Online welfare debates - starter for ten?
I'm putting together some web debates, with leading thinkers and do-ers in the welfare-to-work field discussing industry issues out in the open. However, while the participants will doubtless have their own favourite topics, I'd like to make sure they also respond to the interests of a wider audience.
In other words, what issues do you want to see discussed? Are you grumpy about the prime contracting structure? Does SDEP float your boat? Have you been unable to find proper information on what works in getting someone back to work? Are you confused as to why providers only get to help claimants once JCP have already failed them for 12 months? Do you not even see the point of private/third sector providers?
Now's your chance to influence some of the first open debate ever to come out of the welfare-to-work field. Fire away!
I've got one. What are delivery staff meant to do between the wind-down of existing contracts and the start of new ones? We've massively upped the profile on our Programme Centres, but we can't take on more staff or premises when the contracts are ending in September.
What role is there for the third sector? It's not won many contracts so far, except for Shaw Trust. With Workstep being replaced by prime contracts, will there be room for charities or councils to keep delivering?
Privatising this provision has failed to deliver (except in profits for the providers). Why should it not be given back to the Jobcentres?
Three topics, particularly in the context of Self-employment provision.
Most important, how and why have Business Links become a first port of call for JCP? There may be exceptions but BLinks have traditionally been very sniffy and dismissive about the modest, life-style businesses which make up much of the Client group. Their modular course is an academic hotch-potch of topics - I attended an Awareness Event(sic) when cash flow was presented in detail for a business with a £50K loan, premises and plant! You certainly cannot see Lone Parents and IB Clients getting the one-to-one, local, lengthy and frequently disrupted attention and help that they need. Princes Trust has decided to provide their own training. Has nobody talked to JCP Clients about their experiences with BLinks and even some LEAs?
So how did this come about? Why was the expertise and experience of JCP's own suppliers not involved? What does it mean for DWP supply policies and the Code of Practice?
Secondly, the total mess that is emerging of post-code lotteries of provision for Self-employment and complete confusion as to who is offering what and for whom prompts,yet again, the question as to why these deliveries are not separated from general delivery.
Their undoubted success has been despite inappropriate procedures, poor specification, compliance regimes which damage quality - and a general lack of understanding as to the motivations, culture and nature of the self-employed. Too much advice is given to the self-employed by the employed; it certainly should not be by Civil Servants on index-linked pensions.
Thirdly, why can JCP not learn to manage Transitional periods? Yet again we have had:
a period of misinformation about intention - then very tardy consideration and decision - followed by eleventh-hour instuction to withdraw provision (with no thought for the Clients and irrespective of the initial misinformation) - and then, inevitably, ambiguous and incoherent communication of the whole thing through Districts to Jobcentres and Advisers. Result is chaos on all fronts and heaven help you if you are dependent upon referrals until any new contracts begin!
So far, the topic suggestions boil down to:
More suggestions, or more votes for any of the above, are welcome.
This may have been done to death but...
Prime Contracting.
When I started in the industry there were 16 different New Deal providers (providers, colleges and 3rd Sector) that a customer could choose from in my local city. If the customer wanted to access a career in hospitality, a specialist hospitality provider was available, if they wanted a career in construction, a dedicated construction provider was contracted directly by DWP.
The customer had choice and if one provider really didn't work for them, other provision was readily available. Choice brought about competition with providers fighting for referrals through marketing to JCP and achieving the best Job Entry Rate locally and providing customers with skills and qualifications.
Now the local Prime has 2 subcontractors, both offering the same generic service.
Few Primes have demonstrated an ability to work in partnership but have done an incredible job of paying so much 'partnership' lip service to DWP bid markers and contract managers that can easily sack off their 'partners' post bid writing.
I've heard DWP in the past say that they would be comfortable working directly with a network of 20 providers nationally. Isn't this very dangerous in light of an imploding economy and the demise of Carter Carter, Instant Muscle, CeeMac, etc?
So, is Prime contracting the way forward?
And would Prime providers actually prefer it if the contract management of smaller providers/specialist provision/3rd sector was left to DWP?
How about - who genuinely 'owns' the customer journey from being on benefits to sustainable employment and progression?
Dave, the question I think you're touching on is whether there should be 'ownership' of the journey throughout - there isn't currently, as it switches from JCP adviser to provider to (hopefully) in-work skills training provider.
Bungle, it's definitely still a live question, especially since we don't know what delivery models will actually be used in the FND black box - Serco have been very clear about theirs, and some other providers have given the strong impression that they want to deliver all of the non-specialist services in-house.
Some good suggestions coming in - more welcome!
I think Bungle asks important questions about the value and contribution from the diminishing number of small specialist Providers against the current contracting background.
