It's all over the papers this morning; the report of the Public Accounts Committee into the Work Programme. We already knew its conclusions, but the various newspaper articles highlight different aspects of it (when they can be bothered to go beyond the press release). The Telegraph, for instance, reports that some of the companies are in danger of being stripped of their contracts and even of going out of business. The Guardian points out that all 18 organisations involved have been put on "performance improvement plans", with 7 of them being sent formal warning letters. Margaret Hodge was also angry that the DWP had published unvalidated data from the ERSA. We do learn that the next set of performance data is due to be published in March.
It would appear that Richard Johnson, formerly of Serco, is now the go-to person for an opinion on all this. He was the man who was in charge of WP stuff for Serco, but now that he no longer works for them he's free to criticise. He said, on the BBC Today Programme this morning, that the design of the contracts made "creaming and parking" inevitable. I notice that the BBC is asking for experiences of the Work Programme, so perhaps they are planning a proper investigation of the subject. Let's hope so.
On the one hand, good for Richard Johnson to speak out on such a sensitive subject.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it's never appropriate to bad-mouth a former employer for personal gain (even if we all agree with him).
He wrote a recent Guardian article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/20/work-programme-success-creaming-parking
DeleteTo me he didn't sound too contrite about the failure of the WP. More like a plea for more money.
On BBC Radio 5 Live this morning, there a man and a woman who were both been on the failing WP were interviewed . Their experiences sum up the scheme pretty damn well.
ReplyDeleteThe woman spoke first. She was a solicitor by trade. She claimed the WP was of no use to her as the advisors she saw said they could do nothing for her.
The man had a more positive experience of the WP. He said he had been in prison for some time and had a CV compiled for him and was now working in a homeless hostel. However, he did not say whether he was a 'volunteer' or was being paid.
These two experiences are telling. The woman, an educated, articulated person could not be helped because as she herself said "the WP was a one size fits all scheme". People like her are harder to help as the support they would like and need tends to be more specialised. W2W providers do not do specialised particularly well at all. It also does not help that such clients are often better qualified and more experienced than the advisors they are supposed to be getting help from!
The man who said he was helped was probably coming from a much lower base. He said his advisor helped him compile a CV. Someone without a CV and without the ability to create one will no doubt think that such support from a provider is worthwhile and good. Until they are told to re-do their CV again and again by three or four different advisors that is!
The WP is a failure. I know that. You Know that. Smith and Hoban know it too. Such a pity that a large swathe of the apathetic public do not realise this as well!
Since 16 months ago when I eagerly went on the WP the tune remains the same but after 7 different pipers(advisers)still no tailored support,training or even encouragement.Do I blame the Advisers? no not really,they lack the resources and have a huge case load,most will tell you(on the side) that this the worst programme ever but boxes must be checked. The latest not so veiled threat is that as I approach 2 years that I will be assigned to the CAP where I will have to work for up to 40 pw for the £71 a week benefit(I asked for this in writing,computer says no)so I need to get on with it and find a job,other than doing at least 40 applications per week I asked what else can they provide???? The adviser on advise from the Supervisor declined to answer as it would violate contractual guidelines set when they agreed to subcontract from the Prime...What does this have to do with me,I just want to know what help is available,I am not planning to set up a rival company.
DeleteTime to put your request for information in writing and send copies to the Home Secretary - His office has repeatedly stated that the WP offers "tailored support", time to deliver !
DeleteIf the provider is unwilling to answer the most basic of questions (i.e. What support do you provide ?"), it may indicate that there is nothing on offer and they are failing to meet the terms of the WP contract.
I have repeatedly asked in writing,but that old tried and true "Black Box" method of delivering the WP is drawn like a sword.I at one time involved my local MP,decent chap,but he had no understanding of the JCP or the WP. He did write to them,but unfortunately took their reply at face value. I have noticed in the past that my complaints have been handled in an efficient manner,nothing resolved,but they have abided by the DWP guidelines. After my last written complaint I now have to attend twice weekly job search,which accomplishes nothing more than I already do....Retribution?
Deleteimatt,
Deleteyou are right the WP is a failure, however i disagree with your take on who needs more specialized support.
1)The woman, an educated, articulated person could not be helped because as she herself said "the WP was a one size fits all scheme". People like her are harder to help as the support they would like and need tends to be more specialised.
