Inadequate

Once again I'm indebted to an anonymous comment for pointing me to this story.
The Work Programme isn't inspected by Ofsted, or anyone else.  Its predecessors, New Deal and FND, were, but either the government had unlimited faith in the power of profit, or the providers made it a condition of taking part, and there is no inspection of the WP.  However, the Learning and Skills provision, dealing with apprenticeships and "employability", does fall under Ofsted's remit.  It's called Work-based Learning, and the funding comes from the Skills Funding Agency.  And the latest inspection of A4e pronounces the company "Inadequate".  You can download it here.
A couple of points about Ofsted first.  Teachers maintain that the new boss, Wilshaw, ordered that all grades should be lowered, so what had previously been "satisfactory" should now be "inadequate" - I don't know how true that is.  And the reports are couched in very careful language, so it's sometimes hard to see why an institution should be blasted.  But with all that in mind, there is no doubt that A4e has performed badly.
Three previous inspections said they were only "satisfactory".  This latest took place early in February, and noted that things had not improved.  The summary says: "This provider is inadequate because -

• Leaders and managers have failed to ensure that a systematic approach routinely improves outcomes and the quality of provision in A4e learning and skills programmes. Three previous inspections noted that arrangements to ensure or improve the quality of provision were in development; revised quality systems are not having a significant impact.  
• Outcomes on the apprenticeship programme that A4e has delivered for many years have had consistently inadequate outcomes. Since the previous inspection almost half of the nearly 2500 apprentices who left the scheme did so without their main qualification.  
• Too much teaching, learning and assessment is uninspiring or mechanistic. Performance in subject areas has rarely risen above satisfactory or requiring improvement in 10 years of inspection.
• A4e’s self-assessment and quality improvement processes are overly complex. Judgements, especially for learners’ outcomes, are too generous. The process for observing of teaching, learning and assessment is not effective enough to drive up standards."

It's necessary to read the whole report, but one or two things stand out.  Under Outcomes for Learners we're told that A4e had outcomes 25% below those of its subcontractors, who deliver 20% of the provision.  Later, the report says that "Apparently high-performing subcontractors, working with programmes for unemployed people, will not be working with A4e in the near future."  All the grades, for subject areas and for general quality and effectiveness are either 3 (requires improvement) or 4 (inadequate).  And note above that they say that "Performance in subject areas has rarely risen above satisfactory or requiring improvement in 10 years of inspection."  Overall, it's inadequate.
Suppose this was a school which Ofsted was inspecting.  Do you think it would be allowed to stay open?

Prison contract delays - and Oxford

There's a rather confusing piece in the Guardian today headlined "A4e prison contracts delayed by anti-fraud checks".  It's confusing because it's not news.  The contracts for prison education which were due to start in August were delayed for three months because the Skills Funding Agency wanted extra fraud checks, following all the accusations earlier this year.  The checks didn't find any fraud, and the new contracts will start on 1 November.

An interesting campaign has been going on in Oxfordshire, where David Cameron has his constituency.  The Oxford Mail teamed up with A4e on a "We want to work" campaign, trying to get 12 of their clients into work.  (The article which launched the campaign was written by one Emma Harrison, but presumably not that one.)  Another article on the same day listed the twelve and showcased two of them.  And yet another article is a straightforward advert for A4e.  We're told (ungrammatically) that "Last year, A4e helped 30,126 people into work in the UK, 10,695 people gain a qualification and worked with 13,523 employers."

The following day things became a little less clear.  There's advice on "gaining an edge" from a woman who runs a free job club in Oxford as well as advice on CVs from an A4e adviser.  By Friday local MPs are brought in to say how wonderful the campaign is, and two more jobseekers are showcased.  One has been through an A4e "All about care" course.  And by Saturday there is good news.  One of the 12, who hadn't yet been featured, has got a job.  Another has an interview with an employer who read his profile in the paper.  Another, not apparently one of the 12, has got a job after 6 months out of work.

