Nothing works

Remember the Work Programme?  Of course you do.  But, like so much of what this government has done, the WP has been forgotten by most of the media; and its successor, "Help to Work", is just being ignored.

But the businesses contracted to deliver the WP have to plough on until 2016.  And A4e has resumed its practice of inviting MPs into their local offices to admire what they're doing.  Rob Wilson, Tory MP for Reading East, said, “I was very pleased to hear that A4e has seen a reduction in client numbers because of the success of the Work Programme getting people back into work and off benefits.  Clients are supported by A4e staff after starting work to help ensure they are able to manage in their job.  This extra support is essential to keep people in the new job.”  John Bercow, Tory MP for Buckingham (and Speaker of the Commons) was equally impressed by A4e's work in Milton Keynes.  Another cheer-leader is Dan Finn, Professor of Social Inclusion at Portsmouth University.  He's written a piece on Serco's own website asking, "Is it working?" and concluding that it is, with a few caveats.  And yet ....  Huge amounts of money have been spent on this, with very low targets which are not being met.  It was meant to solve unemployment and certainly hasn't.

So IDS came up with "Help to Work".  It was supposed, after a delay, to start yesterday, but there's another delay.  Could that be because of the difficulties in finding placements for all those sentenced to workfare?  There's a good piece on the Ekklesia website, and another on ThirdSector's site.  A growing number of voluntary organisations and local councils have signed up to a boycott of the scheme.  If they can't find placements with charities and councils the firms with the contracts will have to offer this free labour to private companies.  But, ostrich-like, "A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: 'Referrals to the placements have begun and the placements will begin shortly. There has been no delay.  Charities are under no obligation to be in the scheme, but those who are recognise the benefits of it.'"

Despite the fact that everything he has touched has turned to dross, Iain Duncan Smith believes it's all wonderful.  If you can stomach it, read his speech on welfare reform in Berlin.  And if we needed confirmation that IDS has a headlock on the BBC, it comes in the Express.  Talking about the Tories' promise of an EU referendum, "Iain Duncan Smith lashed out at the BBC for failing to give enough prominence to Mr Cameron’s promise of an in-out vote in 2017.  The Work and Pensions Secretary said 'most people' do not even know about the pledge.  A BBC spokeswoman said: 'We are satisfied that we have covered the EU referendum promise.'"

Talking tough

Mark Hoban, the employment minister, is reported in the Telegraph as saying that the unemployed should "roll up their sleeves and find jobs".  It's because the new sanctions rules start tomorrow.  13 weeks, then 26 weeks then off altogether for 3 years, if you don't comply with the rules.  The article says that, "Those stripped of benefits would have to apply for special 'hardship payments' and if successful are paid 60% of the amount they were getting in benefits.
There's huge public support for this, of course, and people will be confirmed in their opinion by the very dodgy figures from the DWP.  Last year, "Jobcentre advisers took action against 495,000 claimants for not doing enough to find work."  Presumably that includes the people sanctioned not by the Jobcentre but at the behest of the WP providers.  Naturally, no one mentions the fact that a good number of those were completely unjustified.  We're told that the figure includes 72,000 "who had refused an offer of employment".  Really?  I very much doubt that it was as simple as that.
The DWP should ensure that there is a complete paper trail for every "sanction doubt" as it's called.  There should be a dated copy of every appointment letter sent out, and a log of all letters posted.  There should be a separate system for such "sanction doubts" when the provider or JC has accepted the explanation of the client.  At present far too much power is in the hands of people who are not equipped to wield it.
Hoban is determined to talk tough.  "I make no apology for this," he says.  For people who refuse to play be the rules it will be "a rude awakening".  Along with the bedroom tax, I assume.

More figures - but not the right ones

The latest unemployment figures are out, showing the number of unemployed down, the number in work up.  Good.  Except that they mask realities which are not quite so rosy.
Far too many of those extra jobs are part-time, and taken by people who want full-time work.  Then there's the fact that the population of the country is higher than ever, which has an effect on the percentages, and lots of people who would have retired haven't been able to.  And the figures are an average; in many parts of the country unemployment has risen again.  The Express reports on a study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which shows that 66 people "chase every retail job".
But perhaps the most worrying fact is that long-term unemployment isn't going down.  While David Cameron threw in a plug for the wonderful Work Programme at PMQs today, it's this group which the WP was supposed to help.  And that, perhaps, explains why we still have no results for the first year of the WP.  It's those long-term unemployed who were going to provide the big bucks for the providers.

