We learned last week that DWP press officers were to be sent on a statistics course this summer, following the outpouring of dodgy and downright untrue figures, designed to prove whatever Iain Duncan Smith wants to believe. On Tuesday the man himself appeared before the Work & Pensions Select Committee, but the topic was the non-progress of Universal Credit. It seemed to many of us that he was not to be answerable for misleading the public; but it's now been confirmed that he will appear before the committee on 4 September to answer questions on the DWP's annual report and on the Department's use of statistics. It will be interesting; but if his performance on Monday in the Today programme interview is any guide, it will be entirely unproductive.
There's a report out today on the whole subject of outsourcing. It's by the Institute for Government, a think-tank which seems to be genuinely non-partisan. It is summarised in the Independent, which headlines it as "the great outsourcing scandal". The report uses the Work Programme as one of its four sectors for examination, and comes up with the (hardly startling) opinion that there is a lot of "creaming and parking" going on. They say that they "found companies regularly playing the system to ensure they made money....... Providers were also cutting costs by using 'group sessions' and telephone calls rather than face-to-face contact." Yes, well, I think we knew that. The IfG's recommendation is disappointing: "The Government should set minimum performance levels, and punish poor performers by imposing penalties or terminating contracts entirely." The authors are apparently unaware that there are minimum performance levels, and there are supposed to be penalties. They miss the point that government has no wish to proclaim its own failure by punishing its contractors.
It's a timid report which, despite a few sensible points, misses some of the crucial dangers of outsourcing.
It's disappointing. As you say, it makes some important (if somewhat obvious) points and then trots out some timid and mundane solutions that in some cases may, as you've also identified, imply a lack of familiarity with some of the individual initiatives reviewed.
ReplyDeleteA more fundamental evaluation would be welcome. Do we need outsourcing at all? What are the arguments and evidence for and against? Who benefits, and how? Given that companies mostly now behave in the Friedman sense, with a narrow mission to maximise profits, how can we ensure that customers (both the government and the end user) don't repeatedly have their pants pulled down? Is the last even possible?
I have been mandated by A4E to undertake a 'Countdown Routeway' activity. Does anyone know what this? I asked my advisor (who put me on the activity ) and his response was that the course is designed to 'refocus and reenergize' jobsearch activity. Thanks for that!
ReplyDeleteJust Google it if your curious. I heard it's just about how to do job searches, sprucing up your CV, interview skills etc. Who thinks these names up though...
DeleteI too was subject to this.
DeleteAs you would expect it is nothing useful. More regurgitation of the usual stuff. It is just there so that A4e can tick the box to say that they have done something for you (or should that be 4U?) and put it on your exit report.
The subliminal message is: "Look at all the high quality stuff we have done for these people! The fact that they still haven't got a job must therefore be their fault. Mustn't it?"
Grit your teeth. Expect to be told the bleedin' obvious and draw comfort that it is only two days (or at least my Countdown Routeway course was).
Actually A4e should market some of their courses as alternatives to frontal lobotomy, same effect without the surgery.
Welcome to the zombie factory.
When I was in a few weeks ago they were auditing all the files,CV,literacy,numeracy Ect Ect,do you have copies? Why? We need them as proof you have completed these...Yes I have my copies,where are yours? You need to supply them to us as proof that you have completed these courses..Sorry No, you should have copies as you ran the courses, Right upset!
DeleteI just did that - supposedly 2 full days.
DeleteTurned out that as I took along my CV, typed up an example of an application letter, applied for two jobs and then did their psychometric meyer-briggs test I was allowed to go. Half way through the first day and no need for any of us to go back the second day.
The Meyers briggs test itself was totally pointless, more so than others I've seen - you're given a sheet with numbered pairs of words and you have to select the one you most like. As in Science/Art. I like both, there's no option for that. So they have a totally false idea of me. Anyway, you then get your result (INTJ or whatever) and you get a specialised questionnaire to go through listing your strengths and possible job areas. It may not be that specialised, I didn't get to look at anyone elses so only saw my own.
The job-centre didn't know anything about it either. Their response was 'We don't have any contact with the Work Programme'. Is it me or is there some tension between the two (the JC and WP providers), shouldn't they be working together? Pathetic.
DeleteWell, JCP staff are probably (and reasonably) worried about their jobs. When they've been given a chance to compete on a level playing field, they've generally out-performed their private sector counterparts, but are still seeing the gradual shift towards being a benefit processing and management rump service rather than an employment one.
DeleteJCP staff and managers have (justifiably) been criticised for a range of things recently, but seen from their perspective, if their buy-in to their jobs being outsourced is less than complete, I can understand it.
Additionally, WP providers aren't contractually obliged to communicate with many people other than at particular points, and in most cases they don't, although in some good examples they do. I suspect that in reality front line staff on both sides would be happy to talk, but both JCP and the Work Programme are being run on peanuts - real capacity & caseload problems at both ends.
