IMPORTANT NEWSFLASH - The Work Programme
A Ministerial Statement regarding the future of welfare to work contracting has been released today. All affected providers are being written to and are promised one to one discussions to discuss what this means for them.
Key information is that:
- The Work Programme will be introduced nationally by Summer 2011
- The vehicle for bringing the Work Programme into being and handling all work-focussed services (and related commissioning) will be a new framework of preferred providers.
- This framework, “The Work Programme Framework”, will be used not only for the Work Programme but for “other future Welfare to Work requirements” and will be accessible by other public service commissioners who may wish to commission work-focussed services.
- Selection on to the framework will be based on a provider’s ability and capacity to deliver job focussed services over the lifetime of the framework
- The framework competition will commence at the end of June 2010, identifying framework providers by November and placing contracts in the first half of 2011.
- There will be an event in July for providers interested in the framework
- All current competitions are superseded. There will be no fND2, Invest to Save, Personalised Employment Programme or Community Task Force
- fND1 providers are being given immediate twelve months notice of the end of fND1 contracts
- The intention is to achieve maximum continuity of service and to minimise disruption
- All fND1 providers are encouraged to bid in to the framework for a managed move on to the Work Programme
- There is no decision yet on Work Choice but the statement gives a commitment to “supporting severely disabled people”
- No decision has yet been made about how Work for your Benefit will fit within the Work Programme
- Current New Deal, Pathways and EZ contracts will be extended in fND2 areas then will roll in to the Work Programme.
The Ministerial statement closes by signalling the significant new opportunities for contractors from the private and voluntary sector within the Work Programme to deliver “truly flexible and personalised support”, the importance of building of appropriate delivery partnerships and the crucial role of the voluntary sector in tackling worklessness.
Further details about the design and implementation will follow.
Martin Dunford (Chair of the Association of Learning Providers and CE of Skills Training UK – an fND1 prime provider) gave the following comment:
“The new Government has not said or done anything that it did not say in Opposition and since it came to power. The possible surprise to some will be the termination of fND1 contracts but if one considers that there may be changes in geographical areas one can understand why they would want to open up a competition on a new geographical basis. They have made it clear they value the high performing parts of the infrastructure, and that is good. However, if too many variables are changed at the same time and we get a different result from the experiment it will be unclear what variant effected the change: longer periods of sustained employment; a new financial structure or different geographies - to name a few.
In terms of investment decisions, people, if they don’t already, will regard all 5 year or longer contracts as really only as long as the termination clause in the contracts, as with 12 months termination within fND1 contracts. It is also worth noting that by the time the Work Programme starts there will only be a maximum three and a half years left of the Government’s term to run.
There are many good things about the Work Programme and that, combined with a high regard by the Government for the industry infrastructure, one hopes bodes well for the future.”
Rob Murdoch, Chair of the Employment Related Services Association (ERSA) welcomed the further clarity given today by the Government on how existing welfare to work schemes will be replaced by the single Work Programme saying:
“This is a significant step, and will help employment services providers to help many more thousands of long term unemployed people get off benefits and into work. Introducing the Work Programme next year allows adequate time to put the new scheme in place and manage the transition. ERSA will continue to engage positively with Government to ensure that this transition is managed smoothly and to achieve the greatest possible value from a single scheme.
We encourage the Government to create maximum flexibility, by allowing other Whitehall departments and local authorities to pool their budgets with DWP spending and deliver services through the single Work Programme.
In honouring the 12 month notice period that ERSA negotiated as part of Flexible New Deal, we welcome the Government’s recognition that, should contracts be terminated, a full year’s notice is necessary to ensure a smooth transition and stability within the sector, in the best interests of jobseekers and long term value to the taxpayer.”
Comments
What about JCSC?
Given the intention to have a single programme, I'd say the writing's on the wall - the question is when, rather than if...
Well some do refer to it as FND Support. Smaller providers will have to be carefull that the industry giants do not snuff them out like a unwanted candle.
Do they really thin that the VS Sector will do this for nothing?
The feeling I get is that they want more for less, so I presume that they want the VS, or even local communities to do it for nothing, if possible. This all fits in with their 'big society'. I presume the emergency budget will reveal more on the financial side. The so called 'experts' who are in charge at the DWP, have not got a very good track record when it comes to implementation: Freud the 'expert' is know for his policy failures.
'Further details about the design and implementation will follow'. They've been in opposition for about 13 years and they are still not clear about implementation!
I'm no Tory but in their defence, implementation is the preserve of the civil service and you would not expect an incoming government to be entirely clear about the details of an implementation process. It is this fact that has caused some of the changes from what the Tories and Freud had intimated about the future of FND1 etc.
