We knew that ATOS were pulling out of their WCA contract, but the terms have now been agreed. Of course, we don't know what those terms are; commercial confidentiality and all that. But Mike Penning, the minister, is obscuring matters even further by first insisting that "Atos will not receive a single penny of compensation from the taxpayer for the early termination of their contract. Quite the contrary, Atos has made a substantial financial settlement to the department," and then, "“They haven’t pulled out actually, we’ve removed them from the contract. This is not them walking away.” But "sources close to the company" pointed out that, "People don't usually pay a fine if they've been sacked." In other words, Penning wants to talk tough and insist that it was the DWP which sacked ATOS, whereas we know that the company wanted out and was negotiating terms.
The Independent says that the DWP is talking to Capita and Maximus with a view to them taking over the contract, but it's felt that the government is going to have to pay a huge amount of money to get anyone to take it, since it only lasts until August next year. And Channel 4 News' Factcheck blog has pointed out that the assessments, although carried out by the company, were devised by the DWP. Will they be changed?
Atos says that anyone who has an appointment with them for an assessment must keep it, but they won't be making any new appointments.
Showing posts with label Factcheck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Factcheck. Show all posts
Thursday, 27 March 2014
Friday, 21 March 2014
Work Programme stats, and the PAC
We used to complain that no data was being released on the effectiveness of the Work Programme. Now we have all the data we could wish for, it seems, in the figures put out yesterday. You can see the document here. Some key figures are on the first page, but you'll need to get your calculator out. If we look at the "by all referrals" June 2011 to Dec 2013, we see that just under 19% of those on the programme long enough got an outcome. (The Factcheck blog says 17%.) But then look at how that tapers off, so that only 48,000 people were in work long enough for the provider to claim the full payments. In other words, the jobs tend to be temporary. 24,000 got 3-6 months of work, but then were back on the programme, and in all 352,000 have finished the WP and been referred back to the jobcentre. The other key fact from all of this is that while the figures for JSA claimants are considered satisfactory, they are terrible for those on ESA. For a good summary, read Channel 4's Factcheck blog. Looking at the breakdown by provider, we see that A4e isn't the worst-performing, but it's a long way from being the best.
Is it worth it? That's the really important question. Millions have been paid out to companies like A4e to achieve only a little above what would be expected with no intervention at all (and below that with ESA). The likelihood is that the vast majority of the jobs are down to the improving economy. So what's the point?
Other news takes us back to ATOS. The Public Accounts Committee had a go at the civil servants in the DWP and one of the bosses of Atos over the failure of the new PIPs assessment contract. The Guardian reported Margaret Hodge's interrogation of Robert Devereux, the Permanent Secretary. They have crossed swords before, and her questions revolved around the same issues as she has fumed over with the Work Programme. How can you give a new contract to a company which is in the process of bodging a similar contract? (My phrasing, not hers.) He said, "We are making a decision on the bids in front of us." As he has said before, the procurement process deliberately doesn't look at past performance. And they did not check that what Atos had put in its bid document was true. On the PIPs bid, Atos had claimed to have agreements with a large number of hospital trusts and physiotherapy practices, but far fewer actually signed up in the end. That meant that another claim, that everyone facing assessment would have a centre within an hour's travel time, has gone by the board. Huge backlogs are building up. Hodge had a go at the Atos person for misleading the DWP. But this sort of thing is common with the procurement process which the DWP has shaped. The big companies must form "partnerships" with smaller outfits, and can then list on their bid documents a number of sub-contractors who have, in fact, signed nothing and can duck out once they see the small print.
It's obvious to everybody that there has to be a better way.
Is it worth it? That's the really important question. Millions have been paid out to companies like A4e to achieve only a little above what would be expected with no intervention at all (and below that with ESA). The likelihood is that the vast majority of the jobs are down to the improving economy. So what's the point?
