IDS: Work Programme may need modifications to contracts and suppliers

Submitted by amielouisewilliams on Mon, 13/06/2011 - 3:28pm

In Friday’s Financial Times there was a statement from Iain Duncan Smith of potentially huge significance to providers of the Work Programme. While recognising that too many changes to either the providers delivering the programme or the terms on which they are paid, would make for bad headlines Duncan Smith indicated he is in favour of “constant renewal” to make sure it works.

 Duncan Smith said, “I can just see the headline on the front page the first time a couple of companies don’t do really well and we have to change them – it will be sudden collapse and disaster.” However, he said “because there are others who will do better. That’s not about collapse. It’s about constant renewal to make sure it works.” He also suggested modifications both to contracts and to suppliers being made as the programme developed, “we have to remain light on our feet” he said. This statement appears to accept the need for flexibility over the coming years to cope with changing labour market conditions.

Following the stiffly competitive process of the Work Programme the department is likely to play hardball with any providers who individually come back and try to renegotiate on the basis of it being harder than they had expected in their bids. We already know the Work Programme will have to get more people into work than the New Deal at its height in the boom years – an intimidating task in the current labour market.

Beyond changes in contractors, will any changes or add-ons to the contracts be required to ensure the programme performs for every Work Programme participant and in every area? For example: The government has set national performance expectations, failing to take into account different labour markets. Surely something that will have to be put right?

As we said upon launch of the Work Programme last week, at Inclusion, we will be monitoring whether the Work Programme:

  • Meets the high performance standards set by government?
  • Serves all claimant groups, particularly the most disadvantaged?
  • Works in every area, particularly those with few jobs?

Peter Deaves, acting head of policy, Inclusion

Comments

Submitted by cheekymonkey on Sun, 19/06/2011 - 3:00pm.

Following the stiffly competitive process of the Work Programme the department is likely to play hardball with any providers who individually come back and try to renegotiate on the basis of it being harder than they had expected in their bids

Be Prapared a long game of hardball

The government has set national performance expectations, failing to take into account different labour markets. Surely something that will have to be put right?
As we said upon launch of the Work Programme last week, at Inclusion, we will be monitoring whether the Work Programme:

"Meets the high performance standards set by government?
Serves all claimant groups, particularly the most disadvantaged?
Works in every area, particularly those with few jobs? "

Shouldnt this have been thought before LAUNCH???

Interesting times

Submitted by pamjeet on Mon, 20/06/2011 - 9:53am.

The most disadvantaged are the ones that will need the most help currently the specialist providers are not delivering in our area and therefore it will not succeed without the local expertise.

Submitted by malcontent on Mon, 20/06/2011 - 4:16pm.

Already an organisation in our area (best known as a prime but acting as a subcontractor to another equally well known prime in this case - I'll scratch your back etc.)is indicating they need the help of local providers as they can't do it all on their own. This is more than a little rich given that next to zero local providers are on the prime's supply chain list. When you look, and not even too closely, at the supply chain list you have to wonder on what principle it was constructed, other than tokenism. No doubt it will be the same modus operandi as Pathways - referral on, and on a no cost basis to the prime. Perhaps this is the key element in the much vaunted black box approach - get others to do the more difficult work for nothing etc. What's the betting that Merlin won't be able (or indeed want) to do anything about that one? As cheekymonkey says interesting times, with more than a little whiff of deja vu thrown in for good measure.