A fascinating piece in the Observer reports that "Private firms on payment-by-result contracts have suggested more punishments should have been meted out". In 2009, 139,000 people had their incomes stopped. By 2011 it was more than 500,000. And yet Corporate Watch has documents which show that the companies want more. In the first 8 months of the Work Programme, jobcentres stopped benefits for 40,000 people, but that was only about a third of the 110,000 that were referred to them. The rate, however, is going up. The document shows that Working Links refers the most cases, but A4e is second. It requested sanctions in 10,120 cases. 3,000 of these were accepted by the jobcentres.
The procedure in A4e's case, I'm told, is that offices send the cases of non-compliance through to a central office, along with the reasons for this non-compliance (didn't turn up but was in hospital, that kind of thing); that office then refers them for sanctions. But regularly the explanations get left off, so people find their income has been stopped when they've been told that wouldn't happen.
The article goes on: Richard Whittell from Corporate Watch said the Work Programme appeared to be focused on slashing benefit rather than putting people into work. "These figures give the lie to the government's claims its welfare reforms are about helping people into work," he said. " By the time it's finished, more people will have been sanctioned by the Work Programme than properly employed through it. Every month thousands of people are having their only source of income stopped and being pushed into hardship. Companies like Serco, Working Links and G4S may not be very good at finding people suitable work, but they're dab hands at punishing them." The private firms say they make their referrals to job centres in line with government guidelines.
Chris Grayling is quoted as saying that "there was no financial imperative for private firms to punish jobseekers". So why are they doing it? Is it the case that increasing numbers of people are refusing to comply with the terms of the WP? Or is there some other reason?
Saturday, 30 June 2012
Friday, 29 June 2012
More figures - and disagreement
As Channel 4 publishes more of the figures from that leaked report, so there is dispute about how meaningful they are.
The channel's news website details the outcome rates in different regions. They are miserably low in some areas where the unemployment rate is also low; and better in areas where A4e are sub-contractors, suggesting to the writer that it's A4e's model which is at fault. The reporter Jackie Long, on her Channel 4 blog, summarises this, and quotes the DWP's response that the interpretation of the stats was "ludicrous". Long asks if A4e's figures would be better after 12 months instead of 10, and clearly doesn't think so.
The Telegraph has carried the story, and expands on the DWP's response. The spokes-person is quoted as saying that is "virtually impossible for any provider to have built up a significant number of job outcome payments by the end of March as most outcomes are only payable after someone has found a job and stayed in it for six months". Hold on. The stats revealed by Channel 4 are not about outcome payments. They show the numbers of starters getting work and then staying in work for 13 weeks or more. If they haven't been in a job for 13 weeks then they're not going to make it to 6 months.
Even more puzzling is the reaction of the FullFact website, which is normally very rigorous about stats. They point to the premature judgement made by the Tories when in opposition on Flexible New Deal. Figures show, they say, that "a significantly higher proportion of participants were finding sustainable work after 14 months than were after 11 months". Well, if they say so. We are to understand, then, that A4e's figures could look dramatically better in a few months' time.
The channel's news website details the outcome rates in different regions. They are miserably low in some areas where the unemployment rate is also low; and better in areas where A4e are sub-contractors, suggesting to the writer that it's A4e's model which is at fault. The reporter Jackie Long, on her Channel 4 blog, summarises this, and quotes the DWP's response that the interpretation of the stats was "ludicrous". Long asks if A4e's figures would be better after 12 months instead of 10, and clearly doesn't think so.
The Telegraph has carried the story, and expands on the DWP's response. The spokes-person is quoted as saying that is "virtually impossible for any provider to have built up a significant number of job outcome payments by the end of March as most outcomes are only payable after someone has found a job and stayed in it for six months". Hold on. The stats revealed by Channel 4 are not about outcome payments. They show the numbers of starters getting work and then staying in work for 13 weeks or more. If they haven't been in a job for 13 weeks then they're not going to make it to 6 months.
