Limbo

First we note that Jim Knight, who had to defend the last government's actions on welfare-to-work, lost his seat at the general election. He is no longer an MP but it's fascinating that he is still a minister, because they all remain in office until a new government is in place.

The private companies which profit from government contracts are in limbo, like the rest of us. If, as seems likely, Conservative Theresa May becomes Work & Pensions secretary, contracts for phase 2 of FND will not be signed. Work for Your Benefit, Community Task Force Phase 2, Invest to Save, and the Personalised Employment Programme are also under threat if a Tory government carries out its promise / threat to implement the Work Programme. The problem with that is that it means asking bidders for FND phase 2 to revise their bids, and that could result in legal challenges. We can only wait and see.

Today Programme discussion

I've just listened to a short discussion on the BBC Today programme focussing on welfare-to-work. It was mainly about those on IB, with the usual vagueness about the distinction between those being shunted off IB onto JSA, and those who are simply out of work. We didn't learn anything. Jim Knight gave figures for back-to-work success which nobody could or would challenge. Theresa May for the Tories pressed their line that claimants would start "individualised programmes" immediately with private providers, with the focus on "sustainable" jobs, i.e. lasting at least a year. Steve Webb for the Lib Dems was asked whether they would use private companies and, disappointingly, dodged the question, saying they wanted to harness bright ideas from everywhere; but he did say that they want to make the benefits system more flexible so that people can work less than full-time without losing their benefits, rather than the current, all-or-nothing approach. Jim Knight for Labour talked about a "better off in work guarantee", meaning people would be at least £40 per week better off when working. He also stressed the Future Jobs Fund and various other measures, which May scorned, re-stating her previous point about immediate help into sustainable work. Steve Webb made a good point about not blaming the victims.

From the point of view of the providers there's little to worry about, it seems, unless the Tories get in and stick with their determination to pay them only on sustainable outcomes.

Accountability

Last night's File on Four programme raised an important point about accountability when public services are privatised. The ERSA declined to take part in the programme. The producers had clearly intended to use the experiences of clients of ND and FND but in the end didn't. This may have been, as a comment suggests, because the providers would not engage with this; or it may have been simply that the programme was trying to cover a great deal of ground, and this was the segment most easily dropped. But private companies have the luxury of being able to do what governments can't do; they can refuse to enter into debate.

It was Thatcher's government which discovered the benefits of creating "arms-length" agencies, starting with the Benefits Agency. It enabled ministers to distance themselves, to say, "Not me, gov," when anything went wrong. Privatisation compounds that lack of accountability. In the sphere of welfare-to-work Jim Knight, or whichever minister is in office, can be wheeled out to face questions, whether in Parliament or in the media, but can always claim that the figures are not available or waffle meaninglessly. Ofsted can produce poor inspection reports; parliamentary committees can take evidence from the companies' spokespeople and produce critical reports; but the companies are unaffected.

Obviously A4e is one of those companies which (unlike, for instance, Serco) thinks that publicity is a good thing - but on its own terms. "Benefit Busters" no doubt seemed like a good idea at the time. Emma Harrison can be turned into a media personality. A4e can use that, and its claim to be the largest welfare-to-work provider in the UK (is that still true?) to procure business abroad. But at the same time the system protects it from too much scrutiny of its practices, and protects the government from real accountability. No wonder the politicians don't want to change the system.

File on Four

This Radio 4 programme tonight looked at what help is available for people looking for work, in view of the fact that unemployment is set to rise sharply. As is usual with the media, it lacked a historical perspective.

It started in the North East, where the loss of jobs in the steel industry has had knock-on effects. The programme followed a 42-year-old redundant professional to the Jobcentre. Here, it picked up the fact that most of the local job vacancies advertised are either not local at all or are entirely spurious. Figures for vacancies are being fiddled with "speculative" jobs. Zero hours jobs are still being advertised in disguised form, although outlawed. It was said that many employers will not advertise vacancies through the Jobcentres because they are seen as serving the bottom end of the skills market; and private recruitment agencies would object to losing upmarket vacancies to JCP. Jim Knight MP stated that JCP has the largest jobs database in Europe, and he's aware of the issues.

The programme visited a Jobcentre in Birmingham, where the manager is proud of the transformation the service has undergone. But a client, a former PR man, spoke of spending 3 or 4 hours a day looking for work and not getting any help or support. He found that other people were being offered training courses etc., but he wasn't. He wants to start his own business but nobody at the Jobcentre knew what help was available. He found out himself that there was a course of training. JCP, said the interviewer to the manager, has been criticised for being unresponsive to the needs of professionals. Things are getting better, said the manager - and then a Press Officer for the DWP intervened.