Margaret Hodge interview

I missed it, but Margaret Hodge was on The Daily Politics today talking about the PAC report.  You can watch it here.  She had to battle against poor interviewing, but she made her points.  There is "still a cloud hanging over A4e".  Providers are still claiming money for outcomes they had nothing to do with, jobs or self-employment already set up before referral.  The interviewer, Carole Walker, kept trying to push the line that this was in Labour's time, but Hodge insisted it was under the current contracts.  And, she said, "You don't pay a company if they have not done the work."
She was also exercised about the fact that no figures have been released.  How can we know how well A4e or anyone else is doing if, 15 months in, there is still a refusal by the DWP to tell us the stats?

That's the crux of it at the moment.  The documents leaked to Channel 4 News showed that, with the first year of the WP not yet completed, A4e's outcome figures were dire.  That first year is well and truly over now, but figures promised in the "Autumn" are still not out, and rumour has it that they won't be released until the end of November (which is winter on my calendar).  What are they hiding?

Morale at an all-time low

It may be a holiday weekend, but for many A4e staff it's a gloomy one.  Some left work on Friday in the knowledge that the bonuses they expected to be paid this month have been cancelled.  Managers have been receiving up to 20% of their pay as financial performance bonuses for the previous year.  Last year's would have included 6 months of dual WP / FND work, and since FND was described by one employee as a "cash cow", the cancellation of the bonuses represents a significant loss.  They've also been told that anyone earning £26k pa or more will not be getting a pay increase.  Those earning less than £26k will get a 1% rise.  This comes on top of the news that Emma Harrison took £8.6 million out of the company last year.
Many staff report that they are unhappy for other reasons.  They were supposed to be dealing with caseloads of no more than 80, but some have upwards of 200 clients, so the amount of "tailored support" they can give is limited.  Tensions are high in some offices.  The system of referring people for "sanctions" (taking away their income) results in mistakes, and staff are having to confront some very angry clients.  
Staff turnover has always been high in A4e, and some say that it is only limited now by the lack of opportunity to move elsewhere.  But morale is reported to be at an all-time low.
(Don't bother posting comments attacking staff - they won't be published.)


This comes at a time when, as the Telegraph reports, the DWP has told Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, that it won't be publishing details of the 115 cases of potential fraud which don't involve A4e.  The "public interest" argument isn't strong enough, they say.

More advice for government

We know that A4e has never been shy of giving advice to government.  Submissions regularly pop up in response to the enquiries conducted by committees.  The latest is in relation to the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into "Youth Unemployment and the Government’s Youth Contract".

They have every right to make such a submission, of course.  They stress their vast experience in this area and say that they are "currently helping over 20,000 individuals under the age of 25 enter employment."  And it's not just in employment.  "We partner with the public, private and voluntary sectors to develop innovative and efficient solutions to the most complex social problems; from entrenched, inter-generational worklessness to poor health in deprived communities. This work brings us into contact with people across the UK who we help to navigate public services, and ensure that they get the support and help they need to help themselves.  We therefore have a unique perspective on the ways in which services are delivered."

Yes, okay, we'll skip the obvious objections.  Have they got anything worthwhile to say on the subject of the "Youth Contract"?  Well, they point out that it's not clear how the delivery of the programme is supposed to work and who is responsible for it. And that, by the way, is a question that was raised when this scheme was announced.  If young people are guaranteed placements or subsidised jobs, why should WP providers get outcome payments?  But A4e is clear that it should be WP providers who do it and profit from it under payment by results.  And the ERSS framework, that list of approved prime contractors, should be flexible and allow new entrants.  They point to the need for better skills training for young people and cite A4e's Vox centres as the way to do it.
One interesting point in their submission is the risk of "deadweight costs"; that the wage subsidy will go to employers who would have employed these young people anyway.
What we see in this submission, as in others they have made to government, is a mixture of sensible observations and concern to expand their own business.  If other contractors have made similar submissions, they will have done the same.  What should concern us is not this very obvious lobbying, but the less obvious kind going on behind the scenes.

Dispatches and redundancy

I didn't have the chance to watch the Channel 4 Dispatches programme tonight, but I will when it's on 4OD. The comments on the channel's website suggest that it got to the heart of the matter. If anyone saw it, tell us what you thought.

A4e, like other providers, has been sending out redundancy notices. Although the FND contracts have been extended until the WP starts, Pathways hasn't (and no wonder, given its abysmal results). One can feel genuinely sorry for those who have lost their jobs. But it's an inevitable aspect of privatisation. People are employed only for the length of the contracts. It's one of the reasons why outsourcing is cheaper.