Before the 2006 outsourced contracts there was generally a good relationship between the JCP staff and the New Deal providers. Then a lot of JCP staff were sacked, and those who were left, naturally, resented what was happening. Things have obviously got worse as the outsourcing of the jobcentres' functions is threatened.
DeleteIndeed. Illustrates how difficult the public sector has it. Take part on a level playing field and win? It doesn't matter - there's an ideological drive to outsource anyway. The same can be said for the assumptions about PFI that disadvantage the public sector before the pen has hit paper, although that's driven by other things alongside a fundamental belief in the efficiency and innovation of the private sector.
DeleteAccording to the report "One director of a Work Programme contractor added: “These contracts are on the edge of being financially viable. You have to aggressively cream and park.” Well from year 4 attachment fees fall to nill so it should be interesting around May 2015, that date sounds famillier...
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I am no longer able to follow the WP,I had regular interviews every 2 weeks(after now 9 different Advisers)No tailored support,No training..And now? It was supposed to be Group sessions,I showed up with my appointment letter..Confused looks and??? Do you have proof of you job search? Yes..Fine,Thank you..And my next appointment will be when?.."We will be in contact"
ReplyDeletePitiful. And to think this programme costs £5bn to make happen.
DeleteWhy is it that so many people here have had so many advisers?! I'm only on my second, of which I've been with since about month 2. At one point, I was seeing him every 2-3 months, now I see him each month. He's kind of OK, one of the few nice ones out there I guess. I really hope things improve for you.
I've had 3 advisers, my first one I never saw, he was either off sick or out of the office. In the end I had to make a few complaints about him and finally got a new advisor. My second one I saw once and my third lasted till the end.
DeleteThe only jobs offered on the work programme? zero hours contracts, short term work, shift work, night work, all for minimum wage, even for night work.
ReplyDeleteReturning to the subject of DWP's comms people being sent on a statistics course, it's good in that it removes one excuse for further misrepresentations of this sort, but it does rather buy into the idea that the reason for the claims (which based on the hilarious round of interviews by IDS haven't gone away but merely been rephrased as statements of faith) was ignorance rather than malice or supporting the political narrative.
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced that is the case. The DWP press office has a record of briefing the media in the most partial and loaded terms, and there are some incredibly able statisticians in the department who would have been a phone call away if clarification was needed. The idea that it was just a simple mistake because as comms types they were unable to understand statistics or the ad hoc research in which they were contained isn't entirely plausible.
As an aside, I once heard Chris Grayling (when he was at DWP) calling for an end to negative media portrayals of the long-term unemployed as it achieved little other than discouraging employers from recruiting them - and we know that they're already wary of this. I was very tempted to mention that as many of them appear to originate from his own press office, he was in an excellent position to influence this, as I assume were many others. Inevitably, nobody said anything, which in hindsight is a pity, although I doubt much would have been achieved.
Sounds like the flagship Youth Contract is in trouble too. Less than 5 thousand 18-24 year olds got work. Very surprising as I believe this can be accessed on the WP.
DeleteIt's very poor, but then most people always thought that the incentive / subsidy on offer was too small. DWP's rationale (or at least that of one of the senior staff involved in the design of it) was that they weren't allowed to go anywhere near the FJF sum (as it had already been called ineffective and expensive by Cameron, long before the evaluation was published) but the amount had at least to sound impressive, so they settled more or less at random on £2275. No market research or talking to employers involved - more a case of 'what's the smallest large amount of money you can think of?'.
DeleteA lot of evidence from here and abroad suggests that wage subsidies can work, but face a lot of inertia, but can be extremely effective - the FJF was arguably the most effective scheme of its sort in this country at least.
For this part of the system of labour market interventions, it seems pretty clear that putting aside niggling complaints about accessibility, the main problem was with government rather than the outsourcers and WP providers. Having announced that FJF was a flop and a massive waste of money, they couldn't recreate it and had instead to come up with a massively watered-down version.
"Having announced that FJF was a flop and a massive waste of money, they couldn't recreate it[...]."
ReplyDeleteWhy not ?
New Deal and its successor, Flexible New Deal were deemed to be failures. The replacement Work Programme is nothing more than a rehash of tired old rhetoric and worthless "interventions". The only difference is the payment model, and I'm sure the providers have ways and means to inflate their success rate in order to attract more outcome payments.
Well I thought providers would have used the Youth Contract in this way but it appears not. Outcome payments will fall in the last 2 years of the WP as the targets are lower. From 2014 the attachment fees fall too.
DeleteWhy not? Politically impossible to be so vocally critical of something (and it was Cameron personally who slated it), end it early and then immediately reintroduce it.
Delete