They've got away with it

It must be congratulations all round at the DWP.  The Work Programme results are terrible but hardly anyone has noticed, because the raw numbers are impressively big, and a week of spinning has convinced the largely gullible media that failure is actually success.  Well done, chaps.
But these are the figures (in percentages):

Why are there no headlines this time around about "its worse than doing nothing", as indeed it is for more than half the providers?  Leaving ESA aside for the moment, the minimum contracted figures - what the providers contracted to deliver - were only a tiny amount above the dead weight figure - what the DWP assumed would happen with no intervention at all, which means no money spent.  But half the companies couldn't even deliver that.  For JSA 18-24 the wooden spoon goes to A4e in South Yorkshire, which managed just 15.5%.  Yet Mark Hoban says, "The improvement in performance over the past year has been profound and the scheme is getting better and better."
The failure with ESA is inescapable, and some publications, like the Independent, choose to headline that.  But it's been spun for a week that this is down to lack of "resources", i.e. those on ESA need more money spent on them than the programme provides.  The excuses are somewhat tortured.  An outfit calling itself Inclusion (it describes itself as a "cutting-edge thought leader" but doesn't say where its funding comes from) wants to move the goalposts and take the economy into account.  It recognises that poor performance means less income so even poorer performance.  Another think-tank, the Social Market Foundation (equally cagey about where its funding comes from) says, confusingly, "Poor performance against the DWP's minimum levels cannot be taken as evidence that providers are doing a bad job or that the scheme offers poor value for money," because we don't know how a different approach would have fared.  The ERSA, the mouthpiece for the providers, declares that the government's way of measuring performance is wrong and that the targets should take the state of the economy into account.
The Financial Times tells us that "several providers have been put on watch for having their contract terminated."  12 contracts, they say, have been put under a "performance improvement notice".  But I would be very surprised if any providers do actually lose contracts.  In another piece the FT points out that the WP is "cheap and it isn't working".  The bidding process meant that companies said they could do it "at a lower cost than was probably wise", and so the profits aren't coming in which would enable them to spend enough to be successful.  It's that negative spiral which those actually experiencing the WP know only too well.  The article concludes with the opinion that Osborne is shifting money from the WP to the jobcentres.  Yet JCP has suffered big staff cuts recently.
In real business, as opposed to outsourcing, contracts have a legal reality.  They come with penalty clauses, punishing the contractor for failure to deliver.  In this business, the companies know that the minimum contractual requirements mean little or nothing.  The likes of A4e are used to missing their targets and still making loads of money.  The government has an interest in pretending that failure is, in fact, success.  When the model is payment by results (but not really) the contractors make less money; but the casualties are not the businesses but the people who have not received the service.
It is nonsense to blame the economic situation.  If the number of unemployed people who can get back into work depends on the state of the economy (and it probably does) then what is the point of a scheme like the Work Programme?  The companies are adding little or nothing to what would be happening anyway.
However, it appears that Iain Duncan Smith has got away with it.

Work Programme figures - fail!

The figures are out.  There's the press release here, but you'll have to search for the salient points.  Those are:

• "For JSA claimants aged 18 to 24, providers averaged 31.9% into sustained work in year two of the scheme against contracted levels of 33%
• for JSA claimants aged 25 or over, providers averaged 27.3% into sustained work in year two against contracted levels of 27.5%. This is a big improvement from year one, when no provider reached their contracted level of 5.5% for either group."

So it hasn't hit its target.  

The actual stats are here.  I haven't had a chance to look at them properly yet, so examine them for yourselves.  Let's hope the media do a proper job on them.

Another kick at jobseekers

Osborne thinks he will save £350m by shaving a bit off the unemployed's entitlement to benefits.  At the moment you can't claim for the first three days out of work.  The plan now is that you won't get anything for the first seven days.  (See the summary of the measures on the BBC news site.)  Osborne says, "Those first seven days should be spent looking for work and not looking to sign on."
"Jobseekers," says the BBC, "will also be required to have a CV before claiming benefits."  It's Planet Tory again.  Many people will not be able to produce a CV without help (even if that's just help to get it on a computer and print it) so what is the point?
And "about half" of jobseekers - those judged (by whom?) to be not doing enough to find work - will have to sign on weekly.  There's no mention of extra resources in the jobcentres to cope with this.

