I missed it, but Margaret Hodge was on The Daily Politics today talking about the PAC report. You can watch it here. She had to battle against poor interviewing, but she made her points. There is "still a cloud hanging over A4e". Providers are still claiming money for outcomes they had nothing to do with, jobs or self-employment already set up before referral. The interviewer, Carole Walker, kept trying to push the line that this was in Labour's time, but Hodge insisted it was under the current contracts. And, she said, "You don't pay a company if they have not done the work."
She was also exercised about the fact that no figures have been released. How can we know how well A4e or anyone else is doing if, 15 months in, there is still a refusal by the DWP to tell us the stats?
That's the crux of it at the moment. The documents leaked to Channel 4 News showed that, with the first year of the WP not yet completed, A4e's outcome figures were dire. That first year is well and truly over now, but figures promised in the "Autumn" are still not out, and rumour has it that they won't be released until the end of November (which is winter on my calendar). What are they hiding?
Friday, 28 September 2012
The PAC's report
The Public Accounts Committee has published its report into the Work Programme, and there's a lot of disapproval in it of the way the DWP fails to oversee and manage its contractors properly. The Press Association has the basic press release. In the case of A4e, they say, the DWP didn't obtain the 2009 internal audit report which showed alleged fraud and malpractice. The subsequent enquiry into A4e resulted in one cancelled contract but did not address the wider question of whether A4e was a fit and proper company to have any such contracts. If it hadn't been for whistle blowers, says committee chair Margaret Hodge, a range of issues would not have been addressed at all.
As we reported last night, the report does not include the evidence of those whistle blowers, who asked for it to be pulled at the last minute. We don't know why, but we can guess. The Independent publishes some of Eddie Hutchinson's evidence which was leaked after the committee meeting. In another article on the report itself, the Independent reminds us that one of those whistle blowers "who had worked at A4e told how she had been asked to 'fix' files to suggest that people had successfully found work". The DWP repeats the mantra that it all happened under Labour's programmes and couldn't happen now. She also says the the enquiry into A4e is on-going.
The BBC news website has an unusually long piece. It includes Hodge's concern that "The design of the programme still allows for the possibility of providers being paid for finding work for people who found the jobs on their own". It also includes an attack by Iain Duncan Smith; he had asked senior Labour figures, including Hodge, "to reveal advice they received about fraud during their time in office". Some hadn't even replied. Like the Independent, the BBC reports, though briefly, Andrew Dutton's response. They have strengthened their controls, etc., and "we are now openly calling on MPs, business leaders and employers to come and see for themselves the work we are doing". Interestingly, the BBC uses as a graphic an old clip from A4e's website which still describes it as a "social purpose company".
For the whole of Dutton's response see the WallStreetonline site. This begins with the central message that A4e wants to get across: "A4e is a different company from the one it was two years ago". Many of us are yet to be convinced.
As we reported last night, the report does not include the evidence of those whistle blowers, who asked for it to be pulled at the last minute. We don't know why, but we can guess. The Independent publishes some of Eddie Hutchinson's evidence which was leaked after the committee meeting. In another article on the report itself, the Independent reminds us that one of those whistle blowers "who had worked at A4e told how she had been asked to 'fix' files to suggest that people had successfully found work". The DWP repeats the mantra that it all happened under Labour's programmes and couldn't happen now. She also says the the enquiry into A4e is on-going.
The BBC news website has an unusually long piece. It includes Hodge's concern that "The design of the programme still allows for the possibility of providers being paid for finding work for people who found the jobs on their own". It also includes an attack by Iain Duncan Smith; he had asked senior Labour figures, including Hodge, "to reveal advice they received about fraud during their time in office". Some hadn't even replied. Like the Independent, the BBC reports, though briefly, Andrew Dutton's response. They have strengthened their controls, etc., and "we are now openly calling on MPs, business leaders and employers to come and see for themselves the work we are doing". Interestingly, the BBC uses as a graphic an old clip from A4e's website which still describes it as a "social purpose company".
For the whole of Dutton's response see the WallStreetonline site. This begins with the central message that A4e wants to get across: "A4e is a different company from the one it was two years ago". Many of us are yet to be convinced.