Provision of public-funded programmes has always (perhaps understandably) suffered from mismatches of inflexible, mechanistic procedures and compliance rules when applied to deliveries that frequently need to be responsive,adaptive and organic. But the one-size-fits-all regimes of recent "brigaded" contracts, and now the Prime Contractor bidding formula, appear to exacerbate such problems.
It is much easier at the moment to find Prime Contractors who will discuss delivery logistics, finance and management information systems than it is to discuss Client need, programme design and appropriate delivery/development!Has anyone considered how any Client can make sense of what is emerging?
Yep Daniel that's what I'm getting at, added to your three orgs (JC+, provider and then in-work training provider) you could add any number of other services - housing, childcare, debt etc - do they all work accept and work towards a shared (owned) goal of sustainable employment and progression? not currently.
Think Bungle's points are very interesting too and reminds me of my experience in City Strategies where, in the area I was working, there were hundreds of providers, some specialist, some niche, but with no incentive to work together. Individuals with multiple barriers might need a bit of work search support over here, some literacy support over there, childcare advice somewhere else but the different organisations delivering these interventions are not incentivised to work together to deliver the holistic support for the individual. In outcome based contracts its only the provider at the end of the chain of provision i.e. the one that gets the job entry that gets paid - how do you account for (and pay for) all the interventions along the way? Short of big brother I don't know.
I can add something to Dave's comments about multiple interventions and payment. The enterprise scene has been bevilled for the last 30 years by multiple agencies each protecting their corner. Everyone has a bit of jigsaw and nobody looks at the required picture. What is now emerging from the current piece-meal contracting could be the worst scenario yet!
What has also happens is that different agencies/providers all have a (often very minor) intervention with a Client but then all record it, and claim it as a success story for themselves. The best I know of is 4 for the same start. Only one may be directly paid as an outcome, but the others use such statistics to support their continued direct funding.
To recap, the questions so far are:
I'm going to add a question of my own into the mix: 'What are the advantages and disadvantages of commercial confidentiality in DWP contracting?'
I'm not sure I'll be able to figure out who would be suitable to take on such a question, but it needs asking.
Daniel, re your re-cap...
we still think it should be asked how and why Business Links became a first reference and referral point for JCP and their Clients?
In areas we know well the arrangement is very unpopular and deemed inappropriate by NDPA's, Clients, even BLink management and Advisers! Why were JCP Providers not consulted or given the chance to extend existing and putative provision? Why was there no tendering process?
It's a valid question, Piscator, but it's not a starter for a wide-ranging debate! I don't know who made the decision or where, and I doubt anyone I get to contribute to a debate would either.
I imagine it was made because (a) it fits the wider agenda of centralising business support in BLink, and (b) it means the budget for self-employment support can be set to very, very low.
OK, Daniel, I agree. However, on a broader front I think it relates to questions raised by Sparky re the FND contracting (delays). The BLink introduction illustrates the DWP/JCP values and operation in respect of:
the disposable relationships with their "Partners"
the low priority of Client needs and interest
the obscurity of accountability for any decisions made
political expediency over appropriate and quality delivery
the lack of vision and understanding about self-employment provision
the activity of "contracting" style outweighing "training delivery" substance!
One of the less desirable outcomes of Industrial Training Boards in the 60s/70s was that levy/grant administration became more important than any actual training. In my Group there were 17 Training Managers at company levels, only one of whom would design and deliver a training session for anyone above first-line supervisor... but we always reclaimed our levy! I see parallels as the bean-counters take over W2W delivery. The BLink issue (to those who understand the problems)simply provided another example.
That clarifies the points behind what you were saying, thanks Piscator. I would argue that the fundamental issue is the power imbalance in the industry. Large manufacturers often require their subcontractors to diversify their customer base, so that no supplier has more than e.g. 12% of their turnover coming from that single large customer. This was originally to prevent subcontractors from collapsing if the manufacturer changed their supply chain, but it also keeps the relationship between customer and supplier on a more equal footing.
This post gives an example of the impact of the power imbalances in welfare-to-work, but suffice it to say that it's definitely a big and interesting topic. Added!
Update 8/6 - I'm going to corral some contributors at the welfare-to-work conference next week, with the aim of starting the first online debate in July.
I've just had another thought on this based on some work I'm doing at the moment and comments elsewhere on the site, I'm sure its probably too late now! Its basically the nature and extent to which advisors (JC+ and provider) actively work against the system but in the interest of the clients achieving sustainable employment and progression outcomes. This could be for example fudging elibility rules or ignoring the 16 hour rule. It would be intersting to see how widespread practice is, what kind of things are done and how much time and effort it takes to work around the system to achieve the aims the system sets out to achieve and therefore what rules we should really think about breaking permanently.
It's a good idea, perhaps one for adviser discussion rather than researchers and managers. I'm up to my eyeballs at the moment, and suspect that I might have to hold this back until I relaunch the site. Sorry...