Even more puzzling is the reaction of the FullFact website, which is normally very rigorous about stats. They point to the premature judgement made by the Tories when in opposition on Flexible New Deal. Figures show, they say, that "a significantly higher proportion of participants were finding sustainable work after 14 months than were after 11 months". Well, if they say so. We are to understand, then, that A4e's figures could look dramatically better in a few months' time.
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Who cares about the 3.5%?
Only two papers have so far taken up the story of the figures revealed by Channel 4 News last night. The Daily Mail has a ball with it, of course, but basically just repeats Channel 4's press release. The Guardian is more restrained but adds nothing. So does anyone care?
One point made by Channel 4 was that, in Newham at least, A4e does less well at getting people into work than the local council's own scheme. I believe that this is true around the country. Local authorities are funding their own programmes, out of very stretched budgets, often focussing on young unemployed people. Why are they more successful than the private companies? I suggest that it's because they are willing to fund the training and qualifications that are essential. In a place like Newham, with the Olympic sites, there would have been jobs in construction and security. For both of those industries you need the qualification. Is A4e funding these? It would be very interesting to compare local council schemes' success rates with those of companies like A4e all over the country.
The DWP's stated minimum sustained jobs rate, if providers are not to lose their contracts, is 5.5%. This is pathetically low anyway, and if A4e can't even make that they obviously deserve to lose their contracts. But Channel 4 suggested last night that if all the providers were in the same boat, perhaps the answer was to give them more money up front. It isn't. The answer is to admit defeat, end the contracts and give the money to local councils, which can work with the Jobcentres.
One point made by Channel 4 was that, in Newham at least, A4e does less well at getting people into work than the local council's own scheme. I believe that this is true around the country. Local authorities are funding their own programmes, out of very stretched budgets, often focussing on young unemployed people. Why are they more successful than the private companies? I suggest that it's because they are willing to fund the training and qualifications that are essential. In a place like Newham, with the Olympic sites, there would have been jobs in construction and security. For both of those industries you need the qualification. Is A4e funding these? It would be very interesting to compare local council schemes' success rates with those of companies like A4e all over the country.
The DWP's stated minimum sustained jobs rate, if providers are not to lose their contracts, is 5.5%. This is pathetically low anyway, and if A4e can't even make that they obviously deserve to lose their contracts. But Channel 4 suggested last night that if all the providers were in the same boat, perhaps the answer was to give them more money up front. It isn't. The answer is to admit defeat, end the contracts and give the money to local councils, which can work with the Jobcentres.
Just 3.5 per cent
Channel 4 News has just run an item revealing that A4e has managed only 3.5% job outcomes lasting 13 weeks or more.
They've got hold of figures which show that A4e are "improving the lives of very few". Since June 2011 only 18% of starters got work, and only 3.5% got "sustained" work, i.e. lasting 13 weeks. Margaret Hodge said it was "deeply depressing" - "an abysmal performance". Philip Hammond, a correspondent to this blog who has been on the programme for 6 months, said in an interview that it did not offer real support and called the WP a scam.
The reporter pointed out that in Newham, East London, A4e's performance of 3% was worse than that of the local authority's own scheme.
Ian Mulheirn of the Social Market Foundation says that the figures are worse than the DWP's forecast for no intervention at all. The DWP wouldn't comment, except to say that it would be "ludicrous" to talk about the figures now. A4e doesn't dispute the figures but wouldn't be interviewed either.
The item ended with the comment that although A4e is falling way below minimum standards it's unlikely that they will lose their contracts. It's critical to know how well or badly the other providers are doing.
They've got hold of figures which show that A4e are "improving the lives of very few". Since June 2011 only 18% of starters got work, and only 3.5% got "sustained" work, i.e. lasting 13 weeks. Margaret Hodge said it was "deeply depressing" - "an abysmal performance". Philip Hammond, a correspondent to this blog who has been on the programme for 6 months, said in an interview that it did not offer real support and called the WP a scam.
The reporter pointed out that in Newham, East London, A4e's performance of 3% was worse than that of the local authority's own scheme.
Ian Mulheirn of the Social Market Foundation says that the figures are worse than the DWP's forecast for no intervention at all. The DWP wouldn't comment, except to say that it would be "ludicrous" to talk about the figures now. A4e doesn't dispute the figures but wouldn't be interviewed either.
