Flexible New Deal: How well did the providers perform?
Below you will find an attachment to the performance data of contracted providers of the Flexible New Deal Contracts. The Provider, Referrals and Payment (PRaP) management information system, has provided a breakdown of the short-term job outcomes and sustained employment success rates of contracted employment providers commissioned as part of the Flexible New Deal. Providers are divided into their respective contract package areas, and measured against each other. The findings reveal that the best performing employment providers tend to be contracted in regions with traditionally lower-levels of unemployment, i.e. the counties of Surrey, Sussex, and Kent, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, Norfolk and Lincolnshire & Rutland outperformed areas like North and East Yorkshire, Humber and Tees Valley, Greater Manchester Central and Greater Manchester East and West, which contain much higher levels of out-of-work working age claimants.
However, the rankings also show the wide disparities that exist between competing providers in the same contracting area. In the Surrey, Sussex and Kent region, one provider scored the best in securing both short-term and sustained employment outcomes, topping both categories nationally. It’s competing provider was less impressive, scoring 7th and 13th in the respective measures. These inner-regional variances were found elsewhere. It would be interesting to know how significant the ‘black-box’ approach was in all this?
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| flexible_new_deal_employment_provision_performance.xls | 301.5 KB |
Comments
Is it just me or is none of this impressive?!!! Let's not worry about competing providers in a region ... if the top performing provider is only achieving 15% short outcomes and 8% sustained, what is the hope for the Work Programme?!!!
Performance has been ramped up over time and recent in month figures look better, but that is misleading. The period to date figures are worked out with the recent start figures removed to provide a balanced picture. The picture isn't pretty!
Worth remembering that FND delivery started in October 2009, when the economy wasn't in great shape.
I've been looking at these figures compared to how the New Deal for 25+ started up back in 1998-9, when the economy was much better, and the FND performance is on course to overtake the original ND25+, while the economy and vacancies/unemployment ratio remains substantially worse. Which means it hasn't yet overtaken the old New Deal over the first 12-13 months, but looks likely to.
So FND performance is what? Better than poor? Hardly a glowing reference! It's like coming second to last in Eurovision - better than previous years, but hardly Bucks Fizz is it?! FND may overtake ND25+ but that wasn't great and is way lower than Work Programme performance requirement.
And what shape is the economy in now? Mmmmm ... Providers have to achieve a baseline much higher than anything achieved before and much better than FND, in an economy that isn't in the best shape. Reinforces my point really ... what is the hope for the Work Programme?
I work in FND provision and these numbers don't stack up - at these rates I would be joining my customers as my employer wouldn't tolerate such poor performance and having seen DWP data Id like to see where this ties in. However the run rate is the key figure Lazurus if you take the absolute of course it looks rubbish but it takes 13 weeks for the first outcome. If you allow for set up and induction, starting from April onwards the numbers improve. It's the first year and the trend line is critical but there are way too many under-performers dragging down the delivery numbers who need either assistance and guidance or removing.
WP is significantly different - while its based on FND its more sustained outcome based. Simply taking these numbers and trashing WP is not comparable. Many providers wouldn't work with WP risking their capital if they couldn't see a return anyway. PAthways proved poor value and FND needed to demonstrate better returns over time but these are big decisions and time would probably see a better returns from both programmes. Hopefully the new WP ensures poor long term performers are not tolerated and this will drive the performance and VFM that's sought.
ND performance = 30ish% LEAVERS into work.
FND as per the attached.
WP judged on REFERRALS into short-term SUSTAINED work.
I predict a riot.....!
Martin64 - if you look at the spreadsheet DWP have already accounted for the 13 week issue you mention by removing the last three months worth of starts from the short jobs calculation on the cumulative front sheet, so the argument about taking 13 weeks is void. That's been accounted for in the calculation. Even if I take out the starts for the last six months it's still only 15% overall for short jobs. Are you saying those figures for jobs and starts are totally wrong? In which case shouldn't someone be arguing with DWP about the accuracy of their data?
And why should we allow for set up and induction?! Providers submit implementation plans with their bid and this is part of their score. Are you saying that providers lied about how fast they could set up and it actually took 6 months to get to a position where they can start to perform? ;)
If FND providers can't hit 40% short jobs the genuine question is how on earth are WP providers expected to hit the minimum performance levels? Don't you think it's a tall order and setting them up to fail? And Dante's point about WP being against referrals is a good one. Tough times ahead.
The FND figures will probably get revised higher - the New Deal ones did.
Crucially, FND figures are evidenced (from employers) and paid job outcomes. The New Deal figures were revised sharply higher when DWP got access to HMRC tax records - as they found that more people had got jobs than they had evidenced. There was an enormous amount of political chatter about New Deal leavers to unknown - and they found from HMRC that a lot of them started paying tax as employees.
Given the evidence requirements, I'd expect the HMRC to find more FND jobs than providers have been able to claim for.
DWP have been having trouble reconciling the HMRC job outcomes with FND job outcomes for reporting on their own job outcome targets. They've just published job outcome target figures for the first three months of 2010-11 after waiting for some months while they sorted out the reconciliation.
I'm not sure if this is getting better Paul. We now have the scenario where we're saying that people are going into work but that providers don't know about it. So they a) haven't been instrumental in moving that individual b) have poor tracking systems and c) insufficient in work support.
My question remains - how is the Work Programme going to succeed if this is the current state of affairs? When tracking and in work support are essential providers can't wait for HMRC to top up their figures. It isn't going to work like that so we really need to stop with the ostrich impressions! To achieve success requires a massive change in mindset, attitude, systems and processes, performance management, quality assurance etc. I really hope whoever wins is up to this challenge.
I think there is a danger of mixing apples and pears here and its pointless imagining that the Work Programme will simply be son of FND. The WP is being designed specifically to move people out of the benefits trap and into work. There are pressures on the client/customer to find employment and sanctions on benefits that have never truly been used before. I have been in this sector for 20+ years and in my opinion the biggest barrier to employment has always been reluctance on the part of the long term unemployed to leave the comfort of the benefits system. This will no longer be an option as pressure on direct benefits including capping on housing benefit will surely unblock this logjam. Over the years I have heard all sorts of reasons why benefits sanctions cannot be applied but we are not correctly supporting those people who become caught in this trap. I know that many people are already afraid of what will happen to them and this is precisely why the WP will be different. We need to provide a distinct type of support designed to show our clients/customers that there is a life beyond benefits that will not only pay their bills but will also greatly improve their self esteem. There are jobs out there, maybe not as many as there were but I for one feel confident that a willing person will find work if they continue to try. Our job will be to help them to become willing and keep trying until they succeed. Although statistics are important these will be the real results. Can you truly measure that?
There is a company called TEREC who provide jobs so that we can plan our way back into work. I used them and I am now back working after 3 years unemployed. I was sent to various training providers of the new deal program but they are all useless and do not want you to get a job because that would stop their money coming in as they have you every 6 months to put on work experience for 13 weeks earning them around £115.00 per week per client so this can be very lucrative for them. This organisation have more potential employment opportunities than JCP and they are not advertised to the public yet. They are worth contacting should you be looking to plan your way back into work and it is as they say it is the employment of your choice. Hope this is of some help to those looking for work.
Have just found their site again it is www.terec.org.uk and terec stand for Training and Educational Requirements for Employment Choices.