Tuesday 24 September 2013

Figures

The latest batch of Work Programme statistics is due for release on Thursday, 26 September.  I don't expect anything startling.  And I don't expect the media to take an interest.  The significant numbers will be the outcomes for the long-term jobless, and the "sustainment" payments.  The latter will give an indication of whether providers can cope financially with the contracts.  Comparisons between providers also matter.  We can expect the headline, from both the DWP and the ERSA, to be raw numbers, which tell us nothing.

There's another important set of figures which the government has obviously decided to bury - the data on sanctions.  They were due out last May but the DWP waffled about quality issues with the data.  Then there were indications that the delay might be down to the hiatus caused by the high court ruling and the need to legalise what had been declared illegal.  Then there was a hint that an announcement would be made in August.  Still nothing.  But we do have an announcement that there will be "an independent review of benefit sanctions".  Don't get your hopes up.  This is only to look at the "clarity of information" given to JSA claimants about the process.  It's to be carried out by a think-tanker, a theorist called Matthew Oakley.  I wonder if he will talk to anyone who has been punished.  A comment by Mark Hoban is insulting: "It is important that Jobseekers know exactly what is expected of them when they apply for Jobseeker's Allowance, and that they risk having their benefits sanctioned if they fail to play by the rules." [My italics]  Perhaps it's a game to you, Mr Hoban, but not to those who suddenly find themselves penniless.  There is so much about this regime that should be examined by a qualified independent person.  He might, for instance, consider a story in Sunday's Observer which shows that one in three homeless people on JSA have been penalised, compared to about 3% of jobseekers overall.  But this review is simply a cosmetic exercise.

That last story, the Observer article, ends in the now familiar way, with a quote from that shadowy figure, the DWP spokesman.  This person always makes political statements of dubious accuracy, but is never named.  Is this a civil servant doing his master's bidding?  Or a political aide to whom IDS has passed the buck?  Either way, if the journalists can't get a comment directly from those responsible, i.e. the politicians, they should refuse to publish this anonymous nonsense.

9 comments:

  1. Ahhh...that old lazy, clapped out stand by, "Playing by the rules". Hoban really needs to realise that the rulebook is often written, rewritten and re-rewritten depending on which day a jobseeker visits their JCP, the adviser they happen to see and what mood they happen to be in! The rulebook varies from one JCP to another as well it seems.

    Hoban and his puppeteer, Smith are clearly unfit for public office. They see nothing wrong in how they run / ruin their department and continually pass the buck. Political minnows both!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Looking forward to the figures being published - wonder if the attachment fees will be extended beyond 2014?

    ReplyDelete
  3. As Historian has pointed out JSA Claimants need to understand what is expected of them in order to be able to claim or be subject to sanctions,I personally have no problem with this,but on the flip side, what can/should we expect from the JCP/WP ? Although we have to sign an agreement(Contract?) it only seems to be enforced against the unemployed,after an 18 Month battle with the JCP over Training ,it was brought to my attention that even if I won,I would not get the course that I should of been on and at most a £50 payment would be the max compensation(spent more than that chasing it up) so where are the sanctions against the WP Providers for failing to meet the minimum standards in their contracts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure but couldn't you make a claim in the County Court (Small Claims Court)? Of course you would have to possibly pay a fee and possibly spend several more months on this too.

      Delete
  4. Good luck expecting an objective fair or intelligent review from Matthew Oakley.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The WP reminds me of a John Grisham novel "The Rainmaker" basically it is about an insurance company that signs up as many clients as they can,but refuse to pay out on any claims,they lose the occasional lawsuit but overall come out way ahead,wonder if Emma read this book?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Important info for anyone on Universal Jobmatch- Thomas Reilly Associates had 1329 jobs posted last night but appears tobe a scam ccompany. Their application page lets you send your CV but does not show as a completed application on Jobmatch.

    The website for Thomas Reilly Associates has no vacancies on it, just lots of ads for cv-library.co.uk. The office address 145-157 St John Street London is the mail forwarding service londonpresence.com; I haven't tested their phone or email but this is most likely also with these people. The company has never traded according to companycheck.co.uk, it was called Miss Adelaide Limited until 17 April 2013 and no-one called Thomas Reilly is named as a director.

    My friend was mandated to send an application to these jokers and did so before noticing it was a scam. She has reported them to the DWP and asked they warn all applicants be warned that they are at risk of identity theft. I'll let you know if and when they reply.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disgusting! I think that Ian Duncan Smith should be help personally liable for any financial loss, identity theft, computer malware or any other serious loss to a jobseeker when using Univ Jobmatch.

      Univ Jobmatch is HIS 'brain'child after all. And he has made its use mandatory. If there was any justice, any jobseeker suffering as a result should be able to take legal action against JCP, the DWP and Smith himself!

      Delete
  7. Sorry, meant to say "I think that Ian Duncan Smith should be held personally liable...."

    ReplyDelete

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".