I would also cast doubt on whether the voluntary sector will be prioritised. Everything Grayling and others have said points to the Work Programme contracts going to the industry's more successful, large providers. Community/VS simply won't have the capacity to deliver contracts of these size (with some notable exceptions). It will be vital for large primes to include them in supply chains, but I suspect that the Tory agenda is one of ensuring capacity and performance - both of which are most consistently offered by larger primes.
Does this mean the end to the JCP - Support Centres? (Of which some only got off the ground before the end of last year!) - Or do you think they will some how be incorporated into the Work programme? - Because if not, who on earth is going to supply this much needed function? - JCP - They do not have the capacity and i don t see how everyone on day one can be referred over to the Work Programme, - The numbers are far, far too big.
Crumbs, I wasn't expecting this.
If I was a Prime that has secured multiple FND 1 contracts, i'd be absolutely fuming.
Then again, if I was a Prime or a provider who didn't have a great FND (of which there are many), i'd be ecstatic.
If I was a bid writer who had been working on FND 2, CTF, PEP, etc, I'd be looking for the nearest tall building.
Most of us are probably experiencing a continuation of the "oh bugger.... I think" feeling.
Until DWP announce exactly how the Framework will work and how funding will get to market, it's difficult to say which sort of organisations are going to prosper or suffer.
Dangerboy, if the government were sure that large Primes "ensured capacity and performance", why would they have taken these steps to totally destabilise the existing Prime Provider network?
The companies that are most likely to prosper are those who can prove that they effectively achieve sustained job outcomes. I don't think the coalition is bothered if you're large or small, community or private, if you can achieve a high job entry rate with significantly disadvantaged customers through outcome-based payments, you should be fine.... ish.
It will be interesting to see how the primes cope financially with the DEL/AME switch, will this force consolidation in the sector? The government seem to want the large primes to work together, maybe this is better from a financial perspective, as there will be huge upfront fees to pay before payment is received from the DWP. Given that unemployment will rise, due to deficit reduction measures, it seems that the new framework will create capacity and financial problems in the W2W sector.
OMG I might have to close down my worklessness department, as we have lost FJF n CTF
over £500K worth contracts on principles, well what can we do?
It appears that my forecast that this would be the beginning of the end for many in the W2W sector was right. Major cuts to the DWP's budget will certainly make this sector a precarious one to work in (along with many others) and they will be seeking value for money. To put it bluntly, the knock on effect is that many providers and programmes will either merge or cease to exist and more good people will unfortunately be unemployed. What we need to campaign for is some form of job creation (and not just preparation) scheme, as what good is preparing people for work when there aren't many sustainable jobs? If we continue along the same path as present, we are headed for a period of mass unemployment - just like in the 1980's. Good times don't last forever. The good news is that these things come and go in cycles. Brown's silly statement that "there will be no more boom and bust" was nonsense.
The last government were experts at job creation, that's partly why the UK has a massive debt problem.
I think you'll find that extensive borrowing and overproduction has much to do with the current economic horror show that we're living through. People need sustainable jobs, not just for the good of the economy, but also to give people a purpose in life. What's the alternative? Massive investment in jobsearch programmes when there are too few opportunities and high unemployment? I'm not too optimistic about that.
I would be keen to hear from others about their ideas and proposals to reduce unemployment. So, if you were PM/Chancellor, what would you do?
Resigning isn't an option!
For whom the bell tolls ?
It tolls for thee !
Goodbye - and good riddance - to all those contractors who have offended and insulted those without jobs who have suffered at their hands and who, in addition, fleeced the taxpayer for so long...the gravy train has finally hit the buffers :-)
Very poetically put Fraudwatcher! ;-) But we need some ideas too. How would you tackle unemployment?
it seems to me that the only thing the Government want to do is save money, simple stop w2w as it is now, make w2w Voluntary the people that want work will go to the providers Voluntary.
And those that don't "want" to work can sit back & claim benefits, ensuring that taxpayers finance their lives & indoctrinating a zero-work ethic into their children, and their children's children, etc. GENIUS!
I agree with Highpark. There's method in his madness. There never will be enough jobs full-time jobs to go round.
For those agree with bigbaldbloke's comment. Would you be in favour of job sharing, work for six months- then six months on the dole? At least that way everyone who wants to work will at least be able to for part of the year. It would be much fairer system than the one we have now.
A few years ago, I heard reports of forming a UK-style 'Civilian Conservation Corps' for unemployed young people to undertake environmental work, but it seemed it was a non-starter, or perhaps people saw it as a form of community service. I think we could borrow a few elements from the original American New Deal from the 1930's. It created jobs for people in a wide variety of sectors to help revitalise the country's infrastructure. Of course, it cost a mint to implement and historians still debate whether it worked, but what have we got to lose? If anyone wants to judge for themselves about the original New Deal, here's a Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal
"it seems to me that the only thing the Government want to do is save money, simple stop w2w as it is now, make w2w Voluntary the people that want work will go to the providers Voluntary" - that is quite unbelievably implausible. A TORY government is going to just let people free-ride on their benefits?? They are not going to look to cut welfare expenditure at a time when the national debt is so high??? Also, if you look at what they are actually saying about the Work Programme, the opposite is true.