Other news takes us back to ATOS. The Public Accounts Committee had a go at the civil servants in the DWP and one of the bosses of Atos over the failure of the new PIPs assessment contract. The Guardian reported Margaret Hodge's interrogation of Robert Devereux, the Permanent Secretary. They have crossed swords before, and her questions revolved around the same issues as she has fumed over with the Work Programme. How can you give a new contract to a company which is in the process of bodging a similar contract? (My phrasing, not hers.) He said, "We are making a decision on the bids in front of us." As he has said before, the procurement process deliberately doesn't look at past performance. And they did not check that what Atos had put in its bid document was true. On the PIPs bid, Atos had claimed to have agreements with a large number of hospital trusts and physiotherapy practices, but far fewer actually signed up in the end. That meant that another claim, that everyone facing assessment would have a centre within an hour's travel time, has gone by the board. Huge backlogs are building up. Hodge had a go at the Atos person for misleading the DWP. But this sort of thing is common with the procurement process which the DWP has shaped. The big companies must form "partnerships" with smaller outfits, and can then list on their bid documents a number of sub-contractors who have, in fact, signed nothing and can duck out once they see the small print.
It's obvious to everybody that there has to be a better way.
Friday, 10 May 2013
More truth, more lies
Iain Duncan Smith has been taken to task by the official statistics watchdog over his claims that the £26,000 a year benefits cap spurred 8,000 unemployed people to find jobs. Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, has written to the TUC (following a complaint from them) to say that he did not comply with the code of practice on the way ministers handled figures, and wanting assurance that he won't do it again. It sounds mild enough, but the language is strong for that kind of official letter. The Huffington Post has the full letter, and the Independent dissects it. Channel 4 News' FactCheck has also described the situation. They all point out that this isn't the first time that IDS has been officially rebuked for making false claims. At last, this morning, the BBC has reported the story, talking briefly to MP Dame Anne Begg who was copied into the letter. She talked about using figures to make a political point and referred to the false claims about 1 million people who were supposedly fit for work.
But "lies, damned lies and statistics" are the stuff of much modern journalism. Ministers are fond of talking about "fraudanderror" (as if it was one word) costing vast amounts of money. Left Foot Forward publishes the official figures from the DWP, which show that just 0.7% of total benefit expenditure (£1.2bn) is down to claimant fraud. 0.9% is due to claimant error, 0.4% to official error. A poll carried out for the TUC shows that the public believes that the fraud figure is 27%. Now, how could they get that false impression? Could it be the result of disgusting "journalism" like that in the Express today? Somebody called Martyn Brown writes an article headlined "Call for new blitz on benefits to cut £3.6bn fraud bill". Hang on, where did that figure come from? Oh yes, it's 3 years' worth. And there's a great big photo of "benefit scrounger Mick Philpott" (who is referred to again at the end of the article as if he's typical). The only reference to percentages in the piece is the fact that the figure for official error has fallen to 0.4%. Brown dissects the fraud figures to show what huge amounts of money are involved, and drags in the odious Taxpayers' Alliance in support. There's nothing in the piece which is actually false (I think) but it's pure propaganda, selective use of the figures to create a false impression.
But "lies, damned lies and statistics" are the stuff of much modern journalism. Ministers are fond of talking about "fraudanderror" (as if it was one word) costing vast amounts of money. Left Foot Forward publishes the official figures from the DWP, which show that just 0.7% of total benefit expenditure (£1.2bn) is down to claimant fraud. 0.9% is due to claimant error, 0.4% to official error. A poll carried out for the TUC shows that the public believes that the fraud figure is 27%. Now, how could they get that false impression? Could it be the result of disgusting "journalism" like that in the Express today? Somebody called Martyn Brown writes an article headlined "Call for new blitz on benefits to cut £3.6bn fraud bill". Hang on, where did that figure come from? Oh yes, it's 3 years' worth. And there's a great big photo of "benefit scrounger Mick Philpott" (who is referred to again at the end of the article as if he's typical). The only reference to percentages in the piece is the fact that the figure for official error has fallen to 0.4%. Brown dissects the fraud figures to show what huge amounts of money are involved, and drags in the odious Taxpayers' Alliance in support. There's nothing in the piece which is actually false (I think) but it's pure propaganda, selective use of the figures to create a false impression.
