4e who did such a thoroughly bad job when it comes to Work and Pensions". An interesting use of the past tense!

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://php.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/2327/ this may be of great interest Work Programme evaluation: Findings from the first phase of qualitative research on programme delivery

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can get the whole report from the DWP website. There's nothing startling in it, and no providers are named.

      Delete
  4. Decline of the WP? Recently I challenged the travel policy of my WP sub,they are responsible to cover the cost of travel to the WP,varied responses,which I found did not did not answers,the main questions I posed. (1) Will you cover expenses incurred when I have an unscheduled appointment? Yes but only by the lowest cost available.My cost was £4.30.We buy in bulk and can get a ticket at £3.00,the max we will fund is £3.30. Ok if I drive 14 miles each way which equals £5.60 at .20p per mile will that be covered? Up to £3.30. If I ask for a ticket to be posted to me for my unscheduled appointment will you? No/Yes depends on the schedule.Can I have a copy of your travel policy? All systems are down at this time,continue with your job search(thought all systems were down)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Replying to my own statement,these Programmes seem to write it up as they go along,ask a question and the reply is a question? disagree and you are the "problem" ask what can you do to help me find employment?? "what is your problem?" not confused, pissed off,why cannot they list what help is available?,because there is none..WP prove me wrong!

      Delete
    2. Totally agree. every pointless bit of "help" is mandatory.

      Delete
    3. From the DWP Provider Guidance document (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/framework-generic-guidance.shtml), it is clearly stated that:
      140. Participants attending provision are entitled to a refund of the travel costs
      they incur. It is your responsibility to pay the participant's travel costs as
      travel expenses are included within the funding received from DWP as
      part of the overall contract package.
      141. Participants are expected to travel to your provision by the cheapest
      method available to them. However, some participants will be unable to
      travel by the cheapest method for example, due to a disability or the need
      to be accompanied by a support worker.

      Well worth reading the DWP documents so that you know what the providers are expected to do. You may get branded as "difficult" or "a trouble maker", but information is power.

      Delete
  5. Sounds like someone has been doing some early spring cleaning. "That old t-shirt doesn't look as good today as it did last month. Time to put it in a drawer and forget about it." That pretty much sums it up, me thinks. :( Do the WP providers care either way? Don't count on it!! As long as you get a sustained job, they'll be happy because they'll get their payout for sitting around with their fingers planted firmly in a dark place where the sun never shines. The government (DWP) went and put too many people on the WP without realising that each provider would end up understaffed for the job. My WP provider has around 2000 people on their books and only 10 advisors to deal with them. This means that everyone is treated exactly the same way and there is no individual help offered.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anyone had problems regarding funding of travel costs to interviews - DWP Invitation to Tender document says a Provider is responsible for these but I am told by my provider they only pay for local interview costs "maybe up to a tenner".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to clarify my post - I mean job interviews not interviews with a Provider. Before being referred to the Work Program the Job Centre would fund interview travel costs, now that seems to have been removed making it a tad tricky to find work if the only suitable roles are outside the "tenner" radius

      Delete
  7. But don't the Work Programme Providers still get money each time a Jobseeker turns up for an appointment, regardless of extra performance-based money ? Even so, sooner or later someone's bound to question why this chunk of taxpayers' money is being spent, you'd think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, they only get the attachment fee; any more is outcome-based.

      Delete

Keep it clean, please. No abusive comments will be approved, so don't indulge in insults. If you wish to contact me, post a comment beginning with "not for publication".