This woman doesnt need specialized help. She is educated, no doubt computer liter
ate, with a decent C.V, qualified solicitor,no doubt excellent literacy and numeracy skills, articulate etc etc.
She is probably overqualified for most NMW and above jobs and quite rightly wont settle for anything less than a decent job with a decent wage. She will be more difficult to place into work for these reasons not because she needs specialized support.She has the ability to look for jobs for hersef,i just wonder how long she has been out of work.
2) Our ex-offender, funnily enough,not nearly as educated, no C.V, criminal record, probably a gap in his work history,potentially other barriers to add to that list, but has got a job that suits him. Plus theres that big thing of having a criminal record, reducing job opportunities, employers hardly open their arms to ex-offenders now do they.
I would say the ex-offender required specialized and intensive support because of the issues he faced ,but sadly the reality of it is, he was more likely to get a job first.
And yes you are right about the advisors being less qualified/articulate than some people on the WP, but it is what is imatt maybe the solicitor woman should apply for a job for a WP provider!!
Thanks for the reply. You have a point perhaps when you say the solicitor already has much of what she requires within.
DeleteHowever, when I mean specialised support, it could be simply someone who knows and understands the legal sector for example. This would be more specialised than the vast majority of advisers available who are unlikely to have any specialist knowledge in this or any professional field.
The same for someone wishing to set up on their own. Specialised support could be putting them in touch with a proper business mentor via their local Chamber of Commerce. Again, much more specialised and targeted than in-house advisers.
That is not to say ALL advisers are terrible. Many sadly are. However, there are those who are switched on and go the extra mile / kilometre.
I’m a qualified solicitor but not the one who did the piece on Radio 5 live. imatt, is it possible for you to provide an iplayer link to the relevant Radio 5 live piece, please?
DeleteI agree with the other lady solicitor from Radio 5 live, from imatt’s description of what this lady said. She is “harder to help” because the employers who want slave labour at slave wages won’t consider her at all, since she has “lawyer” written on her forehead and is clearly hugely overqualified for anything mundane, for which she is probably also minus any relevant prior work experience.
The legal profession is trying to provide suitable, specialised help, via the Association of Women Solicitors and via a specialist charity called LawWorks. However, this specialised help is ferociously expensive to procure and the WP providers won’t pay the required *minimum* of around £1,500 for each out-of-work solicitor to get chummy with the AWS and with LawWorks.
Also, the efforts that both the AWS and LawWorks are undoubtedly making is of dubious value, imho. I’m not convinced that their offerings would really be good value for money. At least, they probably would be for a small minority of unemployed solicitors but not for the majority, including not for me, I reckon.
When I was first sent to A4E on the Work Programme, my “adviser” was baffled. A4E didn’t understand a word of my CV and they still don’t, some 15 months later. A4E’s first gambit was that I should “dumb myself down” so as to appeal to a “wider” range of potential employers, they said. I said “No.” I am not prepared to write or spout pure fiction for A4E’s or the Govt’s mercenary purposes.
IDS tried, dishonestly, to big himself up on his own CV. He came unstuck and the Govt knows perfectly well that it cannot require dishonesty from anyone in the UK.
Kick something enough and it will break - The Work Programme isn't any different.
ReplyDeleteHi guys- a little off track again here.. i'm the guy who had the a4e rep sitting with his jobcentre advisor the last time i signed on. historian, it looks like your fears have been confirmed and this is being rolled out nation [or at least region] wide.
ReplyDeletethis was on a4e's official twitter today [farnborough jcp is farnborough jobcentreplus, which is on the opposite side of the country to me]-
Farnborough JCP @FarnboroughJCP
Many thanks to A4e for having Jobcentre staff over to visit yesterday-working together to help our customers into #employment @OfficialA4e
At Working Links I was called over to a JCP employee sitting in the office, and was required to sign for my declarations (benefit claim) on JCP paperwork.
DeleteQuick question folks - what the hell is 'creaming and parking'?!?
ReplyDeleteIt means creaming off the clients most likely to get a job and concentrating on them, whilst parking the rest with a subcontractor, or on a once-a-month appointment schedule and doing nothing at all for them because they're not going to make you any money.
DeleteSo the Job Centre are now in collusion with the providers to boost Work Programme figures by recruiting those most likely to get a job really early? I find this disgusting the government should be looking to improve the work programme not artificially inflate figures.