"An incendiary idea" - or vicious and stupid?

You have to hand it to the Daily Mail; when you think it can't get any worse, it does.  Today's gem is an article by Mark Littlewood headlined "Why Osborne must publish the names of every benefits claimant - and how much we pay them; An incendiary idea to save on our £500m A DAY welfare bill".
You might already have spotted the first clue to the flaws in his argument from this headline; the use of the words "we" and "our".  He develops this, summarised in three quotations from article:

• "The amount we now spend on welfare is jaw-dropping.  The average household is taxed to the tune of £8,000 every year to finance the State's programme of handouts."
• "Taxpayers have a right to know exactly who is claiming what and how much they are getting."
• "Many people now have a third of their wages - or even more - confiscated at source by Revenue & Customs.  The biggest item this cash is then spent on is welfare.  You have a right to know who is receiving it."

It's the language of "us and them".  Personally, I don't know which category Littlewood would put me into.  I am retired and receive a state pension.  (He includes pensioners in his scheme; is my state pension a "handout"?)  I'm also a taxpayer.  But then, the majority of benefits claimants have been taxpayers, and will be again.  Most of us are both claimants and taxpayers at some points in our lives.  That's what a welfare system is for; you pay in when you can and draw out when you can't.  But the Mail has been tireless in helping successive governments to draw a line round all benefits claimants and separate them from the "hard-working families" beloved by politicians.  For someone like Littlewood, it seems to make sense.  After Oxford he worked for various organisations including the Liberal Democrats, and is now Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs, a think tank which is very secretive about its sources of funding.  He can't see himself as ever being in the position of having to claim benefits.  Like all his class, he considers himself far superior to all of us scroungers.
What about his central thesis; that there should be a publicly accessible database of what benefits everyone gets?  No problems with that, surely?  It's not naming and shaming, is it?  Two more quotations:

• "Anyone ashamed to claim money from the State shouldn't be claiming it."
• "Surely no one needs to worry about violent retribution against claimants.  The British are far too reasonable to start taking up pitchforks and burning torches and assaulting imagined benefits cheats.  We are generous and fair-minded people."  (Surely this is tongue-in-cheek!)

Leave aside the fact that there are many, many elderly people who are not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled because they are ashamed.  That's not important compared to the fun we could all have looking up the incomes of our neighbours.
It isn't going to happen, and I suspect that Littlewood and the Mail know that.  The point of the article is to further demonise anyone who is dependent on the welfare system.

The view from Planet Tory

I'm not a Conservative voter.  (In fact, I'm politically homeless at the moment.)  I don't routinely read stuff on the Conservative Home site - too depressing.  But one blog piece on there popped up in the alerts which is worth reading for the insight it gives into the Tory mindset when it comes to welfare.  It's badly written and nobody has bothered to proofread it.  But when you get past that, you see an attitude which is blind to reality.  It takes as its starting point the ERSA figures published in a pre-emptive strike this week, and the writer, someone called Harry Phibbs, swallows them whole.  The WP "has certainly made progress", he says.  Well, we'll see.  He insists that the programme is "good value for the taxpayer".  "There is an incentive to innovate, to cater to the needs of the individual," he says, oblivious of the fact that this simply hasn't happened.  But "even more important is reality [sic] that for those able to work sitting at home on benefits is ceasing to be an option".  He misses the irony here; that the WP was supposed to solve this problem.  No, "Those who don’t find jobs via the Work Programme will go through a Community Work Programme where they work 30 hours a week for 26 weeks to contribute to their community. For claimants refusing to participate, benefits will be withdrawn for three months for the first offence, six months for the second, and three years for the third."  He is conflating a number of things here, but relishes the punishment to be dished out to these idle people.  His proudest boast, however, and the one displaying the greatest ignorance, is that 150,000 people, and rising, disappeared from the unemployed figures rather than go on the WP.  If this piece is a sign of Tory ideology triumphing over reality, the comments underneath it show that there are plenty of people know the truth.
But that doesn't include Fraser Nelson.  He's the editor of the Spectator magazine and one of the BBC's favourite journalists.  On Thursday he had an article in the Telegraph in which he tried, ridiculously, to show that the Tories are fighting for the "working classes" while Labour would abandon them.  While Nelson is a better writer than Mr Phibbs, his conclusions on welfare are very similar.  The WP seems to be working now.  There's a curious statement that IDS has decided to "hire more private companies to help the long-term unemployed".  That is news to me.  Then the usual laxity with figures starts.  "There are more in employment than ever before."  Of course there are, the population is bigger than ever before.  And of the 1.2 million referred to the WP, 321,000 have found work.  That's the headline ERSA figure, as we know, which is likely to be thoroughly misleading.  Nelson has examples of WP success stories - examples provided by A4e.  An ex-railwayman from Glasgow who got nowhere with the Jobcentre but, "with proper help on job-hunting", is now fixing computers.  And another man who, after 16 years out of work, is now a street-cleaner.  Good for both of them.  Any success is to be applauded.  But what does that prove?  Nelson says that these two stories "are the work of A4e, which was vilified when it said it had caught some of its employees fiddling the figures to hit targets".  Well, there was rather more to it than that, Mr Nelson.  
This, of course, is why the government allowed, or encouraged, the ERSA to put out the headline figures a week before the true statistics.  The myths can take hold, and the media can get bored before the details are published.  And it's these myths which permeate the consciousness of the government and its supporters.