Monday, 31 December 2012
Keeping up the attack
For the government, the holiday period is clearly a time to carry on the assault on benefits claimants. David Cameron started it in his New Year message, covered in the Telegraph, which headlines it "We'll help the strivers, not welfare claimants". Well, that's everyone who is elderly or disabled branded, as well as those trying to find work. There's an extraordinary passage which shows just how clueless he is about the reality of unemployment: “When people say we've got to stop our welfare reforms because somehow it is cruel to expect people to work, we are saying no. Getting people into good jobs is absolutely vital, not just for them, but for all of us." Sorry? Did someone say it was cruel to expect people to work? What are you talking about? The article points out that the message echoes that put out recently by Tories in marginal constituencies "demanding whether the Government should offer more help to 'hard working families' or 'people who don’t work'. The advertisements have been criticised by Labour as taking the Conservatives back to being the 'nasty party'." Yes, and I would think they've alienated all the pensioners and disabled, too.
Iain Duncan Smith has been busy too. Since it was pointed out that around 60% of those claiming benefits are actually working, he has turned his wrath on the tax credits system. Several papers cover his attack, but the best version, perhaps, is in the Independent. Now, I have to say that I was never entirely happy with the tax credits system. It seemed to be subsidising bad employers. And it goes too far up the income scale. I knew a man with a young family who was on a good salary (I knew exactly what it was since it was partly my responsibility to pay it) who was eligible for the credits, while a single person under 50 wasn't. I also knew someone who was offered a job with variable hours who panicked at the thought that he would face the money being clawed back. But I wasn't aware that "after 2008 HMRC did not attempt to reclaim overpayments of less than £25,000. That is set to be reduced to £5,000 under the coalition, alongside moves to require proof of payments from those claiming for childcare or that children aged between 16 and 19 are in full-time education." Reform is obviously necessary.
But, as usual, IDS goes over the top. The Factcheck blog has shown that his figures are either wrong or just made up. It seems that he will claim anything to justify his hostility to people on benefits.
Happy New Year, folks.
Iain Duncan Smith has been busy too. Since it was pointed out that around 60% of those claiming benefits are actually working, he has turned his wrath on the tax credits system. Several papers cover his attack, but the best version, perhaps, is in the Independent. Now, I have to say that I was never entirely happy with the tax credits system. It seemed to be subsidising bad employers. And it goes too far up the income scale. I knew a man with a young family who was on a good salary (I knew exactly what it was since it was partly my responsibility to pay it) who was eligible for the credits, while a single person under 50 wasn't. I also knew someone who was offered a job with variable hours who panicked at the thought that he would face the money being clawed back. But I wasn't aware that "after 2008 HMRC did not attempt to reclaim overpayments of less than £25,000. That is set to be reduced to £5,000 under the coalition, alongside moves to require proof of payments from those claiming for childcare or that children aged between 16 and 19 are in full-time education." Reform is obviously necessary.
But, as usual, IDS goes over the top. The Factcheck blog has shown that his figures are either wrong or just made up. It seems that he will claim anything to justify his hostility to people on benefits.
Happy New Year, folks.
Thursday, 13 September 2012
Those employment figures
With no more responses from Jonty Olliff-Cooper, we can turn our attention to the latest employment figures, perhaps with a sense of deja vu. The number of people unemployed fell a bit again. This time there's been no careful analysis on Newsnight or the news; no critical report by Stephanie Flanders. Presumably they didn't want another hysterical rant from Iain Duncan Smith. The item on the BBC news website does report the ONS's verdict that "it's all down to women". The number of men out of work has actually gone up. And it does show the wide variations in unemployment around the country, and that it's actually going up in many areas. Significantly for the Work Programme, it also reports that a record 1.42 million people are working part-time because they can't get full-time jobs.
