After I had read this piece in the Observer last night, I put it together with something a friend had told me the day before. The friend had been helping to set things up for Christmas at her local church, when a woman came in looking for "the food bank". She was very pale and looked ill and exhausted. There isn't a food bank in that part of the city, so my friend volunteered to drive her home. In the process she learned something of her story. It was the usual thing - very long delays and complications in getting her benefits through. That's one of the problems which the Trussell Trust want to discuss with Iain Duncan Smith. But he's refusing to meet them, accusing them of publicity-seeking, scaremongering and having a clear political agenda. Not, of course, like the political agenda which led the UK government to turn down a £22m grant from the European Aid for the Most Deprived fund specifically for food banks.
I am no longer a Christian by most people's definition; but I still regard Christian values, and the teachings of the gospels, as a pretty good guide for living. Iain Duncan Smith does profess to be a Christian - a Roman Catholic. Maybe he went to Mass this morning. So I wonder how he squares that supposed faith with his actions and attitudes. Oh yes, I know that terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity, and of every religion. He's hardly unique. But the psychology is fascinating. I could cite any number of passages in the gospels which should give him pause for thought. How about Matthew chapter 25, starting at verse 34? Or if you prefer one of the Old Testament prophets, there's a piece of advice in Micah, 6 v.8. In the old translation it says, "What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." The three qualities - justice, mercy and humility - seem entirely lacking in IDS.
When IDS or the DWP mess up, the cost falls on the hapless benefit claimant and / or taxpayer. Hugh Muir in the Guardian returns to the story of the botched procurement process for the Universal Jobmatch site. He originally reported back in March this year that there were three bidders at the start, Steria Ltd, Methods and Monster Worldwide. Steria challenged the evaluation process, so it was run again, but Methods started legal procedures and were paid off. The DWP wouldn't say how much it had cost to stay out of court. But now, with the DWP annual report published (very late) there's a clue. There's a payment of £950,000 "to compensate a supplier for reasonable costs incurred in connection with procurement activities".
Showing posts with label Observer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Observer. Show all posts
Sunday, 22 December 2013
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.
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.
Friday, 16 August 2013
Helpless - and furious
I feel increasingly helpless. I'm getting more and more comments, often on old posts, from people who are desperate because they, or someone in their family, has had their benefits stopped. It's heart-rending, and there's virtually nothing I can do except advise them to go to the CAB.
The situation is made very clear in an article in the Observer online today by the food critic Jay Rayner about "Food Bank Britain". He doesn't just focus on the Trussell Trust, although they feature. He also looks at the Real Aid charity in Hull. The experience is the same. And Chris Johns of Oxfam's UK Poverty Programme is clear why it's happening. It's not just changing benefits provision, he says, but "the way government agencies temporarily remove benefits for perceived misdemeanours: a failure to sign the right paperwork, or apply for the right training scheme." And then the same agency that sanctioned them gives them a food bank voucher. In Fulham there's a woman getting food from the Trussell Trust who is her husband's full-time carer and has three children. The benefits agency discovered an overpayment of £600 in 2009, they insist (although the woman says she would have noticed) and have stopped their benefits for a month to recoup it. (Just as an aside, it used to be the case that overpayments couldn't be reclaimed if the mistake was not made by the client.) Other cases are cited. In Hull, Real Aid don't use vouchers, but charge £1.50 for the food. A lot of people actually prefer this. And they are giving the help to people who are working or who are pensioners, because they don't have enough money to buy food.
The article cites the claims of Lord Freud, who doesn't accept that the increase in the use of food banks has anything to do with increased need.
The evidence is overwhelming, but the government doesn't care. It still refuses to publish the data on sanctions. Why?
And then we get this. The most disgusting, lying, vile piece rubbish that the Express has managed to come up with, in collaboration with the equally disgusting Iain Duncan Smith. What is there to say? It's a torrent of lies, of words designed specifically and unashamedly to lie. I am too furious to be coherent about it at the moment.
The situation is made very clear in an article in the Observer online today by the food critic Jay Rayner about "Food Bank Britain". He doesn't just focus on the Trussell Trust, although they feature. He also looks at the Real Aid charity in Hull. The experience is the same. And Chris Johns of Oxfam's UK Poverty Programme is clear why it's happening. It's not just changing benefits provision, he says, but "the way government agencies temporarily remove benefits for perceived misdemeanours: a failure to sign the right paperwork, or apply for the right training scheme." And then the same agency that sanctioned them gives them a food bank voucher. In Fulham there's a woman getting food from the Trussell Trust who is her husband's full-time carer and has three children. The benefits agency discovered an overpayment of £600 in 2009, they insist (although the woman says she would have noticed) and have stopped their benefits for a month to recoup it. (Just as an aside, it used to be the case that overpayments couldn't be reclaimed if the mistake was not made by the client.) Other cases are cited. In Hull, Real Aid don't use vouchers, but charge £1.50 for the food. A lot of people actually prefer this. And they are giving the help to people who are working or who are pensioners, because they don't have enough money to buy food.