I am truly delighted for all those who find work.  But something is worth thinking about.  An A4e business leader says, "We are hoping that this is just the start of employers contacting us."  This is a campaign by the local paper to publicise people on A4e's books, and it's that exposure which has had some success.  Nothing wrong with that.  But it will be A4e which gets the outcome payments.  There are other parts of the country where local councils have co-ordinated efforts with the local press and, possibly, WP providers, to find jobs for the unemployed.  Who gets the reward then?

Where do we go from here?

Last Thursday Liam Byrne asked Chris Grayling "if he will publish all (a) internal correspondence of his Department and (b) correspondence with other Departments relating to the allegations of fraud at A4e."  The answer was: "The Department cannot publish information relating to the current allegations of fraud as this is a police matter and investigations are ongoing. "  Which is very convenient.  The police investigation into one local incident, along with the DWP's investigation into "all relationships" with A4e would appear to close down all discussion of the subject for the foreseeable future.  And now we learn that the Skills Funding Agency is conducting its own review of contracts with A4e for prison education.  The SFA said: "The Agency has decided that Agency auditors will work alongside A4e’s auditors to complete this exercise and provide additional assurance to the Agency that contracts are being delivered in accordance with our requirements.  In the current context the Skills Funding Agency is vigilant and continues to monitor the situation very closely.”  Good.  But again, this seems to put on hold the airing of concerns.  All those MPs who received evidence and complaints from clients and staff of the company will have handed their dossiers to the DWP.  And what of the journalists who were eagerly soliciting stories?  Has the official investigation closed down their interest?  Are editors afraid that publication could be seen to prejudice the process?  Or have they just got bored with the subject?

Maybe they are right.  Critics of A4e could scarcely have asked for more than has happened lately.  So should we take a step back, shut up for a bit, and wait for the results of the investigations?  There shouldn't be too long to wait.  The SFA needs to get the new contracts up and running.  And the DWP can't afford to let this drag on until the WP figures have to be published.  For the government this is about damage limitation, and we would be very surprised if any drastic action resulted.  So what now?

"All relationships" - and new contracts

It must be serious, it was covered by the BBC.  The new fraud allegations and the DWP's investigation were reported, albeit briefly, on Newsnight.  Paul Mason put a slightly different spin on it.  As the Guardian reported, the government has launched an audit of 10 other A4e contracts.  Mason takes that to mean that it will ask why A4e was given so many contracts; but I doubt that.  It would have to go back ten years to be credible.
Most of the media add little to the press releases of the DWP and A4e.  The Huffington Post carries the reaction of union leader Mark Serwotka.  The Guardian gets someone to explain how the MWA fraud might have come about.  The Mail is remarkably restrained.
At the same time as all this bad publicity, there is good news for A4e.  As reported on FE Week, it is the "preferred bidder" for 2 of the 9 prison education contracts announced by the Skills Funding Agency.  The SFA is keen to make clear that this doesn't mean that the contracts are signed.  There's a "due diligence" stage to go through before they are finalised in the early summer.  But this will be the acid test of the government's seriousness.  I have had to delete comments from people who know, and are concerned about, A4e's role in OLASS, but some of them may now make themselves known to journalists.
A4e has announced that its new non-executive Chairman is Sir Robin Young.  He was a career civil servant before retiring to directorships, and became a member of A4e's board in 2007.  He begins his statement with the words "A4e's role is to improve people's lives".
Back to the investigation.  The government has said that A4e could have its contracts suspended if it is found guilty of "systemic fraud".  It's that word "systemic" which could prove the get-out for A4e.  It seems likely that the instances of fraud are the result of two factors; the intense pressure in the company to meet targets and make the money, with bonuses for outcomes, team prizes etc.; and a large proportion of inexperienced, minimally trained staff.  But if that is the case, should it let A4e off the hook?