Consumer Focus has been equally critical of the service. The DWP produced a customer charter, but CF says that this has not improved things. Jim Knight said that JCP staff have been increased by 16,000 in the recession, but the system needs to adapt. A Professor Finn (an adviser) said that JCP has had to re-tool, but new services are fairly minimal. The government thinks people should be able to look after themselves in the early stages of unemployment.

The programme then turned to the rising numbers of long-term unemployed, and the fact that welfare-to-work is run by the private sector. It called FND the big brother of New Deal (and here the lack of a historical perspective was irritating). Payment by results means that much of the risk has been shifted onto providers; and managers on the ground have to make decisions about who to help. The report of the enquiry we reported on the other day was cited; it complained about the "creaming and parking" going on. This was linked to the numbers of people who had been shifted from Incapacity Benefit onto JSA. A Liberal Democrat member of the committee, Jenny Willott, said that because no one is close to hitting their targets the people who are most likely to find work are being pushed into the first job which comes up. She said that the DWP doesn't have a clue what is going on, and that a better breakdown of the figures is needed, and better oversight.

The ERSA (the trade body for the providers) declined to put anyone up for interview, but in a statement said that the providers wanted more money to help the most difficult cases. Jim Knight was not concerned about the lack of safeguards, and was happy with the customer charter. The Personalised Employment Programme will test a new model of payment. The programme concluded with a look at the policies of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, but both intend to adjust rather than scrap the private provider model. There is more pain to come, particularly as public sector jobs go.

All this makes an announcement by the DWP even more startling. Reported on the Indus Delta site, it says that they have reduced by half the numbers of people expected on the FND Phase 2 contracts, and has asked the bidders for their revised pricing proposals. No one can make out how they have arrived at these revised figures.

New Deal on the BBC

The Radio 4 File on Four programme on 23 March (8.00 pm) will be dealing with unemployment. The website says: "The government is promising extra help for people out of work during the recession. But, as Britain braces itself for a rise in unemployment, Allan Urry reports from the communities already hardest hit and asks what redundant steelmakers, public sector workers and others joining the dole queue can really expect at the Jobcentre." Since they've been asking for people to tell them about recent experiences with New Deal and FND, we should expect that they will be focussing on that. Which will be a novelty. Until today it was never mentioned, either by the BBC or by politicians. Last night BBC1's Newsnight had a discussion about the latest unemployment figures. They are unexpectedly down in some places, up in others; but there has been a big rise in the number of people who are not working, for whatever reason, and a 10% rise in the number of long-term unemployed. Jim Knight MP was wheeled out, as usual, to defend the government's record, and said that they had to "keep up the investment", mentioning the Future Jobs Fund but not New Deal. What about the fact that there's a real shortage of skills in the new industries? Apparently new "skills academies" are being set up (who'll be running them, I wonder?). So why, one might ask, is so much money being spent on the privatised New Deal and FND if it's so irrelevant that it's never mentioned?

But today the BBC's business news pages carry an article based on the experience of a 53-year-old unemployed man in Wolverhampton. And towards the end it mentions New Deal. "The New Deal 50 plus scheme, which is aimed specifically at older jobseekers, was replaced in many areas of the UK in October 2009 with the Flexible New Deal which caters for unemployed people of all ages. One of the differences between the two is that you can join New Deal 50 plus after six months of unemployment but most people cannot join the Flexible New Deal until they have been unemployed for 12 months. So some people over 50 are getting unemployment help sooner than others simply because of where they live."

It may all become irrelevant after 6 May. But then again, it may not.

Blunkett's Johannesburg trip

If our favourite minister is Jim Knight, our favourite ex-minister must be David Blunkett MP, who was once Secretary for Work and Pensions then went on to work for A4e. The Times carries a piece today about a trip he took to Johannesburg in South Africa in 2008 on behalf of A4e. The story isn't about his job with A4e; it concerns the fact that he turned up at the airport with his son only to find that the travel agent had failed to book the tickets; so "an embarrassed Blunkett contacted Julia Simpson, director of corporate communications at British Airways, who was previously his head of press at the Home Office and an adviser to Tony Blair. She arranged for him and his son to board the plane without tickets. They were given upgrades from premium economy to club class for the trip to Johannesburg and from premium economy to first class on the return leg. Blunkett’s travel agent went on to pay £4,468 for tickets for him and his son that were worth £12,676." Well, why not use your contacts?

As the story continues: "Blunkett, who is leading Labour’s attempts to raise £10m for the general election campaign, made the trip on behalf of A4E, an employment and training firm. It pays him £30,000 a year to act as an adviser. It paid the £4,468." The trip was obviously successful. A4e's South Africa website describes how they are "Bridging the skills gap - City Of Johannesburg". "We are working with the municipality," they say, "as they prepare to issue a tender for the delivery of a Welfare to Work program for 10,000 unemployed people, through the Jobs Pathways programme following a pilot."