ReplyDeleteWe don't know what's going on here. If someone is not actually on the Work Programme, will he be claimed as a job outcome simply because he was forced onto a "course" with one of the providers?
DeleteHaving worked for a Work Programme provider I can confirm that "creaming and parking " most certainly takes place but JCP are not necessarily in collusion with providers to boost the outcome figures.
DeleteTo be an "outcome" the customer must have been signed up to the WP which means a commitment of 2 years. There are courses run by WP providers but participants are not necessarily signed up to the Work Programme. This, however, does not stop a provider claiming an outcome for a customer who has had an offer of work but not yet started when they join the WP and I have seen several cases where a customer is due to start work at a future date arranged prior to joining the WP but has been forced to attend the scheme as they are sigining on until their work commences. In these circumstances, the customer turns up for their registration and the provider claims a payment for that. Then, when the customer starts work maybe in 2 weeks time without any assitance whatsover from the WP provider the signing off is then claimed as an "outcome".
The Work Programme scheme was held to be an unlawful scheme, by the Court of Appeal, during the morning of 12 Feb 2013. (The word is “unlawful,” not “illegal,” because the Govt has made an almighty legal mistake but it has not committed a crime.)
ReplyDeleteIn an effort to save the lawfulness of the Work Programme scheme, the Govt introduced new secondary legislation – new Regulations - during the evening of 12 Feb 2013.
Are the new, 2013 Regulations, sufficient to rescue the lawfulness of the Work Programme scheme? As yet, nobody knows but the new Regulations do show that Ministers are determined to try to bluster their way out of a very serious legal problem.
The PAC’s new Report is not Law – it merely describes the PAC’s opinion about whether or not the Work Programme gives value for money and it identifies some – but not all – of the reasons why the Work Programme has not been providing any bang for the taxpayers’ buck.
Those of us unlucky enough to have been forced onto the Work Programme already knew that its design is terrible and that it is not capable of producing value for money.
Hopefully, the PAC’s new opinion will be “heard” much more broadly than by the minority of potential 2915 voters who have come up against the uselessness of the Work Programme scheme, its design flaws and the on-going question about whether the Work Programme is even lawful.
I have been on the work programme since january 2012 now and have been sent to countless retail interviews which by the way i have no experience with. I joined a4e telling them i was looking for admin and office work and am still waiting to be offered a admin interview. My advisor doesnt have my best interests at heart she would rather constantly lie to me and then deny what she has said when i confront the manager. I am constantly there to the point i feel i live there, 2 hour job search at 10am and then back again for another 2 hours at 2pm the same day pretty much everyday. I have been receiving letters from dwp regarding doubts on my claim due to supposed missed appointments, bu like i say im constantly there. Well... 5 letters threatening with a sanction, had to explain why i missed appointments i never knew i had and now they have stopped my benefit for the whole month of february for a letter they sent me in november 2012 i have no way of explaining this as i wasnt aware of an appointment, so they have got me because my money has been stopped and i genuinly have no way of appealing it, my advisor constantly lies to me and states its nothing to do with her or a4e (bearing in mind they tell the job centre if i attend or not). They have dragged me down for a year and now i aint purting up with it, the work programme needs to DISAPPEAR and fast. Maybe then we could all get on and actually look for work we have experience in.. Sorry thats all for now lol
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with parts of what you say. You can actually contest the decision on missed appointments by demanding the evidence from them that any such appointments were made. I know it's too late now, but plenty of people have done that successfully. You say your adviser lies, which is pretty serious, but without saying how - except for the sanctions. But they genuinely feel that it isn't their decision, because they just "raise a sanction doubt" when someone apparently doesn't turn up. Presumably you are applying for admin jobs yourself.
DeleteI don't mean to sound unsympathetic. Always be prepared to back up serious allegations, and go through the formal complaints procedure if you feel you are being badly treated in any way.
If you have been sanctioned (and it appears you have been). Then you should immediately lodge an appeal. Your sanction relates to an alleged offence dating back prior to the Court of Appeal judgement and is therefore at a time when the WP has been ruled to be unlawful.
DeleteHave a look here:
http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/sanction-busting-part-2
The link at top tight supplies the wording for your appeal.
Good Luck
This week,our registration (appointment) sheets were undated by the A4E office, although we were all dutifully, signing in. Where would the evidence of our attendance be if there was a doubt leading to a sanction?
ReplyDelete