The Guardian has a number of stories about A4e today. But first, a story in the Financial Times. David Cameron has admitted that there have been a total of 125 investigations into welfare-to-work companies in the last 6 years (that is, since privatisation of the contracts). Eleven of these concerned A4e. So there has been a lot of dodgy practice going on throughout the industry.
The first of the 3 Guardian stories comes from "several former managers" and concerns what the headine calls the "champagne culture" at A4e. It's about junketing by Emma Harrison and A4e managers, with expensive foreign travel. But the article goes on to revelations by an unemployed man who, ironically, had been a Jobcentre employee. As a client of A4e he was given a 4-week work placement in A4e's own finance department. There he processed expenses claims, some of them lavish and not backed up by receipts, something he was told not to bother about. A4e's reaction is what you would expect from any company in this situation.
The second piece is a description by a client, Stuart Webb, of his experience of the Work Programme in Lincoln. This will chime with many clients, and not just of A4e. He was simply told to sit in front of a computer, find vacancies and apply for them. For this, A4e got the £400 attachment fee. There was, he said, no personalised assistance, and twice appointments were cancelled when he got there, wasting his time and money. The good news is that he found himself a job, but it galls him that A4e get money for this. Webb runs into the same difficulty as other discontented clients; it's his word against the company's. "A4e said that some of his comments about Job Search sessions were 'entirely subjective', and that advisers are always available to 'support individuals' as well as helping them 'structure their job search'. They said their 'staff are always 'bothered', and that Webb's view of his adviser was 'disingenuous'. They also refuted the claim that A4e gave him no help. One of its staff had informed Webb of the vacancy that led to his new job, the firm claimed." Let's be clear, this isn't a new situation. Many, many clients through the years have felt that it was unjust that the contractor should get paid for a job outcome that was none of their doing.
The third piece concerns fraud by a single employee. A4e was working with vulnerable youngsters on Teesside on a local council project funded by European money in 2009. But one A4e employee crudely forged signatures to make the figures look better. A4e had to withdraw from that part of the project.
No doubt this drip of revelations will go on. Not all of them will be valid. And unemployed clients will face the problem that their perceptions are easily deniable.
PS. Some readers helpfully send me lots of links to stories. Thanks, but there's no need. Google alerts are very useful.
PS. Some readers helpfully send me lots of links to stories. Thanks, but there's no need. Google alerts are very useful.
