Labour's Liam Byrne asked about all this in the Commons. Now, Labour is in a difficult position. They are refusing to oppose the retroactive legislation to legitimise the £130m wrongly taken from people in sanctions. Apparently the DWP is setting up an independent enquiry into the use of sanctions in return for this co-operation. But Byrne asked the question, and Iain Duncan Smith repeated that there are no targets; and the head of JCP has issued reminders. The original leaked email came from Walthamstow, and the MP for that area, Stella Creasey, after reading it out, asked who was responsible? IDS repeated that there are no targets. Another Tory, David Gauke, congratulated IDS on cutting the benefits bill.
So far this has all been about Jobcentres. No one has mentioned Work Programme providers. There will be no official targets, of course. But if staff at the DWP have been ignoring their ministerial bosses and issuing league tables and incentives to make people destitute, it seems unlikely that they've confined this practice to Jobcentres.
please pardon my ignorance on this one guys, but would one be able to submit a foi request to a4e, the dwp or other work programme providers to request info on targets for sanctions?
ReplyDeleteit would also be interesting to know if providers are paid outcome payments when people are sanctioned... after all, they are removed from benefits so the outcome to the public purse is the same as if they went into work.
again, please pardon my ignorance if this is a foolish question.
Work Programme Providers are not paid outcomes for people being sanctioned, they actually only receive an outcome once an individual moves into employment and stay's there, ie no payment to provider until that person has been in work for at least 13 weeks. Work prgramme providers are not targeted to sanction people only on getting people into paid permanent employment.
Delete"it would also be interesting to know if providers are paid outcome payments when people are sanctioned... after all, they are removed from benefits so the outcome to the public purse is the same as if they went into work."
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly no mention of any sort of payment for sanctions in the DWP Invitation To Tender which sets out the basis for the "providers'" remuneration. I very much doubt that that there are any such rewards. I think any such FOI would be a waste of time. If sanction targets exist on an unofficial level a FOI request will not reveal this - the only way is for information to come from a whistleblower within a provider.
As a general observation it seems to be that sanctions were originally intended to be a weapon of last resort - a sort of nuclear deterrent never intended to be used but there as a threat. Instead sanctions have become the norm. The sanction process has been industrialised and there is a dehumanised, streamlined production line to deliver destitution by means of dedicated staff, targets, league tables, rewards and PIPs.
On a different note I enjoyed this from "The Now Show"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p016r6bn
thank you. great answer. :]
DeleteI worked for a WP provider and there were no targets for sanctions.
DeleteI thought it was possible to hide parts of a contract with commercial confidentiality? Wouldn't it be in both sides best interest to hide such controversial clauses?
DeleteThere was clearly substantial activity by the DWP on Thursday 21 March 2013! Please see the document in the link below:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/provider-direct-guidance.pdf
I suggest reading the whole of this new document because people will be tempted to draw their own conclusions about some of its provisions!
It appears that there is no desire to mitigate the appalling provisions of Chapter 6 of the notorious Provider Guidance document:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/work-programme-provider.shtml
I suspect collusion (unofficial, of course) between the WP providers and the JCP staff who are allegedly under considerable pressure to increase the number of sanctions.
Well Judi,
DeleteThanks for that. I have just read through the first document you linked. My first reaction is that this shows just how reliant on DWP/JCP records the "providers" are. Without the information held by the DWP (e.g. employer details)they cannot claim an "outcome". People should be aware that providing information to the JCP is tantamount to giving the info to the "provider" (I wish I could think of a shorter, more appropriate word for "provider" but this eludes me). So if you don't want the provider to know something (e.g. Name of new employer), then don't tell the JCP.
I have spent the last three weeks trying to get confirmation that a Provider is responsible for funding all travel costs relating to Work Related Activities, i.e. a Job Interview, as clearly speicified in the Invitiation to Tender document yet nobody at the JCP can give me an answer or even a point of contact with the DWP.
DeleteThis Provider Direct guidance has possibly the e-mail address I have been looking for, workprogrammeenquiries@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
I've sent them a mail - has anyone had any meaningful repsonses from them or am I expecting too much? From the numerous running memos available on the DWP website it seems that this team is only for the benefit of Providers.
Here's an example telling Providers that they are responsible to pay travel costs but my Provider is telling it is discretionary.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-programme-memo-018.pdf
Not being a smart ass,but do you think they would actually tell the truth? After 16 months on the WP I am still unable to get them to tell me what they actually provide,let alone a straight answer.
ReplyDeleteHi mkmky,
DeleteExactly,I think the same as you I have been on the WP 14 months, I ask questions, no relevant answers, I think after each appointment at a4e, it was the same as the last one. I voice my opinion as to what do they provide. My next appointment in 6 weeks it not through me visiting their office in Sheffield but by telephone preview. I've usually had appointments every 2 weeks.
When I queried something similar with JCP I was told that the provider has to see you regularly. The exact definition of regularly is down to the provider and if 6 weeks is the way they do it then 6 weeks is OK with JCP/DWP.
