Playing with figures

The unemployed have enough to worry about without being made to feel guilty; but the Sunday Express quotes "Westminster sources" (must be true, then) that "Rising unemployment will send the welfare benefits bill rocketing by £7.5billion a year." And "It means every household in Britain faces a bill equivalent to £3,425 a year to pay for the growing army of the unemployed." (Does that include unemployed households?)

The problem with all this throwing about of figures is that nobody is sure what's included. "Recent figures from the Commons library show unemployment is already costing around £61billion a year. That sum includes the total for jobless benefits – including jobseekers’ allowance and incapacity benefits – and lost tax revenue resulting from reduced earnings and spending." Does it include the huge cost of the various programmes, such as New Deal, aimed at getting the unemployed back to work? I don't know. But as the article points out, the government has "promised that extra measures to offer training and advice will be in place to deal with any sharp rise." Presumably that means FND and the support contracts. So not everybody is losing money. And as Dave Osler points out on the Liberal Conspiracy blog, "Total bonuses to those in financial services reached £7.6bn in the five-month period between December 2008 and April 2009, which is regarded as the peak season. But in back of an envelope terms, you can double that figure for the full year, and you come to a total considerably higher than the annual £11 billion cost of jobseekers' allowance." In fact you can draw any conclusion you want to. The Benefit Busters programme drew an unexpected response from the Adam Smith Institute, that cheerleader for capitalism. It concluded that "Those in minimum wage jobs who can be rewarded with more money on benefits need to have their allowance levels raised so they are removed from paying tax."

The debate is welcome; but let's have the real figures, and let's not lose sight of the misery of unemployment.

Reflections

The first Benefit Busters programme has certainly created a lot of interest in A4e. But as we wait for the second episode (which will surely be even more controversial), can we assess what the producers set out to achieve; what they actually achieved; and what it means for A4e?

The aim was to simplify a far from simple subject, with a handful of lone parents and a central character that you couldn't ignore. We were told that the bill for benefits comes to more than the take from income tax; and one of the women, Yvette, gives the opinion which has been so widely quoted - that she gets too much on benefits. The women were told at the start that if they didn't turn up they would be disciplined; in fact, A4e could only refer them back to the Jobcentre after a specified period of absence. They were subjected to what was called, wrongly, "tough love" and told that, "There isn't one of you in this room that can't go out and get a job tomorrow and that is a fact." That's rubbish, but a great many viewers would believe it. But as if to demonstrate this, the five remaining women got work trials with Poundland and four of them stayed, on minimum wage. Emma Harrison was allowed to deliver the mantras "improving people's lives" and "it's a together thing" more than once and showed her willingness to descend to the front line from her well-earned mansion.

But reactions show that many viewers saw beyond this. The women were not, with one exception, stereotypical single mums, because there's no such thing. Only Donna could rouse the ire of Middle England, with her massive debts; and yet it was Donna who first exposed the flaws in Ms Taylor's 's methods when she turned down a job that would have left her stranded in the early hours of the morning. The other women succumbed to the browbeating, feeling guilty and miserable, before being allowed to regain some self-respect. Many who saw the programme were concerned about the techniques used by Ms Taylor, her qualifications, and the realism of what we saw. It is highly unlikely that one person would have spent 6 weeks exclusively with a group of 5 clients. We were never told the overall outcome percentages. It has, however, raised awareness of the difficulty of living on minimum wage.

Was it good PR for A4e? It certainly increased brand recognition, but that is not always a good thing. I suspect that Emma Harrison endeared herself to no one. We'll have to wait for next week for a final verdict, But I think it's a pity that MPs are on their hols, or we could have expected some reaction from them.

Reviews of the programme

We saw how some of the newspapers and blogs publicised Benefit Busters before episode 1 was screened. Two more previews show what some of the press wanted us to think. The Mirror was sure that we'd all be furious at the life-styles of the lone parents (or single mums as they prefer to call them) and throw in the sentence "Controversially, it’s paying private firms like A4E, one of the largest welfare-reform companies in the world" which is being paid to get them back into work. The Doncaster Free Press makes the point that the programme was made a year ago and three of the women are still in work. We also learn what happened to Jacqueline - she's gone into care work.

