A4e and the government

The latest edition of Private Eye has shown once again the unhealthy relationship between A4e (and the other Work Programme primes) and the government.  They have documents released under FoI relating to a meeting which Chris grayling had last July with A4e directors.  At that point it was already clear, or should have been, that the WP was failing, and the publicity around A4e had been terrible.  But Grayling tells them, "In six months it will be all forgotten," and that he's grateful for what they're doing.  Grayling was replaced by Mark Hoban, who was similarly congratulatory at a meeting with Maximus in September.  The article continues: "The most revealing document, a 'short feedback' email, says Hoban wants Maximus' views on 'how we "sell" the Work Programme'."
Hoban has since made stern noises about tackling under-performance on the WP.  But, as the Eye points out, this is indicative of the fact that the government is more concerned with covering up the failures than securing value for money.
One important link with government for A4e was Jonty Olliff-Cooper, and he has gone.  The only publication to have picked up this fact is the Guardian, with a diary piece by Hugh Muir.  He points out that Cooper used to be "assistant to eccentric [Tory] strategy guru Steve Hilton".  Muir seems to be suggesting that Cooper has departed because the WP figures, due out shortly, are going to be terrible, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's clearing his path to a seat in parliament.  Nor would I be surprised if his position became untenable after his appallingly ill-judged tweets.  His going leaves one strong link between A4e and government, however.  After the meltdown last year and Emma Harrison's departure, the company hired the PR consultants Quiller, which includes George Bridges, "a pal of Chancellor George" as Muir puts it.  This was supposed to be a temporary arrangement, and Jonty confirmed that in a tweet not long ago.  But Quiller is still there.
Outsourcing by government is not a straightforward business relationship.  There are mutual interests, which are not necessarily those of the people who ultimately pay the bills - us.

What next?

The dust has settled on the Work Programme publicity.  Amazingly, the spin failed and the right information got the headlines.  The government had delayed as long as it dared so that it could put out 14 months of figures rather than 12.  The 12-month outcome figure was around 2%.  But even the 14-month figure came out well below the dead-weight figure.  Who would have guessed that the media would actually be talking about the dead-weight figure?

But this blog is supposed to be about A4e.  So what has all this meant for them?  Their results were not outstandingly bad or good, so they weren't singled out.  Channel 4 News were able to resurrect that Emma Harrison interview to show how wrong she was.  And A4e could really have done without that.  After the crisis of February, when she had to step down from her government post and from the chairmanship of A4e, George Bridges of Quiller Consultants was called in to use his connections to get the company through the mess.  Harrison's appearance will surely have set back those efforts.  But more important in the long run is that the company itself cannot hide behind platitudes.  The failure of the Work Programme puts it under scrutiny.  Andrew Dutton writes: ".... our current performance is materially better than the first year data shows".  Like all the other providers, the claim is that more outcomes are in the pipeline and will show up in the next release of data.  But that was always going to be the case.  He adds that "A4e has invested £50m in the past 18 months into our services, people and offices."  This is what Harrison said was her own money.  However, other providers claim to have broken even in the first year of the WP, so we can assume that that investment has been recouped.  They have a curious set of graphics on their website.  The figures include a claim that they saved the taxpayer £24m in benefits paid to people who now have jobs.  They do not indicate whether this figure takes account of in-work benefits which people still have to claim.  And does it take into account the amount the government has paid A4e?  Anyway, figures like these mean little; it's the experience people have of the company, and its performance in doing the work it's contracted to do which count.

"It's who you know" - networking and A4e

The unemployed are increasingly being lectured about the benefits of networking.  For most people this is irrelevant.  Our networks don't include anyone who could give us a job.  But for outsourcing companies like A4e networks are vital to the business.

This is a simplified version of the A4e network.  Top left, David Blunkett, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the w2w contracts were privatised; after ceasing to be a minister he became a paid "advisor" to A4e (and still is).  But with Labour out of power it was useful to get a Tory on board; Jonty Oliff Cooper used to be an aide to David Cameron's strategy director Steve Hilton and was taken on by A4e as their director of policy and strategy.  He is not now listed as part of A4e's senior team.  Moving clockwise, we get to David Cameron.  He was sufficiently persuaded of Emma Harrison's capacities that he made her his "family champion".  And then there's Chancellor George Osborne who brings us to George Bridges of Quiller Consultants.  Bridges is a personal friend of Osborne and helped him run the Tories' election campaign in 2010.  So the network helped in the appointment of Bridges and his firm to help A4e revamp its image after the meltdown.  Private Eye points out that the firm, Quiller Consultants, is owned by Lord Chadlington, the Tory peer who is also Cameron's constituency chairman.
The new chairman of A4e is Sir Robin Young, a retired career civil servant whose last government job was as a Permanent Secretary.  The link between him and Robert Devereux,  Permanent Secretary at the DWP, was referred to by Margaret Hodge last week when she described them both as, "A whole lot of good chaps - I understand that the Chairman is an ex-Permanent Secretary, whom, no doubt, you have conversations with."
It's a network that has made millions for Emma Harrison.  What a pity that we can't all do it.