DeleteMost if not all) "providers" minimum service standards will say "customers" will be seen at least once a month.
DeleteYour provider's minimum service standards can be found online.
As far as I'm concerned the less I see of them the better.
Mkmky: You can find out what you provider is supposed to provide by looking at their contract tender doc. They're online, but not always easy to find.
DeleteTeflon Don,as Historian can verify,after repeated E-mails the only answer I was able extract from the Sub was "There is no money for training,full stop" after this the response from the Programme Manager was that he was walking his dog and that it was written in haste...BS..probably the only honest answer that I have ever gotten.
Delete@mkmky
ReplyDeleteWhat they provide?
Supposedly their function is to make us work ready.
They do this by looking in their mysterious black box.
Like you, I have experienced the mythical contents of this black box (it's black because there's nothing there - notably no jobs!). So I an now "work ready" - trouble is there's no work to be ready for,
The WP Advisers that I see,actually have a lottery to find out who gets "stuck" with myself,I am polite,but in their own words "a pain in the ass" why? Every time I ask what is available,that you can provide(the purpose that you exist) to enable me to secure employment?...The standard answer is a question? what are you doing to find employment?.. What I am mandated to do,which I do every week..WP this is not working,what else do you think you can do? Well the reason that you exist is because you are the"Experts"what can you do..Exit stage right,stop asking silly questions
DeleteIf i advertised an item for sale and it did live up to its advertised use, i would get a refund. so why is the "work programme any different?
ReplyDeleteHaving successfully resisted an attempt to sanction me recently, I feel strongly about this issue.
ReplyDeleteDenying the existence of formal targets is irrelevant when the only real target is “the more the merrier” in terms of depriving Benefits claimants of their Benefits.
The LASPO legislation comes into effect on 01 April 2013, which means that the majority of wrongly sanctioned Benefits claimants will be unable to obtain Legal Aid in order to help them to claim refunds from the DWP.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/contents/enacted
It looks like Labour and the Guardian between them have been able to force the Govt to accept a partial climb down by the Govt about the sanctions issue, which has clearly been allowed to spiral out of control in recent months. Both Houses of Parliament appear to accept that the partial climb down will result in refunds totalling about £24 million, probably.
There should be refunds in all the cases where the Benefits claimant has had “good cause” for his/her alleged “failure to participate” but either the claimant has been unable to resist the sanction successfully or s/he has not attempted to do so. This is what will cause the estimated refunds of about £24 million.
The DWP should be told to deal with these refunds administratively, so that LASPO should become irrelevant to this particular problem. The DWP should also be seen to bend over backwards to put matters right because if they fail to do so then they will drag Parliament into disrepute.
Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency of the Department of Work and Pensions. In this context, the operative word is “Agent.” The DWP is the Principal and the law says that the Principal is responsible for the acts and omissions of his/her Agent. Which one of them does the actual work of resolving this problem is irrelevant – the DWP remains responsible for ensuring that it is done and it should be seen to be done without unnecessary delay and without causing the Benefits claimants to have to endure any further expenses of any description.
I hope that all this will happen and that it will happen properly, thoroughly and promptly. Achieving this relatively simple end is not rocket science.
I contested a ''Failure To Participate'' notice over a month ago and although I've not been sanctioned it still hasn't been resolved.
ReplyDeleteWhen I contacted the Decision Makers office I was informed that ''sanction decisions are being delayed due to impending court cases''. Does anyone know what this means?
Could be a reference to the recent change in law?
DeleteAny way well done for contesting the sanction.
Keep doing so till you win.
If needs be take it all the way to an appeal tribunal. Appear in person. Get the people who raised the sanction and the one who signed the original WP08 to appear too as witnesses (you want to question them - as is your right). The clerk to the tribunal should be able to give you info on how to do this.
I lost out on a job i applied for. i later found out why, my "advisor" had apllied for the same job i applied for on my behalf, what emplouer will employ a person whos advisor applies for work for them, im withdrawing my consent for mt infomation being shared, its hindering me securing employment.
ReplyDeleteSorry for posing this question again,but has anybody had any luck with UJM? after applying for over 300 positions I have not even had a rejection letter.Has anybody had any luck?
ReplyDeletethe JC admit that it's not working as well as it should be......
DeleteApparently though it is being tweaked to improve things. I don't know in what way!
Most things I apply for don't send rejection letters, so I have to say I wouldn't expect the UJM to be any different.
I have had one e-mailed reply (sent about 5 minutes after I submitted the application) informing me that I was not going to be considered for the vacancy. The e-mail did not say why.
DeleteI assume that either the "keywords" did not match up or that Monster were running an experiment that day, to deal with automatic rejection replies. There was no way that a human employer would have had time to consider my application.
mkmky, through UJM I've applied for loads of jobs, I look daily at my application history, some have been viewed, some not, but I have had no feedback whatsoever. Another fact about UJM because I look everyday, I look at today's vacancies, UJM can't get the today's date correct, some day's this month have been listed as ?/06/2015. Talk about posting jobs for June 2015, 2 years down the line, UJM is one big joke.
ReplyDelete