The item ended with the comment that although A4e is falling way below minimum standards it's unlikely that they will lose their contracts. It's critical to know how well or badly the other providers are doing.
Monday, 25 June 2012
Psychobabble - A4e and NLP
We reported A4e's use of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) back in April, thanks to a tip from a reader. Now the Financial Times has taken this up in an article today. They describe the experience of an A4e client who was told to come in for a "course" and found himself, along with others, confronted by "a master practitioner" in NLP who was there "to change their mindsets". It didn't impress the client in question, who found it "stupendously stupid" and resented being forced onto it.
The FT is delicate about the worth of NLP. It links to an article on its own site from 2008 which is sceptical, but is reluctant to commit either way. Much more helpful is an article in the Skeptic's Dictionary. But what it comes down to is whether people should be forced onto something which they may well have a principled objection to. The FT article isn't clear about whether the NLP courses are obligatory. They are "part of a mutually agreed plan of activities", which suggests you can lose your income if you refuse. And that is completely unacceptable. The clients are apparently not told what the course is until they get there. But even if they know, the vast majority will not have the information to make a decision about its value.
"Motivational" courses are all the rage in business. They cost huge amounts of money and are very profitable for those who run them. NLP is different. No one should be obliged to undertake it.
If you find yourself in the position of having to sit through this stuff, first ascertain whether it's compulsory. Will you have your income stopped if you refuse? If yes, you may want to consider getting legal advice, but you won't be able to at the time. So if you are forced into it, detach yourself and approach it as an objective observer. Make copious notes as soon as possible.
The FT article goes on to discuss the whole place of motivational and other therapies in W2W. Their informant is in no doubt that it was bullying when what he needs is a job. And it's significant that he insists on a pseudonym because "he was concerned about how A4e would react".
The FT is delicate about the worth of NLP. It links to an article on its own site from 2008 which is sceptical, but is reluctant to commit either way. Much more helpful is an article in the Skeptic's Dictionary. But what it comes down to is whether people should be forced onto something which they may well have a principled objection to. The FT article isn't clear about whether the NLP courses are obligatory. They are "part of a mutually agreed plan of activities", which suggests you can lose your income if you refuse. And that is completely unacceptable. The clients are apparently not told what the course is until they get there. But even if they know, the vast majority will not have the information to make a decision about its value.
"Motivational" courses are all the rage in business. They cost huge amounts of money and are very profitable for those who run them. NLP is different. No one should be obliged to undertake it.
If you find yourself in the position of having to sit through this stuff, first ascertain whether it's compulsory. Will you have your income stopped if you refuse? If yes, you may want to consider getting legal advice, but you won't be able to at the time. So if you are forced into it, detach yourself and approach it as an objective observer. Make copious notes as soon as possible.
The FT article goes on to discuss the whole place of motivational and other therapies in W2W. Their informant is in no doubt that it was bullying when what he needs is a job. And it's significant that he insists on a pseudonym because "he was concerned about how A4e would react".
Sunday, 24 June 2012
War on the poor
If you're under 25 and unemployed you probably feel even more depressed and persecuted than usual today. David Cameron feels the need to assert right-wing ideas, and that means a "welfare crackdown", with the young taking the brunt of it. The report in the Telegraph says: "Ministers expect this 'next wave' of benefit cuts to include the axing of all housing benefit currently paid to around 380,000 people aged under 25. Such a move would force many to move back in with their parents rather than living independently."
The Express says: "It could also mean stopping the £70-a-week dole payment for individuals who do not try hard enough to get work and forcing a hard core of unemployed to do community work after two years - or lose all their benefits." Of course, that's just making the ritual noises to appease Tories, but it's another kick in the teeth for the unemployed. Interestingly, the Express has another article entitled "Starving in Britain" which shows clearly the effect of cutting housing benefit, and the struggle of people, even those in work, to feed their children.
If you're not angry enough yet, read the piece in the Mail on Sunday based on an interview with the Dear Leader, from which all the other reports get their information. The headline sets the tone: "Cameron to axe housing benefits for feckless under 25s as he declares war on welfare culture."
