Burying bad news

The birth of the Windsor baby, and the fact that MPs and their journalist mates are all on holiday, meant that a significant news story was effectively buried.  The papers which did pick it up are a bit confused, and no wonder.  Try the Guardian.  "Atos reports found 'unacceptably poor'".  It's the quality of the written reports which the Atos people make which has not come up to scratch, not, the DWP insists, the validity of the verdicts.  Even so, they are bringing in "additional providers" from next year to work alongside Atos in order to speed things up.  It is really not clear what deficiencies the DWP is admitting to.  The Mirror says, "Atos rapped over wrongly passing fit for work up to 41% of claimants", and that the DWP was "told to act because of deep concerns about Atos at No 10".  That doesn't seem quite true, but who knows?  And what penalty has Atos actually paid?
Another little-reported failure is that of the Youth Contract, the wage incentive scheme which was supposed to help 160,000 young people into work over three years.  In its first year it helped just 4,700.  The Guardian and the Financial Times both analyse the figures.  But unless you read these papers you won't have heard any of this.  Is the timing accidental?

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.

Youth Contract, income and the voluntary sector

The newly announced "youth contract" promises more profit opportunities for A4e and the other providers. Money is going into wage subsidies but it's all being done through the Work Programme and Grayling has said that providers will only be paid for long-term jobs, as usual. And it's threats as usual too. Don't take a placement or a job and you lose your benefit.

The Learning and Performance Insitute has compiled a list of the "top 50" UK training organisations. This is top only in the sense of fiscal success i.e. revenue. A4e comes second with revenue of £191m last year, only £4m behind Babcock International. Note that this is revenue, not profit, and presumably includes A4e's international business as well as its UK contracts. But it's a lot of money.

The complaints about the relationship of the voluntary organisations to the the private providers in the WP rumble on. But Kevin Curley, who has been the top professional in the voluntary sector (there are a lot of well-paid people running it) has weighed in. "He cited the Work Programme as a prime example (of strange relationships) , asking: 'Is this what an independent local voluntary sector should be doing in any case – helping G4S and A4e to maximise their profits from welfare-to-work schemes? Do we really want our relationship with the state brokered by the private sector?' "