The article cites the claims of Lord Freud, who doesn't accept that the increase in the use of food banks has anything to do with increased need.
The evidence is overwhelming, but the government doesn't care. It still refuses to publish the data on sanctions. Why?
And then we get this. The most disgusting, lying, vile piece rubbish that the Express has managed to come up with, in collaboration with the equally disgusting Iain Duncan Smith. What is there to say? It's a torrent of lies, of words designed specifically and unashamedly to lie. I am too furious to be coherent about it at the moment.
Sunday, 28 April 2013
Universal Credit - and a sinister development in social housing
The vow of silence on the subject of the Work Programme continues in place, while the government works out how to fiddle the figures. Perhaps the idea is to blame the "customers" for not being willing to work. At the moment the spotlight is on Universal Credit, which begins with a tiny "pathfinder" in Ashton under Lyne tomorrow. Amelia Gentleman in the Guardian on Friday described the pilot and its limitations; and the BBC's Sunday news programme has looked at the problems. The pilot will include only a very few people, about 300 a month; all of them will be new claimants, not on any other benefits than JSA, single and with no dependants, but with bank accounts. It would be hard to get that wrong, you would think. Even when it rolls out nationally in October, families and children will not be included. But plenty of people anticipate the problems. A charity which works with young men under 25 says that lots of them can't use a computer. The local council has installed computer hubs, but points out that the online form, which takes about 45 minutes to complete, has no "save" function. Tameside CAB is worried about people falling into debt because of monthly payments.
The IT is the worry, of course. There are so many different interfaces and databases which have to be meshed. And it's been costing £500,000 a day to develop the systems. The BBC piece said that Iain Duncan Smith has complained about the way UC is being presented, so they asked him or someone else from the DWP onto the programme - but no one was available.
Nick Cohen in the Observer has a different take on UC. He says that it "poses a serious threat to women's independence". That's because it will lump all benefits, including tax credits (but not child benefit) into one payment made into one bank account. And that is far more likely to be the man's. If you doubt that, read the article and the link it has to the Women's Budget Group. Cohen links this attitude to the religious background of IDS's special adviser, Phillippa Stroud, who is also head of his think tank, the Centre for Social Justice. She's an evangelical Christian, married to the boss of a church which teaches "male servant leadership and joyful female submission". Whether this is relevant or not, I don't know.
If you're looking for a home in Somerset, you might want to avoid the Yarlington Housing Group. This housing association, according to the Independent, makes its new residents sign a Household Ambition Plan. It's so sinister that it has caused a storm of anger. But expect more of this sort of thing. Unless you own your own home and don't claim any sort of benefits, you must learn to tug your forelock and obey your masters.
The IT is the worry, of course. There are so many different interfaces and databases which have to be meshed. And it's been costing £500,000 a day to develop the systems. The BBC piece said that Iain Duncan Smith has complained about the way UC is being presented, so they asked him or someone else from the DWP onto the programme - but no one was available.
Nick Cohen in the Observer has a different take on UC. He says that it "poses a serious threat to women's independence". That's because it will lump all benefits, including tax credits (but not child benefit) into one payment made into one bank account. And that is far more likely to be the man's. If you doubt that, read the article and the link it has to the Women's Budget Group. Cohen links this attitude to the religious background of IDS's special adviser, Phillippa Stroud, who is also head of his think tank, the Centre for Social Justice. She's an evangelical Christian, married to the boss of a church which teaches "male servant leadership and joyful female submission". Whether this is relevant or not, I don't know.
If you're looking for a home in Somerset, you might want to avoid the Yarlington Housing Group. This housing association, according to the Independent, makes its new residents sign a Household Ambition Plan. It's so sinister that it has caused a storm of anger. But expect more of this sort of thing. Unless you own your own home and don't claim any sort of benefits, you must learn to tug your forelock and obey your masters.
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
When does spinning turn into lying?
Two versions of the same story appeared in the news feeds this morning, and I had to read them carefully to work out what was going on.