Figures in one city I know show that there are 44 unemployed people for every job vacancy. Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) is already forcing people to do unpaid "community" work. Under 25s already can only get housing benefit for shared housing. Etc., etc. There's no need to repeat it.
The Express says: "It could also mean stopping the £70-a-week dole payment for individuals who do not try hard enough to get work and forcing a hard core of unemployed to do community work after two years - or lose all their benefits." Of course, that's just making the ritual noises to appease Tories, but it's another kick in the teeth for the unemployed. Interestingly, the Express has another article entitled "Starving in Britain" which shows clearly the effect of cutting housing benefit, and the struggle of people, even those in work, to feed their children.
If you're not angry enough yet, read the piece in the Mail on Sunday based on an interview with the Dear Leader, from which all the other reports get their information. The headline sets the tone: "Cameron to axe housing benefits for feckless under 25s as he declares war on welfare culture."
Figures in one city I know show that there are 44 unemployed people for every job vacancy. Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) is already forcing people to do unpaid "community" work. Under 25s already can only get housing benefit for shared housing. Etc., etc. There's no need to repeat it.
Friday, 22 June 2012
It's not fair
A4e have a page on their website headed "The Facts Behind the Coverage" and they've recently updated it. It's a valiant attempt to deal with what they see as misinformation, and some of it, we would have to concede, is justified. Some of it, however, is open to debate.
They talk about their performance. They have "outperformed the market average on meeting performance targets" on previous programmes. Yes, but they nowhere near met those targets. The fact that nobody else did either doesn't help much. As for the Work Programme, they are "operating in line with our expectations". But we don't know what those expectations are. On value for money they say, "For every £1 spent by the Government on our Work Programme services, we deliver back £1.95 in revenue to the taxpayer." It's very difficult to see how they justify that statement, especially as they point to the payment by results model and say "we don’t get paid if we don’t succeed". They actually get paid £400 for every starter, regardless of outcome.
Turning to the fraud allegations, they point out the "positive findings" of the investigation by the DWP and the SFA. This is something which the public are not allowed to know about. All those many people who put in FoI requests to see the results of this investigation were told that there were excellent reasons for refusing. In talking about the Public Accounts Committee meeting in May they say that there were 6 whistle blowers. They reiterate that "the majority of allegations made by Mr Hutchinson are unfounded and untrue", which is convenient since he's the only one who has been identified. And I don't think they are taking him to court. What about the other 5? Were they lying too?
A4e, like all the providers, are keen to focus on the Work Programme and put the past behind them. The WP has raised major issues about how clients (I refuse to call them "customers", as if they had purchasing options) are treated, but the black box model, and lack of inspection, mean that the companies are not held to account for this. It's all hanging on the numbers - and we're not allowed to know about them yet.
They talk about their performance. They have "outperformed the market average on meeting performance targets" on previous programmes. Yes, but they nowhere near met those targets. The fact that nobody else did either doesn't help much. As for the Work Programme, they are "operating in line with our expectations". But we don't know what those expectations are. On value for money they say, "For every £1 spent by the Government on our Work Programme services, we deliver back £1.95 in revenue to the taxpayer." It's very difficult to see how they justify that statement, especially as they point to the payment by results model and say "we don’t get paid if we don’t succeed". They actually get paid £400 for every starter, regardless of outcome.
Turning to the fraud allegations, they point out the "positive findings" of the investigation by the DWP and the SFA. This is something which the public are not allowed to know about. All those many people who put in FoI requests to see the results of this investigation were told that there were excellent reasons for refusing. In talking about the Public Accounts Committee meeting in May they say that there were 6 whistle blowers. They reiterate that "the majority of allegations made by Mr Hutchinson are unfounded and untrue", which is convenient since he's the only one who has been identified. And I don't think they are taking him to court. What about the other 5? Were they lying too?
A4e, like all the providers, are keen to focus on the Work Programme and put the past behind them. The WP has raised major issues about how clients (I refuse to call them "customers", as if they had purchasing options) are treated, but the black box model, and lack of inspection, mean that the companies are not held to account for this. It's all hanging on the numbers - and we're not allowed to know about them yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)