Thursday, 27 September 2012
The evidence won't be published
The Exaro site has just reported that the Public Accounts Committee won't be including the evidence from whistle-blowers when they publish the report into the welfare-to-work programme tomorrow. You'll remember that the committee heard evidence from several whistle blowers in May. One of them, Eddie Hutchinson, had his evidence leaked, and pretty damning it was. But the PAC wanted to publish the rest of it and won't now because the people concerned have made last-minute requests to block it. This was the evidence about A4e and Working Links. It's a pity, but it shows the fear felt by people who go public in this industry.
We'll have a good look at the report when it comes out.
We'll have a good look at the report when it comes out.
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Quick plea
I'm putting out another plea for contacts for a specific purpose. If you're a current or very recent employee of A4e, or are currently on the WP with A4e then I'd be grateful if you could send me a "not for publication" comment with your email address. I will then explain before passing on that address (only with your permission).
Prison contract delays - and Oxford
There's a rather confusing piece in the Guardian today headlined "A4e prison contracts delayed by anti-fraud checks". It's confusing because it's not news. The contracts for prison education which were due to start in August were delayed for three months because the Skills Funding Agency wanted extra fraud checks, following all the accusations earlier this year. The checks didn't find any fraud, and the new contracts will start on 1 November.
An interesting campaign has been going on in Oxfordshire, where David Cameron has his constituency. The Oxford Mail teamed up with A4e on a "We want to work" campaign, trying to get 12 of their clients into work. (The article which launched the campaign was written by one Emma Harrison, but presumably not that one.) Another article on the same day listed the twelve and showcased two of them. And yet another article is a straightforward advert for A4e. We're told (ungrammatically) that "Last year, A4e helped 30,126 people into work in the UK, 10,695 people gain a qualification and worked with 13,523 employers."
The following day things became a little less clear. There's advice on "gaining an edge" from a woman who runs a free job club in Oxford as well as advice on CVs from an A4e adviser. By Friday local MPs are brought in to say how wonderful the campaign is, and two more jobseekers are showcased. One has been through an A4e "All about care" course. And by Saturday there is good news. One of the 12, who hadn't yet been featured, has got a job. Another has an interview with an employer who read his profile in the paper. Another, not apparently one of the 12, has got a job after 6 months out of work.
I am truly delighted for all those who find work. But something is worth thinking about. An A4e business leader says, "We are hoping that this is just the start of employers contacting us." This is a campaign by the local paper to publicise people on A4e's books, and it's that exposure which has had some success. Nothing wrong with that. But it will be A4e which gets the outcome payments. There are other parts of the country where local councils have co-ordinated efforts with the local press and, possibly, WP providers, to find jobs for the unemployed. Who gets the reward then?
An interesting campaign has been going on in Oxfordshire, where David Cameron has his constituency. The Oxford Mail teamed up with A4e on a "We want to work" campaign, trying to get 12 of their clients into work. (The article which launched the campaign was written by one Emma Harrison, but presumably not that one.) Another article on the same day listed the twelve and showcased two of them. And yet another article is a straightforward advert for A4e. We're told (ungrammatically) that "Last year, A4e helped 30,126 people into work in the UK, 10,695 people gain a qualification and worked with 13,523 employers."
The following day things became a little less clear. There's advice on "gaining an edge" from a woman who runs a free job club in Oxford as well as advice on CVs from an A4e adviser. By Friday local MPs are brought in to say how wonderful the campaign is, and two more jobseekers are showcased. One has been through an A4e "All about care" course. And by Saturday there is good news. One of the 12, who hadn't yet been featured, has got a job. Another has an interview with an employer who read his profile in the paper. Another, not apparently one of the 12, has got a job after 6 months out of work.
I am truly delighted for all those who find work. But something is worth thinking about. An A4e business leader says, "We are hoping that this is just the start of employers contacting us." This is a campaign by the local paper to publicise people on A4e's books, and it's that exposure which has had some success. Nothing wrong with that. But it will be A4e which gets the outcome payments. There are other parts of the country where local councils have co-ordinated efforts with the local press and, possibly, WP providers, to find jobs for the unemployed. Who gets the reward then?
Sunday, 23 September 2012
Looking back
It's useful to remind ourselves sometimes of the wilder shores of A4e's ambitions.
