There are two big stories to look at today. First let's look at:
SANCTIONS FIGURES
The latest sanctions figures have, at last, been published. Between October 2012 and June 2013 they show a rise of 6% on the same period a year before, to 580,000. Think about that - more than half a million. The BBC website explains the new rules, and says that 53% of the decisions were at the lowest level, up to 13 weeks, for such failures as not attending an appointment. Then it says that about 1 in 5 were for failing to keep an appointment with an adviser. Esther McVey is trotted out to speak for the DWP, saying that sanctions were only used against those who were "wilfully rejecting support for no good reason".
In another piece the BBC's Sean Clare looks at "Life when the Jobcentre says you broke the rules". It brings out some of the absurdities and injustices of the system, with several horror stories. The CAB is quoted as saying that they've seen a 64% rise in people coming to them because of sanctions. The PCS union, whose members have to administer the regime, says, "There's no question that there is an overarching pressure to enforce the sanctions regime as strictly as possible." The DWP, of course "flatly denies" this. But the article has stories which cannot be brushed aside in this way.
"UP TO THE JOB?"
BBC Radio 4 did a "File on 4" programme yesterday on the Work Programme, which gives me my title for this post. It seems that Esther McVey has rapidly absorbed her boss's approach to uncomfortable facts; three times her response was to say that she didn't believe it.
The programme started in Eastbourne, where unemployment is a lot lower than the national average, but the local MP Stephen Lloyd (a Lib Dem) is angry at the number of people who have done their 2-year stint on the WP and been failed by it. One 47-year-old man said that there was no respect and he was treated like a child. A woman said she'd seen her advisor only once a month.
The WP providers there are Avanta and G4S. One older woman who had a good experience (and found a job) through a sub-contractor of G4S was interviewed. But the programme then turned to Richard Johnson, formerly of Ingeus (didn't he work for Serco too?). He said that the quality of the contract was deteriorating because case-loads were now up to 240 per adviser. McVey said she didn't believe it. The official figure is 80 - 140. And, she said, people can make a complaint.
The point which emerged was that of the just under 2.5 million who are unemployed, 900,000 have been out of work for a year or more and these, along with those with medical problems, are not being helped. A consultant, a chap called Grimes, said that the sanctions against the worst-performing providers (the 5% "market shift") are inadequate. The DWP should remove their contracts altogether, but the providers know that this is not going to happen.
The attachment fees are due to end in April 2014. Johnson spoke about the discounts of 30% or more offered by some of the providers when they bid. These are back-loaded to years 4 and 5 (i.e. at this point the providers will get 30% less for outcomes) on the assumption by the providers that the government would never let this happen. The contracts, he said, are not viable at this price. Deloitte's, who partnered with Ingeus, are now trying to sell their shares, and Johnson thinks it's because they understand the implications of the discounts. "I don't believe that", said McVey. She thinks Deloitte's want out because they are doing very well.
Turning to those on ESA, the programme highlighted a man who had been sent to Triage Central. In 7 visits he saw an advisor only once and got no help at all. He said that the emphasis was on what he was doing wrong. Disability Rights UK said that the Work Programme isn't working for disabled people, and a 90% failure rate is not acceptable. Once again, McVey said, "I don't believe it."
More or less the last word came from Grimes, who said that the long-term unemployed were at the back of the queue and moving backwards.
Lots to comment on, I think.
Wow,Mcvey is a genius,most companies sell a well performing company/stock just as it is about to pay off ......History shows(Enron) that Corporations sell off right before it tanks and Delloitte are accountants don't forget...they know where the bodies are buried !
ReplyDeleteEsther McVey claimed £467.42 on expenses last month to pay her electricity bill. She is hardly preaching from the moral high ground.
ReplyDeleteAnd we all know that these figures have been manipulated and stripped down to the bare minimum so as to avoid that evil Humpty Dumpty doppelganger IDS losing face. It would not surprise me in the slightest if these figures were representative of those people sanctioned whilst under the remit of JCP while people on the Work Programme [and therefore the most ripe for sanctions of the bunch] were counted separately- or not counted at all.
CAB report an increase of 64% in the number of people needing help following a sanction over the last twelve months. DWP report a rise of 6% in sanctions. It doesn't take Basil Rathbone to deduce that something is amiss!
DeleteI've not really come across the McVey person before but listening to her inept performance for just a few seconds was enough to make my mind up. She was supercilious and very annoying. I find it hard to believe that she convinced anyone that the WP is doing marvellously. Much the same to be said for the ERSA woman,
ReplyDeleteMy exit report from A4E shows two seperate gaps, 5 months and 3 months, when no ''tailored support'' was offered or given to me.
ReplyDeleteOf course, McVey would say that this could never happen to someone on the Work Programme. I'd love to hold my exit report in front of her face and say ''what's this then?''
She said you should have complained.
DeleteI certainly have complained. The complaint, which deals with 5 clear breaches of the ''Minimum Service Requirements'' is currently under investigation by a Regional Business Manager.
DeleteI'm sure A4E monitors this blog so I won't go into more detail.