First, there was the Daily Mail's "One million people who are fit to work have been on benefits for three years". Then, in the Express, "The one million who are FIT TO WORK but live on benefits". That one, not surprisingly, is the more disgusting. It goes on: "A MILLION welfare claimants have lived on working-age benefits for three out of the last four years, despite being judged capable of trying to find a job, shocking figures revealed last night." You might have worked it out by now. Yes, about a million of the out-of-work are long-term unemployed. Do we read on to find out how the Work Programme is helping them, or is going to be changed to help them? Don't bother, there's no mention of it. This is from a report to be published by Iain Duncan Smith. He's more interested in family breakdown, and asserts that "local authorities have already turned around the lives of 1,675 troubled families." This is the outsourcing of the "troubled families" intervention scheme. Note that there is no indication of what "turned around the lives" actually means. Someone got a job? Who knows. But the Mail has a pretty graph showing "How Britain's benefits bill has risen" with never a mention of the fact that a huge chunk of the benefits bill consists of pensions.
So these rags intend their readers to infer that a million people out there are too lazy to work, and add to the clamour for a clampdown. That isn't spin; that's lying.
For a more truthful account, the Guardian looks at a report by the Fawcett Society which shows that since 2010 almost three times as many women as men have become long-term unemployed. Men have got 60% of the new private sector jobs. A big factor in this trend is that women are suffering most from the public sector cuts, losing the low wage, often part-time jobs. Of course, IDS has nothing to say about this.
Another disturbing story appeared in the Observer on Sunday. The social fund grew out of the long-standing practice of giving emergency grants to people on benefits to pay for necessary items such as beds or cookers (second-hand, of course) which they didn't have the money to buy. Labour turned these into loans. Now, local councils are complaining that more and more people are coming to them for emergency loans, because the jobcentres haven't mentioned the availability of the money. Indeed, it appears that jobcentre workers have been issued with explicit guidance by the DWP that they should not advertise the existence of the loans so as not to "encourage dependency on the benefits system", and simply pass the buck to the councils. And it seems that the emergencies which cause the need for short-term loans are no longer the one-off large items but such mundane things as food.
We're now told that the publication of performance data for the WP has been put back. It was due on 28 May but will now be published on 27 June, and will cover the period to March 2013. The vow of silence on the whole subject of the WP doesn't augur well for the figures.
On a more general note, I want to recommend a book. Michael Sandel is an economist, but one who writes in a very lucid way about economics in the real world. His book What Money Can't Buy - the moral limits of markets (pub. Allen Lane, 2012) is an excellent introduction to thinking about the issue of private profit, ethics and the public arena.
First, there was the Daily Mail's "One million people who are fit to work have been on benefits for three years". Then, in the Express, "The one million who are FIT TO WORK but live on benefits". That one, not surprisingly, is the more disgusting. It goes on: "A MILLION welfare claimants have lived on working-age benefits for three out of the last four years, despite being judged capable of trying to find a job, shocking figures revealed last night." You might have worked it out by now. Yes, about a million of the out-of-work are long-term unemployed. Do we read on to find out how the Work Programme is helping them, or is going to be changed to help them? Don't bother, there's no mention of it. This is from a report to be published by Iain Duncan Smith. He's more interested in family breakdown, and asserts that "local authorities have already turned around the lives of 1,675 troubled families." This is the outsourcing of the "troubled families" intervention scheme. Note that there is no indication of what "turned around the lives" actually means. Someone got a job? Who knows. But the Mail has a pretty graph showing "How Britain's benefits bill has risen" with never a mention of the fact that a huge chunk of the benefits bill consists of pensions.
So these rags intend their readers to infer that a million people out there are too lazy to work, and add to the clamour for a clampdown. That isn't spin; that's lying.
For a more truthful account, the Guardian looks at a report by the Fawcett Society which shows that since 2010 almost three times as many women as men have become long-term unemployed. Men have got 60% of the new private sector jobs. A big factor in this trend is that women are suffering most from the public sector cuts, losing the low wage, often part-time jobs. Of course, IDS has nothing to say about this.
Another disturbing story appeared in the Observer on Sunday. The social fund grew out of the long-standing practice of giving emergency grants to people on benefits to pay for necessary items such as beds or cookers (second-hand, of course) which they didn't have the money to buy. Labour turned these into loans. Now, local councils are complaining that more and more people are coming to them for emergency loans, because the jobcentres haven't mentioned the availability of the money. Indeed, it appears that jobcentre workers have been issued with explicit guidance by the DWP that they should not advertise the existence of the loans so as not to "encourage dependency on the benefits system", and simply pass the buck to the councils. And it seems that the emergencies which cause the need for short-term loans are no longer the one-off large items but such mundane things as food.
