What went wrong with FND

An interesting evaluation of Flexible New Deal has been published by the Policy Studies Institute. (The link to the full report doesn't work.) It doesn't name providers, which is a shame. However, some of its findings are:

• For the 18-24 year old group, it was less effective than New Deal.
• It often didn't live up to the expectation that support would be individually tailored and personalised.
• There was little innovation in the design of the service provided and "greater flexibility also appeared to have led to differences in the amount of support received (eg, variation in access to training and in-work support, and different rules on the payment of travel expenses)."
• Some providers didn't meet the requirement that they should see clients once a fortnight and couldn't find "work-related activity" for all clients.
• Finally, "The qualitative research identified several issues with regards to the effects and administration of sanctions, including poor timing and inconsistency of messages between Jobcentre Plus and providers, and staff believing long-term claimants were less likely to change their behaviour when faced with the prospect of losing money." I'd have to read the full report to be sure what that means, especially that last bit.

What's worrying is that the Work Programme is similar to FND in many respects.

Pathways - why it's not working

When delivering a public service such as helping the unemployed to find work there will be some crucial differences between public servants and private contractors. These differences are highlighted in a report on Pathways to Work, which looks at the "impact of outcome-based contracting". Pathways is a programme to help people with health or disability problems. The report, done by the Policy Studies Institute for the DWP, says that the programme is failing for a number of reasons. The Jobcentre Plus website says: "The help is tailored specifically for each person taking part in the programme." But instead what's happening is "creaming and parking". Inevitably, if you pay by results, i.e. job outcomes, contractors will cream off the clients most likely to get jobs and park the ones who have little motivation or who have serious problems. The economic situation has meant serious financial problems for the contractors. "As providers were not meeting their performance targets and service fees were not sufficient to cover running costs, it was widely reported that prime and partner delivery organisations were experiencing financial strain as a result of the contractual agreements." It has also meant that the prime contractors are leaving it to their sub-contractors to deal with those clients with specialist needs. "Service innovation on the part of prime providers was largely focused on reducing operational costs and achieving performance efficiencies." The conclusions of the report are polite but pretty damning. But they don't include the scrapping of these contracts and returning the service to people who are resourced over the long term and are motivated by the desire to do a good job and deliver a service to the public.