Friday, 25 November 2011

Youth Contract, income and the voluntary sector

The newly announced "youth contract" promises more profit opportunities for A4e and the other providers. Money is going into wage subsidies but it's all being done through the Work Programme and Grayling has said that providers will only be paid for long-term jobs, as usual. And it's threats as usual too. Don't take a placement or a job and you lose your benefit.

The Learning and Performance Insitute has compiled a list of the "top 50" UK training organisations. This is top only in the sense of fiscal success i.e. revenue. A4e comes second with revenue of £191m last year, only £4m behind Babcock International. Note that this is revenue, not profit, and presumably includes A4e's international business as well as its UK contracts. But it's a lot of money.

The complaints about the relationship of the voluntary organisations to the the private providers in the WP rumble on. But Kevin Curley, who has been the top professional in the voluntary sector (there are a lot of well-paid people running it) has weighed in. "He cited the Work Programme as a prime example (of strange relationships) , asking: 'Is this what an independent local voluntary sector should be doing in any case – helping G4S and A4e to maximise their profits from welfare-to-work schemes? Do we really want our relationship with the state brokered by the private sector?' "


  1. Quote from Jonty Olliff-Cooper from a4e
    'Clegg pledge is waste of a £1bn.Wage subsidies so expensive for v limited LT effect'

    Guess they won't be bidding for it then????

  2. I don't think they'll have to bid for it, it just becomes part of the WP.

  3. Firstly why suddenly is it Nick Clegg announcing this and not the Dynamic Duo, Grayling and Duncan Smith? Are they of on a Christmas break in The Carribean already?

    Seriously again the emphasis is on the Young Unemployed and the older unemployed are left uncatered for. Such a appaling example to Employers and really mocks the Age Discrimination Act.

    I thought the underlying problem is that there are not enough jobs to go round. Apart from the usual private WP contractors reaping more rewards from administering the scheme, companies will be lured perhaps into taking someone on just for the lump sum they are given by The Government, or will they? I can't decide.

    I wonder what will be the obligations are to the person such a participating company employs, and to the WP Contractor and The Government?

    This new (?) scheme I feel is a further waste of tax payers' money. You have to create a healthy economic climate first with new vacancies naturally occurring as a result.

  4. God help us if our local WP primes (West Midlands) get hold of it. Was talking to a senior person at JCP this morning and musing where this cash was coming from. This appears to be straight payment to the employer from DWP of £2000. Will this be paid on the successful completion of the 6 months and progression to a permanent job? If so then it amounts to not much more than the young person’s benefit plus the administrative costs for the 6 months. If the young person leaves early then the £2000 will not have to be paid out and their benefit will be sanctioned-so Grayling and crew win out either way.
    Perhaps I am too old and cynical


Keep it clean, please. No abusive comments will be approved, so don't indulge in insults. If you wish to contact me, post a comment beginning with "not for publication".