Is the Work Programme working for the Voluntary Sector
Patrick Butler writes in the Guardian that the Work Programme is not working for young people. He then goes on to review an evaluation of New Deal of the Mind, which found outcomes for 70% of customers. His article is a critique of the Prime/subcontractor relationship, particularly with regard to the voluntary sector's involvement, or lack of it, as he sees it. Is this a fair criticism of the Work Programme? Was it designed to support voluntary sector provision? Are the primes constrained in supporting provision such as NDotM because of the significant upfront costs and the downstream payments of the Work Programme? Our experience at Shaw Trust as a Work Programme subcontractor for Serco has been a very positive one and certainly we would like more Work Programme contracts. What about others ...?
Patrick's article http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-/2011/nov/07/work-pr...?
Chris Melvin is interim CEO at Shaw Trust and CEO of PublicCo.
I suppose the Voluntary sector struggle being involved with Job seekers who are doing things that are not voluntary.
@Ally
That's very good ... And to be fair it has a ring of truth about it, as we have had two voluntary organisations cease their involvement here due to concerns of that nature.
Are the voluntary sector concerned that they may become a dumping ground for Prime/Subcontractors. Many Voluntary organisations have the expertise and the experience of working with long term unemployed and youth customers, providing support and work experience opportunities, which can lead to employment. Voluntary organisations require funding to do this, but it seems that they are being used, but not given any funding from the Work Programme that is clearly available. Are the Voluntary Sector becoming wise to the situation and refusing to help those customers that are on the Work Programme and for which the Prime/ Subcontractor is being paid for.
I think his criticism is partly brought about because of the government response when it became clear that the voluntary sector were going to lose out under the Work Programme due to the ERSS Framework and the nature of the new contracts. The rhetoric was that the voluntary sector would be a major part of it. Now reality is hitting home there is clearly going to be criticism. It isn't just WP, it's the cuts in funding generally that are affecting many organisations. It isn't the WP's responsibility to support the voluntary sector but there are many organisations who could offer a great service but who can't afford to do so. It's part of the problem but not all of it.
Primes being constrained because of upfront costs is one of the saddest jokes of the WP. Primes were given the role of primes because they were allegedly in a position to absorb the upfront costs and the associated risks. But we all knew that would never be the case as they are generally commercial organisations. No prime should be constrained due to upfront costs. If they are then the system has failed in some way.
The Work Programme is a prime example of expediancy over effectiveness! Such a shame to see committed voluntary sector providers being shafted in this way by the private sector! Complicit in this unhappy triumvirate is the public sector [DWP] hoping beyond hope that in the end it "really won't be their fault!"
@ Lazarus you said:
"It isn't the WP's responsibility to support the voluntary sector"
Is it the Work Programme responsibility to provide support, bloated wages and profits for shareholders in the Private Sector?
Stewart Goldring (and others)
The issue isn't whether third sector providers are committed, but whether they are effective at helping their beneficiaries towards work.
@Ally - to make profits for shareholders primes have to exceed their job targets, so in a roundabout way, yes, WP is meant to provide profits for shareholders, as that means it's been successful. And that's the model that DWP have contracted under - greater success equals greater profits. Any private business will be trying to achieve this with investments that offer the best value for money or the least up front cost. If you want to argue about whether W2W should be contracted out rather than state run, that's an entirely different argument. But if you have the private sector involved you have to accept they are there to make a profit first and foremost.
@ Lazarus
I actually agree with you - though I disagree with the involvement of the private sector.
You also have to accept that involuntary participants in the WP will resent being treated as bonus fodder for providers.
Totally agree. I really think that if the public sector could be managed properly then services such as welfare to work should remain in the public sector, which theoretically just needs to cover operational costs. It really shouldn't be possible for a private sector organisation to run the service cheaper and make multi million pound profits to boot. But that's sadly the world we live in - I'd love for it to be different, for good voluntary organisations to be properly funded to deliver the super service that many do; for every unemployed person to get some top notch advice and guidance from JCP and Next Step; for jobseekers to be given the help they actually need to get back into work that gives them a secure future. Unfortunately that isn't what we have.
I totally understand why many participants resent being sent to providers. The industry is blighted by the shoddy service of those providers who process participants like a factory, conduct extensive box ticking exercises, and don't invest in support that will make a difference. The better providers face an uphill struggle to overcome preconceived ideas and attitudes of participants who just hear the horror stories of 40 people sat in a room built for 20 doing nothing, tower building games for grown men, 30 job applications demanded a week, no skills training on offer, standardised CVs produced by people who have no idea about recruitment etc. Many a time when I'm visiting a training provider I'll ask, "Would I really want to come here?" I look around at the state of many centres, how participants are treated, and what is actually on offer to them, and too often the answer is, "Not even if hell froze over". And that goes for many of the "okay" providers. And whether a participant wants to work or not is no excuse for delivering a poor quality service.
Until every provider delivers a top notch service that truly meets the needs of every individual then we'll never overcome the issues about private sector involvement in the sector. That is actually what the Work Programme is meant to do, but it doesn't now and it never will.
Happy 2012!
@Lazarus
Well said! I agree with most, if not all, of your last post. If there is a point of divergence then it would appear to be that you seem willing to accept the status quo:
. Though to be fair you have voiced many criticisms that your fellow professionals seem unable to recognise as valid (or even acknowledge exist).
The WP is (at least potentially) a huge recipient of public money - and it is being used to transfer vast amounts of public money into a realtively few private individuals' pockets (and purses).
I am convinced that, were the same level of resource be used to fund suppport provided by the public sector, the results would be at least as good and probably better. Certainly there would be less room for criticism and resentment of the profiteering that the WP represents.
In my humble opinion, the involvement of the private sector in welfare to work is an absolute necessity. The public sector (i.e. Job Centre Plus) have the opportunity and funding to assist the unemployed masses to get back to work, but still there are millions of people on long term unemployment benefits. Why?? Because the people who work in the public sector (JCP) seem more concerned with their right to flexible working arrangements, pensions well above those of the private sector and are safe in the knowledge that their jobs are not nearly as target driven as their private sector counterparts. Of course, when JCP have failed to assist people into work, they can then off-load them to a private provider after a set time period (i.e. 12 months of claiming JSA) and let them worry about getting them back to work.
Oh, and as for the matter of resources, it's interesting to note that the combined financial value of the entire national Work Programme contracts (5 years worth) adds up to far far less than it costs to run Job Centre Plus for just 1 year!
@voice of reason
I think you are making a false comparison when you say
The whole WP cost is an additional cost to that of the DWP/Jobcentre+. A substantial cost that does nothing to increase the number of vacancies and (one suspects) little to reduce the number of the unemployed (apart from those finding work in the W2W industry). I will leave the philosphical arguments about private v public sector employment to one side for now. Suffice it to say that some activities lend themselves to the profit motive of the private sector - others do not. I believe that the profit motive sits ill with a service that is supposed to be empathetic. Evidence? Well hard to come by but have a look at the "parking and creaming" that went on (and probably still does). A profit/target driven business culture will lead to people "picking the low hanging fruit" purely because they want to keep their jobs and maximise their income. The devil take the hindmost.