We're now told that the publication of performance data for the WP has been put back. It was due on 28 May but will now be published on 27 June, and will cover the period to March 2013. The vow of silence on the whole subject of the WP doesn't augur well for the figures.
On a more general note, I want to recommend a book. Michael Sandel is an economist, but one who writes in a very lucid way about economics in the real world. His book What Money Can't Buy - the moral limits of markets (pub. Allen Lane, 2012) is an excellent introduction to thinking about the issue of private profit, ethics and the public arena.
Saturday, 20 April 2013
Minimum service, minimum wage and a Labour proposal
Some of you will be familiar with this, but the minimum service delivery promises by the various Work Programme providers have
been published on the government's whizzy new website. I'm
particularly interested in A4e's promises, of course. I'm
intrigued to see that they include "A fully personalised
service: including (minimum) monthly 1:1 contact with a named advisor
and a tailored journey that address their broader needs."
Maximus, Working Links, Prospects, NCG, Serco, Best and G4S say
they
will see people fortnightly,
CDG monthly. The others don't specify. It's amazing
that the DWP thought a brief interview once a month was enough, and how that squares with the idea of "a tailored journey".
Labour,
as we know, has been struggling to come up with coherent alternatives to the Tory measures, but there is a plan published in the Observer. It would restore the link between contributions and benefits by paying newly out of work people up to 70% of their previous salaries for up to 6 months (with a cap of £200 a week). The downside is that the extra would be repayable when the person returned to work. I'm not sure how that would work if you got a minimum wage job and needed tax credits. What do you think?
And talking of the minimum wage, there are estimates that anything between 100,000 and half a million workers are receiving less than minimum wage, according to the Independent. They list a whole raft of scams by which this is done, including deducting money for clothing or benefits in kind; not paying for travel time between sites (something which is common for care workers); and paying piece rates rather than an hourly rate. The article asks why so few prosecutions have occurred for this - just 8 in the 13 years of the MW's existence - and says that Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, is now taking the issue seriously. Let's hope so. But what happens when someone who is unemployed takes one of these jobs before discovering the truth, that it doesn't meet MW? Can they leave it without being punished?
Saturday, 29 December 2012
Writing - or respect?
Those who don't read the Observer should read this article.
Now, I start out by loathing the very notion of the "nudge unit" as a sinister way of manipulating people's thinking to suit the government. However, the exercise described here appears to be based on sensible psychological insights (otherwise known as common sense) and designed to help and support rather than manipulate. Notice that the trial was with people who hadn't been out of work very long, and that the emphasis in the article is on getting people to write down their commitments and express themselves about a traumatic event. But the real benefits (which the comments under the article pick up) are summed up as, "The unit made three changes to the way jobseekers in Loughton were treated: the amount of paperwork was reduced at the first meeting so that the claimant could talk about getting back to work from day one; the conversation was focused on what jobseekers would do for the next fortnight and they were encouraged to make written commitments; and advisers at the centre were told to build the confidence and wellbeing of those still claiming after eight weeks, rather than treating them as failures." (My italics)
I can remember a time when schemes like New Deal were promoted as being about helping to build people's confidence. The Work Programme put paid to any such soft-headed notions. Mark Hoban thinks the trial describes an "innovative approach". No, Mr Hoban, it's a very old-fashioned approach which your department seems to have forgotten.
Now, I start out by loathing the very notion of the "nudge unit" as a sinister way of manipulating people's thinking to suit the government. However, the exercise described here appears to be based on sensible psychological insights (otherwise known as common sense) and designed to help and support rather than manipulate. Notice that the trial was with people who hadn't been out of work very long, and that the emphasis in the article is on getting people to write down their commitments and express themselves about a traumatic event. But the real benefits (which the comments under the article pick up) are summed up as, "The unit made three changes to the way jobseekers in Loughton were treated: the amount of paperwork was reduced at the first meeting so that the claimant could talk about getting back to work from day one; the conversation was focused on what jobseekers would do for the next fortnight and they were encouraged to make written commitments; and advisers at the centre were told to build the confidence and wellbeing of those still claiming after eight weeks, rather than treating them as failures." (My italics)
I can remember a time when schemes like New Deal were promoted as being about helping to build people's confidence. The Work Programme put paid to any such soft-headed notions. Mark Hoban thinks the trial describes an "innovative approach". No, Mr Hoban, it's a very old-fashioned approach which your department seems to have forgotten.
Sunday, 2 December 2012
£1.375m for Emma
It's a story in today's Observer, but it's an irritating one.