McVey is a card isn't she? And that is NOT a compliment! Historian would give me a ticking off if I typed what I thought of the annoying politician based on last night's performance.
ReplyDeleteI too noticed how evasive she was and how she didn't believe the facts when presented to her. Long time readers of this blog may well remember how Emma Harrison was equally evasive when she ignored the points I put to her about A4e in an email correspondence I had with her. Historian was kind enough to print this.
McVey was not even phased upon learning that a client had been seen just TWICE in the total two years of the WP. Again, she has been taught by a good master. On a BBC R5L phone in last year, Chris Greyling did not accept clients were not being seen for months at a time despite several callers(myself incl.), emailers and texters saying just that! I guesses we're all liars.
When McVey said people could complain, one has to ask why people like her go into politics. For it surely in God's name cannot be to help their fellow man and woman. Why did she not ask anyone with serious grievances and concerns to contact her dept. and promise to personally look into serious cases of neglect, inefficiency, and lax standards? She did not even have the grace to give out the number or website of the Independent Case Examiner that deals with complaints about JCP and WP providers.
McVey has already lived down to Smith's standards. No doubt he'll be proud of his newest protégé!
One of the issues with the stories about the WP program and the Job Centre is that the client/customer always tells their story but the Job Centre/WP Provider can't give their side due to client confidentiality. You sit and listen to some of the stories been told when you sign on and you realise why people are sanctioned.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point, but I notice that quite a few people from your side of the table are going onto forums (anonymously, of course) to back up what clients are saying. You could do the same if you have a different story. No one is saying that all sanctions are undeserved. But even when someone truly refuses to engage with the programme (and in my experience that's rare) do they deserve to be made destitute for months? As someone pointed out on another site, if you've paid your dues for years you are entitled to benefits, so this regime is a clear breach of your rights.
DeleteAnon (6 Nov 2013 12:27)
DeleteHave you seen these ridiculous sanctions before?:
http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/a-list-of-completely-ridiculous-benefit-sanctions-people-have-experienced
Quite daft, aren't they? I'm sure you'll say you've never sanctioned anyone for the reasons given. However, given what you have said, I think it only fair to suggest what you consider to be a fair and proper sanction.
When you say the WP provider / JCP cannot give their side of the story, do you mean the organisation / company individual advisers? Ever stopped to consider than they may not have much of an argument to offer? Especially when confronted by hard and clear facts.
Yes Historian, you are correct about paying your dues and been entitled to benefits. I have long been campaigning for some sort of benefits due by paid in system but we know thats not going to happen.
ReplyDeleteI would question though why somebody would refuse to engage in a program that is there to at least try to get them back into work and they then lose their benefits/income that they need to sustain their homelife. Is the person then not at fault and have nobody else to blame?
The only people I ever met who refused to engage with it were working cash-in-hand, or didn't actually need the money (someone else was keeping them) but signed on for the NI contribution. These were, as I said, rare. More often, people had the sort of chaotic lives where turning up to anything on time was difficult. The vast majority of people who are out of work are desperately looking for a job.
DeleteAnon (6 Nov 2013 14:01)
DeleteFirstly, you're assuming the Work Program is working. It simply isn't.
Secondly, what happens when someone IS engaging and yet face sanctions. It increasingly seems sanctions are not applied down to any sort of logic or reason. Rather down to the whim of an individual adviser a jobseeker happens to have on a particular day of the week!
As I come to the end of the WP I can honestly say that I have tried to engage and in the same respect the majority of my (?) Advisers have,but a lack of resources have been the major stumbling blocks,the Programme was put together in a haphazard manner and the post WP programme seems to going down the same route!
DeleteYes its called a mandatory intervention regime and it lasts for 6 months, then its looking like community work placements for a further 6 months, so another 12 months of nothing.
DeleteThe annoying thing is, now the DWP are referring people into those charities that were pushed out at the start of the WP and had to struggle to survive, job centre should fund real training and upskill people who have been out of work for so long...I mean isnt that where the Work Programme has failed so many, they just wouldnt cough up any money for any sort of training and neither will job centre plus.
My own experience of an (unsuccessful) attempt by the JCP to impose a sanction on me in Jan 2013 suggests that to me the DWP might have used less than comprehensive &, factually accurate data from which to compile their own sanctions stats.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, IDS seems to have been giving McVey lessons about Denying The Truth. (As in, “If all else fails, insist that you “don’t believe” the truth.”) McVey is easily silly enough to have flallen into that trap, of which IDS is an experienced veteran with “form,” as they say.
How/Why have these people still got these jobs in government?! Their jobs, at the end of the day, are to put in place schemes/programmes for people claiming benefits in this country and to act on the figures they receive in response to them. NO ONE is asking for their opinion(s) of whether THEY "believe" these schemes/programmes actually work, as they DO NOT use those "services" THEMSELVES. Point in fact: if someone is known to be crooked or biased and they make something, then of course they're going to speak POSITIVELY of THEIR work. That's how CROOKS work!! If you give someone free reign with something, chances are good that they're going to form blinkers and start looking at something from THEIR point of view and no one elses.
ReplyDelete