After the programme went out, the Independent's review focussed on Hayley's personality and methods.

There's a comment after this article that I hope I will be forgiven for quoting in full: "I worked for A4E as a tutor for 5 years and its not at all how they portrayed it last night and my ex-colleagues agreed with me via text last night. Last night was totally set up and a total observers paradox. That didnt happen at all in every day life at A4E at all, they dont care for the 'clients' just for the payments the jobcentre paid them for each one that attended the programmes and got work as a result. They should look at the figures of people that are still in employment having attending an A4E training course and interview some 'real' clients about how they are treated at A4E. The Government needs to rethink how much money they plough into these private companies as its not the answer to getting people off benefits and into sustainable employment."

The Dublin Herald didn't like Hayley or her methods, or the slant of the programme.

The TV blog on the Orange site is not exactly thoughtful, but has attracted a lot of comments.

The Primetime blog manages to be insulting to everybody involved and gets details wrong.

Benefit Busters, episode 1

Well, what did you think?

There were figures for the costs of welfare benefits, but no figures for outcomes from this course or the cost of it. What proportion of lone parents on this course get permanent jobs?

Why did no one get feedback from the two women who dropped out after week one?

What happened to Jacqueline? She was the 36-year-old graduate with teaching experience. What specialist advice was available to her? Did she end up at Poundland?

Why was Hayley so thrilled to be travelling from Doncaster to Derbyshire for a cup of tea and a few words with Emma?

The techniques used by Hayley - breaking them down in order to build them up again, for instance - made me wonder what her qualifications are.

I totally agreed with the parting shot that when someone can't afford to take a job there's something wrong with the system; but where was the emphasis on the minimum wage involved in these jobs?

Judging from the trailer for next week, it could cause trouble in Hull.

Benefit Busters - a preview

Tom Walker of the Socialist Worker has seen the first programme and previewed it on their website. Although he calls it an "uncritical documentary", his description suggests that the producers may be hinting at criticism at the end.

"As the show ends, Taylor is invited to tea at the 20-bedroom, £5 million mansion owned by A4e chair Emma Harrison. Taylor is asked if she thinks it is right that Harrison is making £100 a week out of each unemployed person on the course. 'At the end of the day,' she replies, 'a successful businessperson finds a market and exploits it.'" Quite.

And now America - tomorrow the world

The Yorkshire Post today carries an uncritical piece about A4e's proposed expansion into the US. "Training specialist looking to US" reports that the company is talking to the Obama regime - at their invitation, apparently, but note the name-dropping - "about providing training for the long-term unemployed in the US. Ms Harrison said she hoped to have a "substantial" presence in the US within two years." The rest of the story simply gives Emma Harrison's version of A4e, even quoting her statement, "Our number one priority is to improve people's lives." And she says, "Globally, the plan is just starting. In Poland we exceeded all targets. In Germany we are working with whole families. That's the next step for the UK. We must get three delegations into our London office from foreign countries a month." The DWP fraud investigation is faced and dismissed by the article, and Emma's line is now that A4e were the victims of a fraud by a single employee.

Of course, the Yorkshire Post is reporting on a Yorkshire company but, as with other newspapers, they don't bother to look behind the A4e version to such vital issues as performance (way, way below target) and client experience. This article seems to be part of a PR offensive linked to the Benefit Busters programme (don't forget, this Thursday), and it's to be hoped that the Observer won't be the only paper to look below the surface.

Leicester CLAC - the report and a correction

I posted recently about the annual report on the Leicester CLAC being advertised on A4e's website, but leading only to a PR company which wanted to spin it. I can now report that the document is available to download from A4e's site - presumably spin time is over.

I have to withdraw my comments about how 700 clients in a year was hardly significant; that must have been a typo in their news feed. Add a nought - the number of clients is 7,000, which makes more sense. The report is, as you'd expect, a professional document complete with tables and graphs. (By far the largest category of problem on which people sought advice was debt.) The style, however, is too redolent of A4e-speak.