Spin

There's a fascinating example of spin this week in the tale of our favourite minister, Jim Knight MP, and his visit to Plymouth. The local paper, the Plymouth Herald, reports it in a straightforward way, no doubt aided by a hand-out from the minister's press secretary. There is something called a "Backing Young Britain roadshow" which is "touring Britain's cities, encouraging employers to give jobs to people aged 18 to 24." There is no mention of Flexible New Deal or A4e.

The local MP, Linda Gilroy, has her own spin on this event on her website. Here we learn that "the Minister also called in to A4E Plymouth." To prove her interest in the topic of young people and unemployment she cites a speech she made last year and provides a link to it. The only mention of A4e in that speech is: "I want to mention the work that the local strategic partnership has developed, bringing together the public, private and voluntary sectors to identify our strengths and to develop action plans that play to them. The DWP values its work. Partnership working between the DWP and organisations such as Working Links and A4e in my constituency is important, and making common cause with the Learning and Skills Council is also part of the recipe."

So far A4e is hardly central to the story. But the company's own website sees it differently. Mr Knight, we're told, had a brief meeting with Paul Dingle, A4e Pathways operations Manager, who said that, "The Minister told local A4e bosses he was very positive at the work being done across the region & especially Pathways to Work." Then Linda Gilroy is quoted: “A4e are delivering some fantastic programmes in the city and I wanted the Minister to hear directly how unemployed people are being helped to find sustainable job opportunities through training, educational and work placement schemes being organised by A4e.”

Same story, slightly different interpretations.

Jim Knight answers a question

Jim Knight couldn't tell Mark Lancaster MP the figures for A4e programmes in his own constituency of Milton Keynes or for England as a whole. But he could tell Hazel Blears MP (coincidentally, no doubt, a member of his own party) "how many young people in the City of Salford have participated in the New Deal for Young People in each year since its introduction." (See TheyWorkForYou.com) Not that the table of figures he provided enlighten us about its success or otherwise. But perhaps that was the point. The DWP certainly keeps stats on outcomes, and it analyses them by provider. The information is published, but not in a constituency by constituency form. It appears that the Department is happy to provide information to MPs on participation in New Deal in their constituencies, but not on outcomes.

No answers

The Conservative MP for North East Milton Keynes has been quite persistent lately in asking written questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about unemployment issues, with a particular focus on A4e. On 25 January he asked "how many hours of training A4e staff working on contracts let by her Department undertake annually" and was told by Jim Knight that "Staff training is an internal matter for A4E and therefore not one that the Secretary of State can offer information about, or comment on." Yesterday Mr Lancaster homed in on results, asking more or less the same question in two ways: "what percentage of people who have attended A4e meetings as part of programmes delivered under contract to her Department have found work within six months since the inception of those contracts in (a) England and (b) Milton Keynes?" and "how many people who have attended A4e meetings in Milton Keynes as part of programmes delivered under contract to her Department have found work within six months since the inception of those contracts?" Reasonable questions, one might think. But he got the same answer from Jim Knight to both: "This information is not available in the format requested." One hopes that Mr Lancaster is not satisfied with this non-answer.

Contradictions

When so many people are desparately in need of even one job it seems unfair that some people have more than one. Like Professor Russel Griggs OBE who recently became a board member of Scottish Enterprise. As the article points out, Griggs has a number of other jobs, including being Chair of A4e Scotland. His own website shows 13 previous roles, mixing the private and the public sector, and 11 current roles.

On 25 January 2010 Mark Lancaster MP asked a written question of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: - how many hours of training A4e staff working on contracts let by her Department undertake annually. The answer came back from Jim Knight MP: - "Staff training is an internal matter for A4E and therefore not one that the Secretary of State can offer information about, or comment on." And yet A4e recently got a grant from the Dept. for Business, Innovation and Skills: "A4e will be working with employees to establish processes for informing and consulting staff on the future of the company. The project will involve the design, launch, establishment and assessment of an employee engagement process.
Sector: Training
Number of Employees: 837
Project Grant: £11,700.00"

Strange that one government department can say that A4e's staff training is nothing to do with them, while another gives them a grant for staff training.

In Search of the British Work Ethic, episode 2

This was a confused and rather annoying programme (Radio 4, 11 January 2010). Melanie Phillips joined immigrant workers in the catering and cleaning industries and came face to face with the reality of their lives. With the help of an academic she concluded that their dignity and work ethic were admirable, and were driven by the fact that there was no welfare state in the countries they come from. But they were undeniably exploited. Phillips is floundering by the end of the programme. She knows that when Jim Knight MP waffles about tax credits and joining trade unions he is not addressing the reality. But the work ethic has been destroyed in this country because there's no incentive to work hard and no penalty for not working. Frank Field MP pointed out that for many the rewards of working are too small. The head of the Low Pay Commission says that they can't make moral judgements, but Phillips has grasped that it is a moral issue. She ends by saying that compassion has to be reconciled with personal responsibility. The issues raised by this programme, and the first episode, are very important, and at least Phillips has challenged her own attitudes. Unfortunately, those attitudes haven't changed.