Channel 4's Factcheck blog takes apart David Cameron's claim that the number of women in employment is up. And Fullfact demolishes his boast that half a million private sector jobs have been created since the election. It's also been shown that a lot of the "jobs" are accounted for by people going self-employed, often unwillingly. And, of course, we don't know who they are, these people who are getting work. They are probably not the long-term unemployed who would provide bumper payments to the WP providers. If they are taking part-time jobs, they won't provide any outcome payments to the providers. And since in many parts of the country, unemployment continues to rise, the outlook for the providers there is even bleaker.
I wonder whether there are negotiations going on to change the contracts. Will all that part-time, casual or zero hours working be redefined as success? I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Channel 4's Factcheck blog takes apart David Cameron's claim that the number of women in employment is up. And Fullfact demolishes his boast that half a million private sector jobs have been created since the election. It's also been shown that a lot of the "jobs" are accounted for by people going self-employed, often unwillingly. And, of course, we don't know who they are, these people who are getting work. They are probably not the long-term unemployed who would provide bumper payments to the WP providers. If they are taking part-time jobs, they won't provide any outcome payments to the providers. And since in many parts of the country, unemployment continues to rise, the outlook for the providers there is even bleaker.
I wonder whether there are negotiations going on to change the contracts. Will all that part-time, casual or zero hours working be redefined as success? I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Contracts and figures
News that A4e didn't win a contract, but it raises more concerns about the whole privatisation project. There has been talk for some time of privatising the Probation Service, but one of the first steps comes in London, where a contract has been awarded for supervising people doing community service as a punishment. The contract went to Serco - one of the three huge companies (with G4S and Capita) which run more and more of our public services. The two failed bidders were Sodexo and A4e. All three companies teamed up with a Probation Trust or something similar to tender for the work. In A4e's case the partner was Mitie. I hadn't heard of them, but a bit of googling reveals that Mitie and A4e joined forces in January 2011 to form what they called com:pact specifically to bid for community payback contracts. They already run the MITIE Enterprise Centre, doing skills training at Hollesley Bay Prison and YOI in Suffolk. So it looks like the Probation Service is being privatised bit by bit, and A4e will get its share of the cake.
A few snippets of news. The first, in the Telegraph, tells us that the numbers of paupers' funerals are increasing as more applications for funeral grants are being turned down. The grant only covers less than half the cost of a funeral, but with more impoverished people claiming it and being turned down councils are having to bury more people at their own cost. The poor are stripped of their dignity even in death.
Then there's Iain Duncan Smith's proud boast that the benefits cap is already "encouraging" people into work. There's a straightforward account in the Independent. Note the wonderfully round numbers. Of the people who would be affected by the cap, 1,700 have found work and 5,000 have "indicated they would like to receive support to get back into employment". The cap hasn't yet come into force, yet IDS would have us believe that the prospect is already persuading loads of people to get a job (and, of course, there are lots of jobs available). Channel 4 News' Factcheck blog was sceptical. They ascertained that 58,000 people were told in may that their benefits would be capped at £26,000 a year. The Jobcentres have tracked those and report that just under 3% of them have gone into work and another 9% have asked for help to get work. But as Factcheck points out, there is nothing to prove that one follows from the other. There are no figures for the numbers who would have got work anyway. So IDS is making it up - again.
A third piece of news which has been mangled by the right-wing press for their own purposes is a suggestion that the Human Rights Act should cover "socio-economic rights". Here's the Daily Mail's interpretation; the Express used the word "spongers" in its headline. What it boils down to is that there would be a guaranteed minimum income. That's hardly new. It used to be called the "personal allowance", and it was what you got as "income support" if you had no other income. It didn't include things like housing benefit. Governments eroded that and eventually ditched it. It started with changing emergency grants into loans. Then asylum seekers got less than everyone else. And now the concept has been abandoned altogether. There is a real debate to be had on these proposals. But don't hold your breath.