The figures come from her husband, who said she got a total dividend of £1.25m in the year from April 2011, plus £250,000 from January this year. Okay, she didn't step down as Chair of A4e until March, so this is hardly a surprise. Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, is outraged, justifiably. But the paper seems to forget that a big slice of A4's income doesn't come from welfare-to-work. There are plenty of other lucrative contracts.
And there's a worrying inaccuracy in the story. "She became a high-profile figure through reality TV programmes such as The Fairy Jobmother." Er ... no. She wasn't in that. It was Hayley Taylor, who got her big break as an A4e employee in Benefit Busters.
I've no objection, of course, to the Observer / Guardian keeping this in the public eye. But let's get it right.
The figures come from her husband, who said she got a total dividend of £1.25m in the year from April 2011, plus £250,000 from January this year. Okay, she didn't step down as Chair of A4e until March, so this is hardly a surprise. Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, is outraged, justifiably. But the paper seems to forget that a big slice of A4's income doesn't come from welfare-to-work. There are plenty of other lucrative contracts.
And there's a worrying inaccuracy in the story. "She became a high-profile figure through reality TV programmes such as The Fairy Jobmother." Er ... no. She wasn't in that. It was Hayley Taylor, who got her big break as an A4e employee in Benefit Busters.
I've no objection, of course, to the Observer / Guardian keeping this in the public eye. But let's get it right.
Sunday, 5 August 2012
The big profits society
You wouldn't want G4S running it. You certainly wouldn't want A4e running it. How about Serco? One of David Cameron's "big society" ideas is for a National Citizen Service for youngsters over 16. Naturally someone has to make money by running it, and, according to the Observer, is in line to win 8 of the 19 contracts currently up for tender. As with the Work Programme, charities are involved to deliver it, but many charities are complaining that they are being forced out of existence in favour of the big private companies. The government doesn't care about that. Indeed, it isn't capable of comprehending that there could be a problem.
The Guardian gave a platform to Martyn Hart of the National Outsourcing Association to explain why outsourcing is "here to stay". He insists that, "Outsourcing is far from privatisation – done properly, the client remains in control at all times. The client's purchasing a service, over a long period of time: as paying customer, they are perfectly entitled to specify exactly what they want. But a key facet of outsourcing is the shared bearing of risk: the partners are in it together. Not just financially, but also in terms of reputation. If things go wrong, both brands are weakened and, in the case of the supplier, future custom is jeopardised."
Now, I understand the difference between outsourcing and the kind of privatisation he's talking about. But it's a distinction which becomes less and less relevant when the private companies are large enough to call the shots on these contracts. We saw it with the Work Programme; the contracts were not what the government had originally intended because the only companies large enough to bid wouldn't play unless they got their way, over attachment fees, lack of inspection and so on. Cameron's National Citizen Service will have been designed in conjunction with Serco and others. And the blurring of boundaries between government and these companies - ex ministers on the boards, friends in the boardrooms - works against the idea of partners sharing risk. The only risk is to the taxpayer. We effectively have privatisation of government.
Something else leaps out from Hart's article. The "partners" in outsourcing do not include the people for whom the services are supposedly designed. This is business.
The Guardian gave a platform to Martyn Hart of the National Outsourcing Association to explain why outsourcing is "here to stay". He insists that, "Outsourcing is far from privatisation – done properly, the client remains in control at all times. The client's purchasing a service, over a long period of time: as paying customer, they are perfectly entitled to specify exactly what they want. But a key facet of outsourcing is the shared bearing of risk: the partners are in it together. Not just financially, but also in terms of reputation. If things go wrong, both brands are weakened and, in the case of the supplier, future custom is jeopardised."
Now, I understand the difference between outsourcing and the kind of privatisation he's talking about. But it's a distinction which becomes less and less relevant when the private companies are large enough to call the shots on these contracts. We saw it with the Work Programme; the contracts were not what the government had originally intended because the only companies large enough to bid wouldn't play unless they got their way, over attachment fees, lack of inspection and so on. Cameron's National Citizen Service will have been designed in conjunction with Serco and others. And the blurring of boundaries between government and these companies - ex ministers on the boards, friends in the boardrooms - works against the idea of partners sharing risk. The only risk is to the taxpayer. We effectively have privatisation of government.
Something else leaps out from Hart's article. The "partners" in outsourcing do not include the people for whom the services are supposedly designed. This is business.
Saturday, 30 June 2012
They want more sanctions!
