Some more reactions have appeared on the sell-off of A4e. Of the mainstream media, only the Financial Times reports it. They say that Emma Harrison owned 87% of the company, whereas others say 85% and City AM says 85.5%. All agree that she gets £20m out of the deal. All the reports point out that Staffline already owns EOS and Avanta, and will now control a large chunk of the market; City AM says 23%. The FT says: "The 16 private sector suppliers of the government’s welfare-to-work programme have been engaged in a wave of consolidation as they seek to bolster their position ahead of the next round of contracts in March 2017". It also says that A4e employs 3,000 people, but the Yorkshire Post says the figure is 2,200. The newly enlarged company will hold 9 WP contracts, two more than Ingeus (which is now owned by an American company). No one seems to think this is a problem.
The financial websites naturally focus on the money. Investor Interactive reports that Staffline's shares "shot up by 18%" on the announcement and is very chirpy about its future profitability. The Yorkshire Post looks wider. They do call Harrison an entrepreneur, which I have always maintained is untrue; and they quote the boss of Staffline on why the name A4e will not be retained, unlike that of Avanta. He says that the A4e brand is "unfortunately too tarnished". The paper also tries to get a comment from Emma Harrison herself; but when contacted all she would say was "I’m sure you’ve had all the press releases. Thanks for calling, bye." Charmingly, they add "It is thought that she will devote her time to charity work."
Showing posts with label Avanta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Avanta. Show all posts
Tuesday, 28 April 2015
Friday, 16 May 2014
Another buy-out in "Welfare to Work" industry
It's only a few weeks since Ingeus was bought by the American company Providence. Now another w2w provider has been bought out, this time by a British company. Staffline has bought Avanta for £45m. It says that Avanta generates £70m, and all of this is in the w2w sector. The Financial Times says that the providers are "braced for a wave of consolidation as they seek to bolster their position ahead of the next round of contracts in 2016".
So is A4e going to be next? They were hopeful of going into profit a year ago, and if both Ingeus and Avanta are worth buying because they're making money, why not A4e? Is the brand too toxic? Is Emma Harrison too attached to her company to let it go?
All of this could be a problem for the government. Staffline reckons that the DWP is happy because "they want fewer bigger providers who are easier to manage". But, as the FT points out, it could well mean that these companies become "too big to fail".
So is A4e going to be next? They were hopeful of going into profit a year ago, and if both Ingeus and Avanta are worth buying because they're making money, why not A4e? Is the brand too toxic? Is Emma Harrison too attached to her company to let it go?
All of this could be a problem for the government. Staffline reckons that the DWP is happy because "they want fewer bigger providers who are easier to manage". But, as the FT points out, it could well mean that these companies become "too big to fail".
Wednesday, 6 November 2013
"I don't believe it"
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.
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.
Thursday, 25 November 2010
ERSS Framework
The DWP has issued the list or organisations that have been selected as preferred suppliers for the Employment Related Support Services Framework. There are 11 "lots" or different areas of the country, and A4e is included in 7 of them. But there are between 9 and 17 organisations selected in each area. You can find the full list here. There's a useful description of what it all means on the Navca site. The DWP says that, "The Work Programme will be the first contract to be called off the Framework and the procurement exercise for this will commence shortly." It looks very much like contracts have been shared out amongst the main established companies; Serco, JHP, Working Links, Seetec and Reed all have 7, and Avanta has 6.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Thought leadership
We reported that A4e were sponsoring discussions at the party conferences. Private Eye picked out their appearance on the Labour Party's agenda (another firm, Avanta, was also involved) and were very scathing about the motives of such events. Now the Training Journal website has given both companies a chance to respond. I particularly like the phrase from A4e, “Thought leadership has long been an important activity for us."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)