The subject of welfare (which I will stubbornly continue to call social security) has been prominent this week. It wasn't only Labour's announcement of its policy, although that may well have sparked it off. The BBC belatedly discovered the scandal of ESA, the delays and the failure of the Work Programme to help those supposedly able to work. Of course, being the BBC, it headed the story with the speculation that the cost would mean that the government breaches its self-imposed cap on total welfare spend.
Then the Public Accounts Committee reported on the even bigger mess of PIPs. An embarrassed Mike Penning was allowed to get away with blaming Labour, and insisting that it was now fixed. But it all added to the impression of government that "something must be done".
Where was Iain Duncan Smith? He was proudly announcing that Universal Credit is being "rolled out" to 90 Jobcentres in the North West. But it will still only apply to single unemployed people with no complications, and there are no predictions beyond that. It was unfortunate timing; another major failure was added to the list. The Economist, normally Tory-supporting, published a devastating article headed "Universal discredit" rubbishing everything this government has done on "welfare reform".
Last night BBC's Newsnight had a discussion on the subject between Owen Jones and Nadhim Zahawi. The former is a socialist and columnist who is often critical of Labour. The latter is an ultra-loyal Tory whose expenses claims caused a furore and who will trot out the party line. The innate bias of the BBC was evident in the use, several times, of the term "welfare dependency" and in using a clip from Benefits Street as if it was an appropriate illustration. And IDS's lackey Christian Guy from the Centre for Social Justice was presented on the film as he was an independent expert. Who "won" the argument depends on who you agree with. These discussions rarely change opinions. But at least the subject is now being discussed.
Showing posts with label PIPs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PIPs. Show all posts
Saturday, 21 June 2014
Friday, 21 March 2014
Work Programme stats, and the PAC
We used to complain that no data was being released on the effectiveness of the Work Programme. Now we have all the data we could wish for, it seems, in the figures put out yesterday. You can see the document here. Some key figures are on the first page, but you'll need to get your calculator out. If we look at the "by all referrals" June 2011 to Dec 2013, we see that just under 19% of those on the programme long enough got an outcome. (The Factcheck blog says 17%.) But then look at how that tapers off, so that only 48,000 people were in work long enough for the provider to claim the full payments. In other words, the jobs tend to be temporary. 24,000 got 3-6 months of work, but then were back on the programme, and in all 352,000 have finished the WP and been referred back to the jobcentre. The other key fact from all of this is that while the figures for JSA claimants are considered satisfactory, they are terrible for those on ESA. For a good summary, read Channel 4's Factcheck blog. Looking at the breakdown by provider, we see that A4e isn't the worst-performing, but it's a long way from being the best.
Is it worth it? That's the really important question. Millions have been paid out to companies like A4e to achieve only a little above what would be expected with no intervention at all (and below that with ESA). The likelihood is that the vast majority of the jobs are down to the improving economy. So what's the point?
Other news takes us back to ATOS. The Public Accounts Committee had a go at the civil servants in the DWP and one of the bosses of Atos over the failure of the new PIPs assessment contract. The Guardian reported Margaret Hodge's interrogation of Robert Devereux, the Permanent Secretary. They have crossed swords before, and her questions revolved around the same issues as she has fumed over with the Work Programme. How can you give a new contract to a company which is in the process of bodging a similar contract? (My phrasing, not hers.) He said, "We are making a decision on the bids in front of us." As he has said before, the procurement process deliberately doesn't look at past performance. And they did not check that what Atos had put in its bid document was true. On the PIPs bid, Atos had claimed to have agreements with a large number of hospital trusts and physiotherapy practices, but far fewer actually signed up in the end. That meant that another claim, that everyone facing assessment would have a centre within an hour's travel time, has gone by the board. Huge backlogs are building up. Hodge had a go at the Atos person for misleading the DWP. But this sort of thing is common with the procurement process which the DWP has shaped. The big companies must form "partnerships" with smaller outfits, and can then list on their bid documents a number of sub-contractors who have, in fact, signed nothing and can duck out once they see the small print.
It's obvious to everybody that there has to be a better way.
Is it worth it? That's the really important question. Millions have been paid out to companies like A4e to achieve only a little above what would be expected with no intervention at all (and below that with ESA). The likelihood is that the vast majority of the jobs are down to the improving economy. So what's the point?