A fascinating piece in the Observer reports that "Private firms on payment-by-result contracts have suggested more punishments should have been meted out". In 2009, 139,000 people had their incomes stopped. By 2011 it was more than 500,000. And yet Corporate Watch has documents which show that the companies want more. In the first 8 months of the Work Programme, jobcentres stopped benefits for 40,000 people, but that was only about a third of the 110,000 that were referred to them. The rate, however, is going up. The document shows that Working Links refers the most cases, but A4e is second. It requested sanctions in 10,120 cases. 3,000 of these were accepted by the jobcentres.
The procedure in A4e's case, I'm told, is that offices send the cases of non-compliance through to a central office, along with the reasons for this non-compliance (didn't turn up but was in hospital, that kind of thing); that office then refers them for sanctions. But regularly the explanations get left off, so people find their income has been stopped when they've been told that wouldn't happen.
The article goes on: Richard Whittell from Corporate Watch said the Work Programme appeared to be focused on slashing benefit rather than putting people into work. "These figures give the lie to the government's claims its welfare reforms are about helping people into work," he said. " By the time it's finished, more people will have been sanctioned by the Work Programme than properly employed through it. Every month thousands of people are having their only source of income stopped and being pushed into hardship. Companies like Serco, Working Links and G4S may not be very good at finding people suitable work, but they're dab hands at punishing them." The private firms say they make their referrals to job centres in line with government guidelines.
Chris Grayling is quoted as saying that "there was no financial imperative for private firms to punish jobseekers". So why are they doing it? Is it the case that increasing numbers of people are refusing to comply with the terms of the WP? Or is there some other reason?
The procedure in A4e's case, I'm told, is that offices send the cases of non-compliance through to a central office, along with the reasons for this non-compliance (didn't turn up but was in hospital, that kind of thing); that office then refers them for sanctions. But regularly the explanations get left off, so people find their income has been stopped when they've been told that wouldn't happen.
The article goes on: Richard Whittell from Corporate Watch said the Work Programme appeared to be focused on slashing benefit rather than putting people into work. "These figures give the lie to the government's claims its welfare reforms are about helping people into work," he said. " By the time it's finished, more people will have been sanctioned by the Work Programme than properly employed through it. Every month thousands of people are having their only source of income stopped and being pushed into hardship. Companies like Serco, Working Links and G4S may not be very good at finding people suitable work, but they're dab hands at punishing them." The private firms say they make their referrals to job centres in line with government guidelines.
Chris Grayling is quoted as saying that "there was no financial imperative for private firms to punish jobseekers". So why are they doing it? Is it the case that increasing numbers of people are refusing to comply with the terms of the WP? Or is there some other reason?
Sunday, 26 February 2012
Where do we go from here?
Whether this weekend is the last fling for the media in A4e-bashing, or the start of a wider debate, we can't tell. It's certainly still very uncomfortable for Emma Harrison and the company she still mostly owns.
The Observer returns to the amount of money Harrison has been taking out of the company. "The couple were paid £316,000 for allowing A4e to use their country home for board meetings and other events. Emma and James Harrison were paid another £1.4m for leasing out two other properties to Emma Harrison's own firm, including its Sheffield headquarters. The payments were in addition to Emma Harrison's £365,000 annual salary and the payment of an £8.6m shares dividend, bringing the total earnings of the Harrisons, who share their 20-bedroom home, Thornbridge Hall in Derbyshire, with 11 friends, to some £11m between 2009 and 2011." The article also reveals something we hadn't realised; that the DWP "has exempted private companies in the Work Programme from inspections by Ofsted, the standards body that previously inspected companies involved in welfare and training." Was that part of the price for getting the companies involved? A4e's Ofsted reports had never been better than "satisfactory".
The Express picks up the Observer's story about the money, including the fact that it was paid into two companies and a pension fund. They have a statement from the Harrisons, insisting on the legality and transparency of their arrangements and threatening "appropriate legal action if claims to the contrary are made."
The Mail has a story of a new "fraud probe" in the Thames Valley. The allegations concern the misuse of vouchers by A4e staff. The vouchers, worth between £10 and £50, are redeemable at various retailers and are meant to provide things like new clothes for claimants going for interview. According to a police source: "There are suggestions that some were given out as bonuses for getting unemployed clients into jobs and there are suspicions that some members of staff may have helped themselves to the vouchers without consent." They also suggest that this was happening on a very large scale. The Mail also manages to get the inside story on one of the four people originally arrested, and they have a whistle-blower who talks of the immense pressure staff were put under by management to get results at any cost. Since one of the arrested staff got £50 for a job outcome, the pressures are obvious.
