Friday 15 February 2013

Contracts by the back door?

With the advent of Universal Credit, the government is persuaded of the need to provide help to those who won't be able to deal with it on their own - doing everything online, housing benefit going to the claimant rather than the landlord, etc.  So they've planned a Local Support Services Framework.  The document is here.  It's based on the idea that Local Authorities will do it in partnership with such bodies as housing associations and voluntary bodies, and is full of buzzwords like "pathfinder".  Nowhere does it mention the private sector.  So it isn't excluded.  And I can see nothing to stop a local council deciding to contract out the job to the likes of A4e.  Cynic that I am, I suspect that lobbying is already going on.
Another concern was raised by a recent comment on another post.  A chap who is not on the Work Programme, having recently been in a job, went to his Jobcentre to sign on and found an A4e employee sitting with his JC adviser, reading his personal information.  That was alarming enough.  A conversation followed focussing on his jobsearch skills with the Universal Jobmatch site.  These can't be too bad, since he's recently applied for 50 jobs and secured two interviews.  However, he was told that he would have to attend a "course" with A4e to "sharpen up" his jobsearch skills.  He tried to ascertain whether this was mandatory, and couldn't get a straight answer, but the threat was there.  He gave in, under protest.  What disturbs me about this (aside from the data protection issue) is the possibility that this is another way of giving public money to A4e, since I can't imagine that they're running these "courses" for nothing.

16 comments:

  1. Whilst you can't rule it out, I'd be surprised if this generated much / any business for A4e and their peers. The intent is to fund organisations that already have close relationships with people who might need additional support rather than a new entrant. Down to local authorities though, so plenty of opportunities to screw things up.

    If you want to see something genuinely troubling, I'd have a look at DWP's Social Justice Outcomes Framework, which (as well as duplicating current services to an extent) effectively looks like an outline of the kind of overarching contract that JOC et al have been agitating for, is pretty weird (shows the influence of the Centre for Social Justice) and is frankly dangerous in some aspects - e.g. family stability. A PbR contract for this would inevitably drive domestic violence & abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I’m not surprised by historian’s description about the man who went to sign on for his JSA. My own (mercifully brief) experience of being a Civil Service gofer was that the gofer is supposed to do whatever the gofer’s immediate line manager has ordered the gofer to do, without query or argument by the gofer.

    The JCP does not have the money, the resources, the computer equipment or the space to be able to instruct or coach any of the JCP’s customers about how to work the Universal Jobmatch thing. The JCP staff would have to begin (or their Unions would) by demanding that the DWP trains the JCP staff not just about how to work the UJ thing themselves but how to teach other people to do so. That would be too big, and too expensive, an “ask,” I suspect.

    Outsourcing is said to be the trendy new way to run public services. Of course A4E will have agreed to teach their WP customers how to work the UJ thing but A4E are wising up to the outsourcing racket themselves, now that their Work Programme results have shown A4E what a racket really looks like.

    If the JCP want A4E to teach their WP customers about the UJ thing then, in A4E’s shoes, I’d demand the low-hanging fruit as well. The people like the man historian described.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My JC advisor fears that the ultimate aim of Universal Jobmatch is to replace the process of signing on i.e. the process will become automated and there will be no need for JC staff.

    That will leave the door open for companies like A4E to assume control of the entire job search process!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One fundamental rule of computer security:
      A system is only as secure as the weakest link - The more people with access to a system, the greater the potential for security breaches.

      With A4e's track record on fraud, data security, and client confidentiality, it will be a long cold day in hell before I consent to using any online service they may have access to - This includes that abysmal UJ site !