Other news takes us back to ATOS. The Public Accounts Committee had a go at the civil servants in the DWP and one of the bosses of Atos over the failure of the new PIPs assessment contract. The Guardian reported Margaret Hodge's interrogation of Robert Devereux, the Permanent Secretary. They have crossed swords before, and her questions revolved around the same issues as she has fumed over with the Work Programme. How can you give a new contract to a company which is in the process of bodging a similar contract? (My phrasing, not hers.) He said, "We are making a decision on the bids in front of us." As he has said before, the procurement process deliberately doesn't look at past performance. And they did not check that what Atos had put in its bid document was true. On the PIPs bid, Atos had claimed to have agreements with a large number of hospital trusts and physiotherapy practices, but far fewer actually signed up in the end. That meant that another claim, that everyone facing assessment would have a centre within an hour's travel time, has gone by the board. Huge backlogs are building up. Hodge had a go at the Atos person for misleading the DWP. But this sort of thing is common with the procurement process which the DWP has shaped. The big companies must form "partnerships" with smaller outfits, and can then list on their bid documents a number of sub-contractors who have, in fact, signed nothing and can duck out once they see the small print.
It's obvious to everybody that there has to be a better way.
Thursday, 20 March 2014
A good budget - for ATOS
Only the Independent has reported this: "Atos given responsibility for new childcare scheme despite previous fitness-for work fiasco." Yes, the French firm which has performed so splendidly on the WCA contracts that it's handing them back, and which is currently making life impossible for people waiting for PIPs assessments, has the contract to provide the IT for the new scheme to allow people £2,000 towards childcare costs. What could possibly go wrong? Atos won't be doing any assessments, we're assured. But if you take this together with its new contract to extract patient data from GP surgeries (see our post on 26 February) you can see just how ridiculous the outsourcing business has become.
There was nothing in yesterday's budget to give hope to the poorest. The unemployment figures are worthless, concealing the reality of just how many people are in work and how many are not. But the measure which we tend to overlook is the benefit cap, the overall limit on spending on "welfare" per year (which Labour supports). It excludes pensions and JSA. But it includes housing benefit, tax credits, disability benefits and pensioner benefits. So while people out of work will continue to get JSA, they could find their housing benefit cut; and those in casual, part-time or zero hours jobs (or in fictional self-employment) could find that their top-up benefits are withering away.
Then there was that poster. Wherever it originated, the Tory party chairman, Grant Shapps, tweeted it yesterday. At first people thought it was a parody. But it wasn't. And with the hashtag #torybingo it was soon trending wildly, with people having lots of fun playing the game. A massive own goal for the government!
There was nothing in yesterday's budget to give hope to the poorest. The unemployment figures are worthless, concealing the reality of just how many people are in work and how many are not. But the measure which we tend to overlook is the benefit cap, the overall limit on spending on "welfare" per year (which Labour supports). It excludes pensions and JSA. But it includes housing benefit, tax credits, disability benefits and pensioner benefits. So while people out of work will continue to get JSA, they could find their housing benefit cut; and those in casual, part-time or zero hours jobs (or in fictional self-employment) could find that their top-up benefits are withering away.
Then there was that poster. Wherever it originated, the Tory party chairman, Grant Shapps, tweeted it yesterday. At first people thought it was a parody. But it wasn't. And with the hashtag #torybingo it was soon trending wildly, with people having lots of fun playing the game. A massive own goal for the government!
Friday, 21 February 2014
An interesting week
Well, where to start? "Welfare" has certainly been in the news this week.
On the outsourcing front, we knew that there were moves to oust ATOS from their WCA contracts and move the work to other providers. Today we learn that the company has announced that it wants out. They gave the information to the Financial Times, perhaps significantly, giving as the reason the abuse of their staff. They say that they've been trying to agree an early exit for some months (the contracts are due to end in August 2015) but won't walk away until there are other providers in place. The BBC news website reports that the government is furious at this announcement because it will probably mean that other companies will put in lower bids to take on the work than they otherwise would. Which other companies would pick up this poisoned chalice? Capita already has half the PIP contracts, along with ATOS, so they might be keen. Then there are the other usual suspects, including A4e. This is not, after all, payment by results (not officially, anyway) so it's a guaranteed income. But would it be worth the hassle?
The row between the government and church leaders escalated this week. 27 Anglican bishops and 15 nonconformist church leaders wrote a letter, published in the Mirror, which attacks in no uncertain terms the government's creation of a "national crisis" of hardship and hunger. This forced the whole subject onto the agenda, with much discussion on TV and radio about Cameron's claim to a "moral mission". The debate was further fuelled by the publication of the latest sanctions figures. Record numbers have been plunged into destitution in the year to September 2013; 897,690, including 22,840 ESA claimants. This compares with 500,000 in the year to April 2010. Iain Duncan Smith's response, parroted by his colleagues, was, "sanctions are used as a last resort". We remain unclear as to whether he actually believes that. My congratulations go to the Bishop of Manchester who, in the face of a very hostile interview on BBC radio, was extremely coherent and accurate about the hardship inflicted on individuals for no good reason.