The Independent is the only paper to put the A4e story on the front page. Whistle-blowers have been much in demand by the media, and the Indy has one with unusually recent experience. 25-year-old Catherine Verwaerde's story should be read carefully. A4e got her an interview with a sales company, and it was A4e which told her that she'd got the job. That could sound like A4e being admirably pro-active. But Catherine was told that the pay was £7,000 plus commission. As with any job, but particularly with a situation like this, she was entitled to see written terms and conditions. But A4e told Catherine that this was not how business worked and "I would look awkward if I asked for information in writing." She had been offered a job, so would be sanctioned (deprived of her income) if she didn't take it. But - she could try it without telling the Jobcentre! As with so many stories about A4e, it's hard to know whether we're looking at fraud or just incompetence. The article also has the story of 58-year-old Ram from Edinburgh. He was wrongly deprived of two weeks' benefit by A4e when they falsely claimed that he had failed to attend an appointment. His formal complaint has been successful.
In another article, the Observer uses the A4e saga to question the political consensus which has driven the privatisation of public services, in health and education as well as in welfare-to-work, and which has concentrated the work and the money in a few large companies. This is the debate that is vitally important now. The ideology which asserts, without evidence, that private profit is best guarantee of efficient services should now be rigorously examined and vociferously challenged.
The Observer returns to the amount of money Harrison has been taking out of the company. "The couple were paid £316,000 for allowing A4e to use their country home for board meetings and other events. Emma and James Harrison were paid another £1.4m for leasing out two other properties to Emma Harrison's own firm, including its Sheffield headquarters. The payments were in addition to Emma Harrison's £365,000 annual salary and the payment of an £8.6m shares dividend, bringing the total earnings of the Harrisons, who share their 20-bedroom home, Thornbridge Hall in Derbyshire, with 11 friends, to some £11m between 2009 and 2011." The article also reveals something we hadn't realised; that the DWP "has exempted private companies in the Work Programme from inspections by Ofsted, the standards body that previously inspected companies involved in welfare and training." Was that part of the price for getting the companies involved? A4e's Ofsted reports had never been better than "satisfactory".
The Express picks up the Observer's story about the money, including the fact that it was paid into two companies and a pension fund. They have a statement from the Harrisons, insisting on the legality and transparency of their arrangements and threatening "appropriate legal action if claims to the contrary are made."
The Mail has a story of a new "fraud probe" in the Thames Valley. The allegations concern the misuse of vouchers by A4e staff. The vouchers, worth between £10 and £50, are redeemable at various retailers and are meant to provide things like new clothes for claimants going for interview. According to a police source: "There are suggestions that some were given out as bonuses for getting unemployed clients into jobs and there are suspicions that some members of staff may have helped themselves to the vouchers without consent." They also suggest that this was happening on a very large scale. The Mail also manages to get the inside story on one of the four people originally arrested, and they have a whistle-blower who talks of the immense pressure staff were put under by management to get results at any cost. Since one of the arrested staff got £50 for a job outcome, the pressures are obvious.
The Independent is the only paper to put the A4e story on the front page. Whistle-blowers have been much in demand by the media, and the Indy has one with unusually recent experience. 25-year-old Catherine Verwaerde's story should be read carefully. A4e got her an interview with a sales company, and it was A4e which told her that she'd got the job. That could sound like A4e being admirably pro-active. But Catherine was told that the pay was £7,000 plus commission. As with any job, but particularly with a situation like this, she was entitled to see written terms and conditions. But A4e told Catherine that this was not how business worked and "I would look awkward if I asked for information in writing." She had been offered a job, so would be sanctioned (deprived of her income) if she didn't take it. But - she could try it without telling the Jobcentre! As with so many stories about A4e, it's hard to know whether we're looking at fraud or just incompetence. The article also has the story of 58-year-old Ram from Edinburgh. He was wrongly deprived of two weeks' benefit by A4e when they falsely claimed that he had failed to attend an appointment. His formal complaint has been successful.
In another article, the Observer uses the A4e saga to question the political consensus which has driven the privatisation of public services, in health and education as well as in welfare-to-work, and which has concentrated the work and the money in a few large companies. This is the debate that is vitally important now. The ideology which asserts, without evidence, that private profit is best guarantee of efficient services should now be rigorously examined and vociferously challenged.