      Delete
    2. ... arse? elbow? they just don't know:

      http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/department_for_work_and_pensions_group/dwp-news.cfm/id/78E359C6-7B09-4FC6-98EBD4696432C199

      Delete
  4. it was me that made the original comment- i have written a letter of complaint to JCP about both the data protection issue and how the a4e representative spoke to me- at one point she asked me why, if i was 'such a genius' hadn't i been filling in the activity notes section of UJM. i'll keep you updated on how it plays out, although i expect a standard template letter response. R

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... better to send an foi request aimed at the dwp district office in your area. make sure you ask the right question - e.g. "please provide copies of all guidance, training materials, presentations, policy documents, and local instructions relating to uj used within the district, including those prepared locally within the district. also provide any parallel documents prepared for and/or used nationally and locally by a4e."

      do it for free here:

      http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

      only takes a min.

      it will be interesting to see how what you get back compares with what comes back to you from the centre. good luck.

      Delete
    2. I've seen FoI requests on that site which have infuriated me because they're so badly written they're easy to ignore. Far better, if you're going down that route, to write a proper letter and get it checked by someone with decent English skills.
      However, I don't think that was the point at issue. It was the role of A4e in the JC, their access to clients' data and whether someone can be compelled onto one of their "courses".

      Delete
    3. ... the important thing is always to quote the foi act. best to direct it through the above site or the dwp's central foi e-mail box:

      http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/#how-do-i

      frame your question well, as wriggle-room will be exploited!

      as regards what's at issue, why not ask for a copy of the generic contract (which will cover data protection), plus copies of guidance which has been issued from dwp's centre, plus the local stuff as suggested?

      that would expose the district managers who, in many instances, are clearly jumping the gun - and/or the zealous ones who've been "winging it" a bit. there may well be documentary evidence to prove it.

      don't knock it till you've tried it. journoes use this approach all the time.

      Delete
    4. Insider, is your shift key broken?

      Delete
  5. IDS will be stacking shelves after the next election as stacking shelves beats politics

    IDS and all his cronies are so arrogant it is unbelievable. He is insulting and arrogant.

    He should be stripped of office for what he said in todays BBC interview. It is outrages that a person in his position should be able to make such outrages comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought the Tories were supposed to be the party of aspiration?!?

      Smith's comments reveal a gross misunderstanding of the unemployment crisis. It isn't that the out-of-work don't want to work in supermarkets. The problem is that there are not enough jobs to supply demand.

      Delete
    2. You mean where he says this?
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21490542
      "The next time somebody goes in - those smart people who say there's something wrong with this - they go into their supermarket, ask themselves this simple question, when they can't find the food they want on the shelves, who is more important - them, the geologist, or the person who stacked the shelves?"

      I'd guess it's the geologist because (being a geologist myself), if there weren't geologists to prospect for the oil (for plastic, fertilisers and fuel) and the metal (for shelves and vehicles) there'd be no shelves to stack and no products to put on them so all those shelf stackers would be out of work. No that I find it insulting, I just find it an interesting example of the intelligence level needed to be a politician.

      He also says if the food isn't on the shelves who's more important? Surely it's the manager for not ensuring people were out stacking shelves, because empty shelves = loss of sale = loss of profit.

      He should have chosen his examples more carefully I think.

      Delete
    3. Oh, and I did a bit of checking and Terry Leahy (Tesco CEO, as quoted by IDS in above interview) did stack shelves in a Tesco in Liverpool after going to school, then went to UMIST and got an MSC in Management Sciences, moved to London, applied for and failed to get jobs at Turkey Foil and Tesco, before successfully getting a job two years later at Tesco as a marketing executive.

      So he has a degree, just like Cate Reilly does, and Terry Leahy wouldn't have stacked shelves for nothing after getting an MSc either.

      Delete
  6. Guys, I think it's a good idea to have healthy cyncism towards outsourcing of traditionally public-sector roles as this may help to prevent some of the alleged abuses of the past. However, there are far bigger fish than A4e; if you want to look for the vested interests that really stand to gain from the demolition of the public sector, look no further tha Serco. An organisation with friends in high places indeed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very possibly true. But this blog is basically about A4e.

      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".