However, a leak to the Guardian this week showed that, just when you thought they couldn't sink any lower, they do. The idea has been considered by the DWP of charging people who have been stripped of their benefits to take the case to appeal. At the moment 58% of appeals are successful. This is clearly too many for the DWP, so slapping on a charge which no one could afford to pay would cut this figure admirably.
While the expected drivel poured from the right-wing commentators and their readers, I do suspect that a lot of people who had previously taken no interest in the subject have now woken up to what is going on. It probably won't change anything in the long run, but getting all this out in the open can only be a good thing.
On the outsourcing front, we knew that there were moves to oust ATOS from their WCA contracts and move the work to other providers. Today we learn that the company has announced that it wants out. They gave the information to the Financial Times, perhaps significantly, giving as the reason the abuse of their staff. They say that they've been trying to agree an early exit for some months (the contracts are due to end in August 2015) but won't walk away until there are other providers in place. The BBC news website reports that the government is furious at this announcement because it will probably mean that other companies will put in lower bids to take on the work than they otherwise would. Which other companies would pick up this poisoned chalice? Capita already has half the PIP contracts, along with ATOS, so they might be keen. Then there are the other usual suspects, including A4e. This is not, after all, payment by results (not officially, anyway) so it's a guaranteed income. But would it be worth the hassle?
The row between the government and church leaders escalated this week. 27 Anglican bishops and 15 nonconformist church leaders wrote a letter, published in the Mirror, which attacks in no uncertain terms the government's creation of a "national crisis" of hardship and hunger. This forced the whole subject onto the agenda, with much discussion on TV and radio about Cameron's claim to a "moral mission". The debate was further fuelled by the publication of the latest sanctions figures. Record numbers have been plunged into destitution in the year to September 2013; 897,690, including 22,840 ESA claimants. This compares with 500,000 in the year to April 2010. Iain Duncan Smith's response, parroted by his colleagues, was, "sanctions are used as a last resort". We remain unclear as to whether he actually believes that. My congratulations go to the Bishop of Manchester who, in the face of a very hostile interview on BBC radio, was extremely coherent and accurate about the hardship inflicted on individuals for no good reason.
However, a leak to the Guardian this week showed that, just when you thought they couldn't sink any lower, they do. The idea has been considered by the DWP of charging people who have been stripped of their benefits to take the case to appeal. At the moment 58% of appeals are successful. This is clearly too many for the DWP, so slapping on a charge which no one could afford to pay would cut this figure admirably.
While the expected drivel poured from the right-wing commentators and their readers, I do suspect that a lot of people who had previously taken no interest in the subject have now woken up to what is going on. It probably won't change anything in the long run, but getting all this out in the open can only be a good thing.
Saturday, 26 October 2013
Another fine mess
We all know by now that another shambles has occurred in Iain Duncan Smith's welfare "reforms". People on Disability Living Allowance are to be assessed for its replacement, the PIP. But instead of it going live all over the country, as it was meant to do, it will only happen for now in parts of the country. Nothing wrong with that, say ministers, we intended to do that all along, and anyway, better to go slowly and get it right.
Now, there are two contractors involved in this, Capita and Atos. In one report I saw that the places which are going ahead with the PIPs assessments are those in which Capita has the contracts. And we know that Atos was struggling to get everything in place because many of the proposed sub-contractors who were listed on its bid documents have pulled out. Does this mean that the scheme can't go ahead where Atos is the contractor because they're not ready? I don't know, but it seems likely. The DWP won't want to blame Atos because, as with all outsourcing contracts, the question would be asked, "Why did you give them the business?"
IDS seems to be keeping his head down this weekend.
Now, there are two contractors involved in this, Capita and Atos. In one report I saw that the places which are going ahead with the PIPs assessments are those in which Capita has the contracts. And we know that Atos was struggling to get everything in place because many of the proposed sub-contractors who were listed on its bid documents have pulled out. Does this mean that the scheme can't go ahead where Atos is the contractor because they're not ready? I don't know, but it seems likely. The DWP won't want to blame Atos because, as with all outsourcing contracts, the question would be asked, "Why did you give them the business?"
IDS seems to be keeping his head down this weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)