A few snippets of news. The first, in the Telegraph, tells us that the numbers of paupers' funerals are increasing as more applications for funeral grants are being turned down. The grant only covers less than half the cost of a funeral, but with more impoverished people claiming it and being turned down councils are having to bury more people at their own cost. The poor are stripped of their dignity even in death.
Then there's Iain Duncan Smith's proud boast that the benefits cap is already "encouraging" people into work. There's a straightforward account in the Independent. Note the wonderfully round numbers. Of the people who would be affected by the cap, 1,700 have found work and 5,000 have "indicated they would like to receive support to get back into employment". The cap hasn't yet come into force, yet IDS would have us believe that the prospect is already persuading loads of people to get a job (and, of course, there are lots of jobs available). Channel 4 News' Factcheck blog was sceptical. They ascertained that 58,000 people were told in may that their benefits would be capped at £26,000 a year. The Jobcentres have tracked those and report that just under 3% of them have gone into work and another 9% have asked for help to get work. But as Factcheck points out, there is nothing to prove that one follows from the other. There are no figures for the numbers who would have got work anyway. So IDS is making it up - again.
A third piece of news which has been mangled by the right-wing press for their own purposes is a suggestion that the Human Rights Act should cover "socio-economic rights". Here's the Daily Mail's interpretation; the Express used the word "spongers" in its headline. What it boils down to is that there would be a guaranteed minimum income. That's hardly new. It used to be called the "personal allowance", and it was what you got as "income support" if you had no other income. It didn't include things like housing benefit. Governments eroded that and eventually ditched it. It started with changing emergency grants into loans. Then asylum seekers got less than everyone else. And now the concept has been abandoned altogether. There is a real debate to be had on these proposals. But don't hold your breath.
Tuesday, 10 July 2012
Reaction to the figures
There hasn't been much reaction to to those figures released yesterday. The Guardian has a long piece which airs the arguments about what the figures mean. They put to Grayling the point that the companies had "creamed off" the easiest groups, but he says they didn't. A couple of industry websites summarise the press release, which is what the government obviously wanted - a bald heading that 25% were off benefits after 36 weeks.
Channel 4 News' Factcheck blog does a reasonable job of analysis. They point out that the non-intervention rate (the numbers who would get work anyway) was supposed to be 28%, so a current figure of 24% is hardly brilliant. And, as they say, it's not even a figure for those who've found work, because people sign off for a variety of reasons. They point to ONS figures that show that in the last 3 months only 46% of those who left JSA actually went into work.
The political left naturally chooses to focus on the fact that the number of people out of work for two years has more than doubled under the current government. Left Foot Forward uses this to show that the WP is failing.
No one, apparently, can remember as far back as privatised New Deal (2006 - 2009), where the providers promised 50% job outcomes and delivered around 24%. Strange coincidence. But the WP was supposed to give the providers the ultimate incentive - payment by results. It's not working, is it?
Channel 4 News' Factcheck blog does a reasonable job of analysis. They point out that the non-intervention rate (the numbers who would get work anyway) was supposed to be 28%, so a current figure of 24% is hardly brilliant. And, as they say, it's not even a figure for those who've found work, because people sign off for a variety of reasons. They point to ONS figures that show that in the last 3 months only 46% of those who left JSA actually went into work.
The political left naturally chooses to focus on the fact that the number of people out of work for two years has more than doubled under the current government. Left Foot Forward uses this to show that the WP is failing.
No one, apparently, can remember as far back as privatised New Deal (2006 - 2009), where the providers promised 50% job outcomes and delivered around 24%. Strange coincidence. But the WP was supposed to give the providers the ultimate incentive - payment by results. It's not working, is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)