Desperately spinning

Last night's BBC news item on the Work Programme figures was a response to the officially-sanctioned spin on the latest performance data, not to be released for another week.  This morning a few of the papers have picked up the ERSA's figures.  No one seems bothered that this is all authorised by the DWP, as with the first year's figures, to extract the best publicity and deflect attention from next week's reality.
It appears that the best that can be said is that around 27% of those who have started the WP have found work.  And it's better for the under-25s, at 40%.  But what does that mean?  These are not "sustained" jobs, the outcomes for which the providers get paid.  They could be very temporary jobs, even single shifts.  So the official figures are going to be much worse.
The scope for spin is immense.  The Independent, which has a thoughtful piece, still manages to say silly things like "321,000 (27 per cent) started a job after being found one."  They are unaware, apparently, that many of those jobs will owe nothing whatever to the WP provider; no one found them the job, they found it for themselves.  But the paper still goes for the downside of the figures - three quarters of people on the WP haven't started a job.
The Mirror, naturally, emphasises the negative, that 900,000 sent on the WP haven't started any work.  They end with a quote from A4e.  "A spokeswoman for A4e, one of the biggest welfare-to-work providers, insisted that the figures showed 'a marked improvement'.  'It is gaining momentum,' the spokeswoman added."
The Financial Times tries to be even-handed, suggesting that "the scheme may be starting to deliver results".  They quote Kirsty McHugh of the ERSA maintaining that "the improving economy and the fact that providers had simply got better at helping clients had contributed to the stronger performance".
So all we really know is that around 27% of WP clients have had some sort of job start; and that the figure is higher for the under-25s but much lower for those on ESA.  (Can someone remind me of the projected dead-weight figure for Year 2, please.)  It all sounds rather feeble.  Yet Iain Duncan Smith and his team are happy for this preliminary spinning to take place.  Perhaps we will now all ignore the true figures when they are released without fanfare next week.

STOP PRESS - contradictory figures

There has just been a confusing item on the BBC news.  It said that a third of people who have been on the Work Programme (I think they said for a year or more) have started a job.  But only one in ten of those with medical problems have started a job.  And the providers say that the money just isn't there in the scheme to help them.  Cue a brief clip of Labour's Liam Byrne saying that three quarters of people on the WP haven't even started a job.  And then Andrew Sells (who was captioned as a WP adviser but appears to be a businessman - see here) saying that the WP was more successful every month.  An employee of a WP provider (I didn't catch which one) was asked why the companies took the contracts if they knew there wasn't enough money in them, but he was otherwise treated sympathetically.

Now the item has appeared appeared on the BBC news website.  It has Kirsty McHugh of the ERSA (the providers' trade association) saying that money needs to be diverted from other budgets.  But I'm no clearer about the figures.