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
Some recent blog posts
Here is a selection of the most recent News & Comment posts from the old website:
On 30 June the first lot of bids for allocations from the Future Jobs Fund will be considered. This is a £1 bn fund aimed at creating real jobs, mainly for young people, and the government is stating that it wants local authorities, regional bodies and the like to lead, in partnership with public sector and "third sector" bodies. No mention, you notice, of private sector companies, so A4e can sit this one out. But no. A4e is attending the Local Government Conference in Harrogate next week and "we'd like to hear from anyone who would like to partner with A4e to maximise the impact of the Future Jobs Fund to benefit your local community." (A4e's website) After describing what the Future Jobs Fund is, they say, "As a market leader of Welfare to Work services, A4e has capacity and capability to design, develop and deliver front line public services that benefit individuals, organisations and communities. This includes partnership working with the private, public and third sector organisations." We shouldn't be surprised, of course. Just by chance I came across a quote from Emma today: "There are three things that you should spend you time doing: Marketing, marketing, marketing. It is the most important thing that someone growing a business should be doing. If you are not prepared to do that, then everything else is irrelevant." Yes, if there's public money on offer, A4e will be there.
A4e is at the centre of a fraud enquiry, the Observer reports today. "The DWP started its investigation into A4e's Hull office in May 2008, after discrepancies emerged in "confirmation of employment" forms submitted by the company. Two recruiters filled in forms meant for employers who agreed to take on workers. In some cases, employers' signatures were falsified. One of the recruiters had also entered into a fraudulent deal with a local temp agency. In January, the recruiter was sacked, while the other resigned. "It had the smell of a conspiracy," a source close to the company said. An A4e spokesman said it had found only 20 fraudulent claims. It remained unclear last night why the DWP investigation has been going for 13 months, when A4e was a bidding for major government contracts. A4e is expected to repay £15,000. Another recruitment company has been asked to repay £48,000 following a DWP inquiry." Wow! It's small-scale stuff, but the Observer points out the government's "individual learning accounts" fell victim to the same sort of fraud and had to be scrapped. The article says that Yvette Cooper, the new DWP secretary, has said that the multi-million pound contracts could be cancelled if widespread fraud is discovered. Don't hold your breath.
Tonight Channel 4 News carried a report which will dent A4e's image even further: The piece sets out to show that fraud is common in the New Deal programmes, but that the DWP doesn't publish the results of its investigations so it's hidden. The first part of the piece concentrates on Working Links, who forged clients' signatures and paperwork in Glasgow in 2007. Since that investigation, more fraud has been uncovered in Brighton, North Wales and Hackney. Then they turn to A4e, which is decribed as one of the biggest names in the industry. The fraud that the Observer reported on yesterday is mentioned, malpractice which took place over a 4 month period in 2007. But, says Channel 4, there was another case towards the end of 2008, also in Hull. An A4e employee was found to be colluding with an employment agency to state that factory jobs were intended to last for 13 weeks, and therefore attract a payment, when they were only ever meant to be temporary. A4e says that this was a "rogue operator" and two members of staff have been sacked. (In fact, it's common practice.) Terry Rooney MP, who is the Chair of the Work & Pensions Select Committee, said he had no idea that investigations had taken place, and wants the National Audit Office involved. Jim Knight MP, employment minister, says there's no evidence of systematic fraud. But the piece has shown that significant amounts of public money are being wasted on fraud which is being covered up. Not a good few days for A4e!
The local BBC TV news in Hull has carried a piece which will cause A4e more grief. Vicky Johnson talked to two clients, Simon and Steve who said they spent more time doing quizzes than developing their skills. They retraced one of the quizzes, out on the streets in the city - one way of getting rid of the clients for a while. The two said that the programme was a waste of money and they were very disappointed. The only useful element had been the updating of their CVs and being able to give A4e as a reference. Jonathan Davies, the local A4e manager, said that they had just had an Ofsted inspection and had some "very positive feedback". We'll await this report with interest.
But no doubt A4e are regretting the proximity of their Hull office to the BBC Centre.
It hasn't taken long for A4e's dealings in Australia to be called into question:
Basically, it alleges that A4e had contacts with the most influential politicians before the bidding process started for the welfare-to-work contracts there. The implication, of course, is that the private meetings influenced the destination of the contracts. Perish the thought! A4e wouldn't do anything like that, would they? Despite all the meetings that went on, the government department denies that there was anything wrong. But the article, which points out that "A4e has strong links to the British Labour Party and is being investigated by the UK Government for alleged fraud involving work placement contracts" also draws attention to an intriguing fact. "A4e executives met Ms Gillard's [the Employment Minister's] deputy chief of staff, Tom Bentley, in February last year to discuss the Government's plans to reform employment services for Australia's unemployed. A4e had no contracts in Australia at this time." Now, this same Tom Bentley "worked in Mr Blunkett's ministerial office as a special adviser on school reform and social inclusion" in 1998/99. It's worth reading the whole article. A4e's reputation has travelled, and the Australian press is saying things that the British press daren't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)