Reputations

The Daily Mail has "updated" its article about A4e being the preferred bidder for the EHRC helpline contract.  The amendment seems to consist of the insertion of: "A Home Office spokesman said: ‘A4e have no contracts with the Home Office or its executive agencies.  The procurement process for the Equality Advisory and Support service is ongoing and A4e have not been made the preferred bidder for this contract.’"  So the Home Office is denying the whole story.  It will be interesting to see what happens in the end.    
At the same time a Labour MP, Bill Esterson, has used his own website to call A4e "a Victorian workhouse scam".  His constituent, 50-year-old Philip Hammond, has been with A4e for 14 months.  He says: "A4e is bullying people at a time when they need support. They run a campaign of intimidation and undermine any self confidence you may have in yourself."  He is particularly incensed by the 50-page contract people have to sign which gives A4e the right to monitor them for two years.  He regards this as forcing people to sign away their human rights.  The MP supports all this.  
Okay, this is politics, and somewhat over the top.  But an article in the Telegraph yesterday shows that the government is squirming about the whole subject of fraud in the W2W field.  Margaret Hodge, chair of the PAC, is pursuing the fact that Cameron had announced that there had been 125 cases of "alleged wrongdoing".  Only 11 of those related to A4e.  She wants the details of the others disclosed, and a Tory MP has supported her.  Chris Grayling has said that most of the 125 cases were not really fraud, but a few of them were down to "employee malpractice".  The DWP is still deciding whether to publish the details.  Meanwhile, reports the Telegraph, "the National Audit Office is conducting an internal inquiry into the DWP’s approach to investigating allegations of fraud across providers in the back-to-work sector.  The findings of that inquiry will feed into a PAC evidence session on May 23."

It's against this background that A4e's new PR people are trying to rehabilitate the company's reputation.  I suspect it won't be about planting more of the good news stories in the local press.  George Bridges and his colleagues from Quiller Consultants are more likely to be lobbying politicians.  Disclosures of wrongdoing by other companies are helpful.

Attack and defence

Our attention was drawn (thanks, Solomon) to a post on the businesszone site which has the quote of the week from Peter Holbrook, chief executive of Social Enterprise UK:  "Speaking at the opening of Social Enterprise Exchange in Glasgow, he went on to say that at a recent event, his chair, Claire Dove, 'almost decked' Emma Harrison, the 'infamous' founder of A4e."  He also said that A4e was about "pure profiteering and greed".  Holbrook's organisation is not alone in distancing itself from A4e.  It defines a social enterprise in the usual way, and specifically excludes any company which exists to make profits for shareholders or to "make its owners very wealthy".  Not so an organisation called ClearlySo, which says that it "connect(s) social enterprises with investors & the corporate world".  Their definition of a social enterprise is so elastic that they talk loosely of a "social business" which aims "to do good by doing well" (which is an inversion of one of Emma Harrison's little sayings) and A4e qualified to be in their directory.   The recent scandal got them seriously debating whether the company ought to stay in it, and now they've decided that it shouldn't.  The logic of their reasoning is beyond me.

Among those who really don't like A4e and all it represents are a lot of "voluntary sector" organisations.  This is another area where definitions are a bit blurred.  But on the Third Sector website someone called Debra Allcock Tyler tells us that "Charities should be running services because they care for people, not profit."  On the subject of the A4e scandal, she says: "I've been particularly amused by the moral outrage expressed by some of our politicians about the size of the salaries and bonuses paid to its directors."  Why should they be surprised when that's what businesses are for?  But her conclusion is that all the contracts should be given to charities.  "Our sector isn't in it for the money. We will do whatever it takes to continue to serve our beneficiaries, none of the money given to us will be distributed in profits and we do not walk away when the money dries up. So for me it's a no-brainer. Use charities to deliver services to vulnerable people."  I disagree.  The answer is a public sector which is properly valued, and actually pays people to do the front line work rather than just the management.

A4e, of course, are fighting back, with yet more PR.  They have now engaged "support from the Conservative Party's former campaign director", according to PRWeek.  "A small number of senior employees at Quiller Consultants, led by George Bridges, are working on what sources have described as a ‘crisis comms brief’......... A senior public affairs figure commented: ‘Bridges has very senior connections, and his crisis management role will be to help A4e get through its present mess.’"  Those "very senior connections" again; Bridges apparently ran George Osborne's 2010 election campaign.  But will they pull A4e out of the mess?  The company already employs at least 4 PR companies and has recently worked with another three.  Is the current need really for friends in high places?