"Our Shared Promise on Customer Care"

It's headlined "A shared promise to those participating in welfare-to-work programmes" and can be read on the Jobcentre Plus website. It "was developed by ERSA, the representative body for independent providers of publicly funded welfare-to-work programmes and is supported by the Department for Work and Pensions, including Jobcentre Plus, the Association of Learning Providers (ALP) and the British Association for Supported Employment (BASE)" and was launched by Jim Knight MP. All the providers, including A4e, have signed up to it. "It includes commitments from providers to:

• Listen to customers and provide support based on each customer’s circumstances and needs
• Help customers identify and make the most of their strengths
• Make the best use of the customer’s time, taking account of personal circumstances and by being clear when things need to happen"

and there are equally unexceptionable commitments required from customers. Nothing wrong with that. But I can't help wondering why the providers need to state this, when one would assume that it was required in their contracts.

"Joined Up Moving Up"

A4e's news page reports: "The Welfare to Work Panel’s report 'Joined Up Moving Up' was launched today at a well attended and successful event in Central Westminster Hall. The Welfare to Work Panel’s report 'Joined Up Moving Up' was launched today at a well attended and successful event in Central Westminster Hall. Employment Minister Jim Knight spoke alongside panel chair Keith Faulkner from Working Links, Rob Murdoch from A4e, Chris Ledgard from Collinson Grant and CBI Director of Public Services Susan Anderson."

This panel was formed by the CBI, so you would expect that it would lean towards private business interests. Its Chair, Keith Faulkner, is also Chairman of Working Links (Employment) Ltd, one of A4e's competitors. Selections from the contributions at the launch can be watched here. A4e's Rob Murdoch talks about independent providers bringing "fantastic innovation", a personalised service and reduced expenditure on benefits. We need to capture that innovation, and develop more dynamic services to get people into work. The role of prime contractors is to ensure that all the services in an area are meeting the needs of the customer. The "supply chain" must be healthy and thriving to provide the best services. There was also a heavy hint about A4e's ambition to provide a more holistic service, one which can have an input into many aspects of the life of an individual or family - the super-contracts which they advocated to the DWP. Murdoch said that welfare reform cuts across all departments because it impacts on all fronts. Customers have a multitude of barriers, and they want to work with customers on all barriers to provide a more coherent service.

Going to Conference?

If you're going to a party conference (if you're Labour or Conservative, at least) you will this year be able to attend "several events" hosted by A4e, they've announced on their website. A4e are "partnering" with the think tank Demos to talk about - you guessed it - welfare to work. At the Labour conference there's a fringe event, ‘Making Welfare to Work work in a recession’, at which both Yvette Cooper and Mark Lovell will speak. "A4e and Demos will also be hosting a roundtable centred around this theme with Rt Hon Jim Knight MP, Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform." If you're thinking that it's a bit much for this company to be in cahoots with ministers - if you think it smacks of touting for business ......

But of course there may be a Conservative government soon, so A4e is hosting similar events at the Tory conference. There's ‘Smart citizens: advice in a world of personalised public services’, an A4e and Reform fringe event. Speaker:

Oliver Letwin MP, Chairman of the Policy Review and of the Conservative Research Department". And "A4e and Reform will also be hosting a roundtable discussing: ‘What role can the integration of welfare and skills provision play in tackling long-term unemployment?’ with Theresa May MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Shadow Minister for Women."

They don't seem to be bothering with the Liberal Democrat conference - no point, really.

A4e will certainly not be the only company using the party conferences as lobbying opportunities. Let's hope that party members are well informed.

Questions to the Secretary of State

theyworkforyou.com records a written question to Yvette Cooper on 15 July, asked by David Davies, Con, Monmouth. He asked: "how many training and skills contracts her Department has with A4e; what percentage of people who have attended such A4e training and skills courses have been placed into permanent employment; who supervises and inspects sites where A4e are giving such courses; and if she will make a statement." Yvette must be away. He was answered by Jim Knight, who always gets put up to answer awkward questions: "The Department currently has 47 contracts with A4e for the delivery of a range of welfare to work provision. On those contracts where we count job outcomes, during the period 2008-09, 20 per cent. of people starting provision delivered by A4e have started work. Some customers, however, will still be on provision. The delivery of provision is monitored by the Department and is also subject to external inspection by Ofsted in England, and Estyn in Wales. Areas for improvement identified at inspection are addressed through the Department's contract management process."

theyworkforyou.com gives you the chance to vote on whether you think the question was answered properly. Do you?