"Would you be in favour of job sharing, work for six months- then six months on the dole? At least that way everyone who wants to work will at least be able to for part of the year. It would be much fairer system than the one we have now". Also a terrible idea, which would pretty much destroy our economic system. I'm not letting someone else have my job for six months while I live off the dole!
I think job sharing is an excellent idea! Think of the quality time you would have and things that you could do which would be impossible to do if you were working. I don't live to work, I work to live. A six month break from work would allow people to do lots of things. Think about it - this is an excellent idea! You deserve an award (maybe an OBE) fightworkfare, though I don't see this happening in the near future.
on a personal level - you'd have no money for six months of the year, and therefore no way of paying rent etc.
on a macro level - productivity in the economy would markedly decrease as everyone would have half the experience in their jobs that they would otherwise have, not to mention all the transitional costs from switchovers. You would also have to decrease the number of jobs available in the economy by about 25%, which would smash GDP by 25% thus bankrupting the country.
Quite a bad idea, which is why you won't see it happening in the near future.
@Dangerboy: No money for six months?? Where do you get that one from? You would get a stipend for 6 months, perhaps a fixed percentage of your salary.
I'm not too sure about agreeing that productivity would decrease. When people are worked too hard, productivity decreases. Studies have shown that when workers are given incentives, productivity INCREASES! What could be more of an incentive to work than a six month furlough? As for bankrupting the country, there's plenty of wealth in the UK, it's just in the hands of the wrong people!
The reason why this scheme won't be implemented in the near future is that the powers that be won't permit it. Still a good idea! Gooooaaaal!
Fraudwatcher recons that....
'For whom the bell tolls ?
It tolls for thee !
Goodbye - and good riddance - to all those contractors who have offended and insulted those without jobs who have suffered at their hands and who, in addition, fleeced the taxpayer for so long...the gravy train has finally hit the buffers :-)'
I think the current terms that the DWP are demanding only demonstrate that the W2W industry has not been pulling its weight. The NAOs recent report states that the W2W providers provide poor value for money, so the assertions made by Fraudwatcher are valid in this context. Anyway, demanding 100% outcomes is realistic and provides real value for money for the DWP.
The NAO report is a poorly evidenced piece of rubbish and 100% outcome payments will make implementation impossible. Many w2w providers certainly could provide better value for money, but Fraudwatcher's comments are a wild overstatement that fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of and the changes afoot in the industry.
‘The report says that private and voluntary sector providers have "universally underperformed" and were criticised for failing to deliver better outcomes than Jobcentre Plus’.
http://indusdelta.co.uk/story/pathways_to_work_poor_value_money_finds_na...
The NAO have not got a reputation of producing rubbish reports, the evidence clearly demonstrated that W2W providers provide a worse outcome than JCP.
If W2W providers are genuine, about providing real work, they will embrace the 100% outcome framework, as it providers real benefits for the unemployed, and from a financial perspective, provides real cost saving benefits for the current government together with HM Treasury.
Actually Tony if you read the NAO report it says there is no evidence that private providers did materially any better or any worse than JCP-led areas. What private providers did was make a rod for their own back by claiming in their tenders to be able to do better than they actually did - a phenomenon hardly unique to business development teams in w2w providers.
It was Pathways overall that underperformed, not conclusively any of the providers delivering it - in other words it was the system that seemed to fail rather than the delivery agents.
The results need to be put in the context of 100% outcomes, this is the crucial area where the W2W provide poor value for money. The current framework gives the industry a chance to prove that it can deliver financial benefits to the DWP via the DEL/AME switch.
I would question the NAO report that shows JCP has outperformed providers in terms of job entry rate, are these sustainable jobs? If so what is the average retention period?. Many of the contracts I work on directly assist the jobseeker into work, however as the referrals are from JCP it would appear on any data that JCP has "achieved the outcome". Until now, I haven't cared what the statistics show as long as I have helped someone into sustainable employment; clearer and more robust evaluation is required. 100% outcomes could only be achievable if providers can manage the referrals, work closely with clients from day 1, work with the clients for a longer period of time AND the economy has the vacancies for candidates to apply for. As someone has already mentioned, managing expectations of those seeking work is vital but how do you do this if there are no viable jobs available?