There was the bank. One wonders now how it ever got as far as it did, but A4e wanted to set up a bank for poor people. They had an arrangement with a South African bank, Capitec, the exact nature of which we'll never now know, but it lead to the setting up by A4e of a company called Capitec UK. A grant of £1 million was given by a Regional Development Agency to start this bank. Then something happened. Again, we'll probably never know what, but the whole project was dropped without the money being handed over. Capitec UK never traded and was dissolved early last year. There's no chance now of A4e ever being allowed to run a bank, but who could ever have thought that it was a good idea?
And then there's "total place". A4e had scooped up contracts for various outsourced public services, and had a vision of one grand contract covering a whole local authority area. A single company would provide all the services, from welfare-to-work, to legal and financial advice, to pupil referral units to - you name it. They put forward a version of this to government in 2010 when Local Enterprise Partnerships were invented. (See this blog 25 September 2010.) This idea seemed a whole lot more likely than the bank; but what has happened in practice is the grand contract which doesn't help A4e. Some local authorities (Conservative controlled, naturally) have decided to outsource everything, handing over all their services to one company which then sub-contracts them out piecemeal. The only companies in the running for such super-contracts are, as you would expect, the likes of Serco, Capita and IBM, with other big American companies wanting a piece of the action too. A4e isn't big enough. Which is a relief.
The setbacks of this year will not have dampened A4e's ambitions. Why should they? G4S made a complete mess of its Olympics contract, but it's caused barely a dent in their business. There are frequent failures in outsourcing, but no slowing of its growth. And that's because it has little or nothing to do with cost or efficiency. It's down to what Private Eye calls the revolving door; the happy club of politicians, business people and civil servants who switch roles and create opportunities for money-making for each other. It's a wealth creation scheme for the elite.
There was the bank. One wonders now how it ever got as far as it did, but A4e wanted to set up a bank for poor people. They had an arrangement with a South African bank, Capitec, the exact nature of which we'll never now know, but it lead to the setting up by A4e of a company called Capitec UK. A grant of £1 million was given by a Regional Development Agency to start this bank. Then something happened. Again, we'll probably never know what, but the whole project was dropped without the money being handed over. Capitec UK never traded and was dissolved early last year. There's no chance now of A4e ever being allowed to run a bank, but who could ever have thought that it was a good idea?
And then there's "total place". A4e had scooped up contracts for various outsourced public services, and had a vision of one grand contract covering a whole local authority area. A single company would provide all the services, from welfare-to-work, to legal and financial advice, to pupil referral units to - you name it. They put forward a version of this to government in 2010 when Local Enterprise Partnerships were invented. (See this blog 25 September 2010.) This idea seemed a whole lot more likely than the bank; but what has happened in practice is the grand contract which doesn't help A4e. Some local authorities (Conservative controlled, naturally) have decided to outsource everything, handing over all their services to one company which then sub-contracts them out piecemeal. The only companies in the running for such super-contracts are, as you would expect, the likes of Serco, Capita and IBM, with other big American companies wanting a piece of the action too. A4e isn't big enough. Which is a relief.
The setbacks of this year will not have dampened A4e's ambitions. Why should they? G4S made a complete mess of its Olympics contract, but it's caused barely a dent in their business. There are frequent failures in outsourcing, but no slowing of its growth. And that's because it has little or nothing to do with cost or efficiency. It's down to what Private Eye calls the revolving door; the happy club of politicians, business people and civil servants who switch roles and create opportunities for money-making for each other. It's a wealth creation scheme for the elite.
Thursday, 20 September 2012
It's called chutzpah
Or brazen cheek. I suppose I should thank him for the plug, but I was startled to see this:
This followed another:
Mr Cooper told us that he was answering questions on @happytoansweranyqs but I can't find how to gather these together.
This followed another:
Mr Cooper told us that he was answering questions on @happytoansweranyqs but I can't find how to gather these together.
There's a politician who's taking a lot of abuse today because he's apologised for the wrong thing; not for breaking a pledge but for making it in the first place. Mr Cooper is in danger of similarly misplaced contrition. Saying that you're going to "learn from our critics" is easy, but meaningless unless it's acted on. It's just PR.
The party conferences are coming up. A4e, like lots of other companies, has always had a presence at these gatherings, lobbying the politicians. I wonder if they will be there this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)