I think Tony is missing a few fairly major points - firstly even the JCP led areas involve providers. In JCP pathways areas NDDP still operates, delivered by, shock horror, providers, meaning much of the performance is delivered by, shock horror, the providers. The second big point is that JCP performance counts from the minute a claim is made, so if somebody claims IB/ESA then gets a job two days later, JCP get the credit. In provider led pathways, performance, fairly obviously, doesn't get counted until the provider provides interventions such as WFI's etc. I agree completely that pathways was ineffective, and that a lot of w2w programes provide poor value for money. I even think 100% outcome funding is the right way to go, although the price of this is the squeezing out of smaller providers. What I disagree with is the continual 'provider bashing' this site seems to get clogged up with. Like any sector there are good organisations, and poor organisations, some care, and some couldn't care less, but not everyone is the same. [edited]
I would like to go back to Adam's comment and this also addresses part of CharlotteRose's comment;
"What we need to campaign for is some form of job creation (and not just preparation) scheme, as what good is preparing people for work when there aren't many sustainable jobs?"
What about some support for social enterprises and private sector in terms of job creation? Ultimately these are the sectors most likely to create and generate new revenue streams for the country. There are many social enterprises out there which with a little more help could develop into viable businesses.
Not an expert on this, but working for a private sector W2W company likely to be excluded now from W2W provision I am wondering why private sector initiatives seem not to be being encouraged and why third sector and voluntary sector initiatives also seem now to be at risk under the Government's new proposals.
What about proposals to build more sporting facilities; that would generate more jobs, reduce youth crime and make us all healthier? What about some support for the British Film Industry of other Creative Industries to support smaller companies etc to become viable British exports?
Or am I just a naive idealist? However, I know several projects that with a tiny little bit of funding would really fly and I am sure that many other people also have ideas on how to do things a little bit differently?
I stand by what I say - I fully understand the industry and the way it rips off the DWP/JC+ and the taxpayer.
Many providers employ very few actual paid staff instead relying on "victims of ND" to act as "advisers" on the basis of work placement!
I have witnessed fraudulent claims by providers for non-existant clients.
Many are still under investigation...one solution would be to award a £500.00 reward to any "victim" of a ND provider who reports an incident of fraud (to the DWP) which results in a successful prosecution !!
The coffin is lined...the body laid out...the wreath is on its way !!
Can I go back to Zigblasts question and ask what the opinion is regarding the future of the JCP support contracts?
As an answer, here's a quick link to the Careers Advice Direct website: www.careersadvice.direct.gov.uk. Very handy, as I used it quite often when I was a Nextstep Advisor. Lots of good stuff on it for everyone.
I spent about 5 months researching PTW three years ago, and came to the the same conclusion as the NAO. When you look at the figures in detail it shows that the success that the DWP were claiming for PTW was simply down to the fact that people went back to work before their mandatory five interviews. Chunky mentions that a lot of W2W providers make very little profit, but if you look at the wages and bonuses of these companies you'll see that they are sometimes very high: they have senior staff earning six figures sums, while some advisers are on £35K per year, plus a bonus for getting someone into a job for a few months (this will now end with 100% outcomes). As an ex-company director you soon find out that there is no point in making a large profit due to the high rate of corporate tax a company has to pay.
As Fraudwatcher mentions in relation to the W2W industry:
'I stand by what I say - I fully understand the industry and the way it rips off the DWP/JC+ and the taxpayer.
Many providers employ very few actual paid staff instead relying on "victims of ND" to act as "advisers" on the basis of work placement!'
The W2W industry have had very generous contracts that would not be allowed in any other industry, so the 100% outcomes and the DEL/AME switch is a return to reality.
@Tony: while some advisers are on £35K per year, plus a bonus for getting someone into a job for a few months.
35k a Year?!
True, senior managers are handsomely (sometimes unfairly)compensated for their efforts. I would be very grateful if you could tell us what organisation pays their advisers approx 35k? That amount really surprised me, as most advisors I know (including myself when I was one) are very much underpaid, earning approx 18-24k annually and if they don't meet their targets, their employment is terminated. Not a happy lot. Generally, advisors on the front line providing the service are the ones least appreciated and financially rewarded.
Tony said, "The NAO have not got a reputation of producing rubbish reports." - well maybe they deserve one! The points made by chunky were right but maybe didn't go far enough in stating the impact of the different way that performance is measured between PL Pathways and JCP Pathways.
The NAO were categorically told by the staticians in DWP that the performance measures for the two different types of were different and therefore could not be used to make comparsions on performance or value for money - but they went ahead and made them anyway. What difference does it make and how wrong could they be?
Well on JCP Pathways a cusotmer is counted as a Pathways to Work start once their claim is accepted, but on PL Pathways that wouldn't be until the first JCP WFI which is at between week 8 and 13 of the claim. In practice that means that in two identically sized areas JCP Pathways would shows as having 2.5 -3 times the number of Pathways starts. (You can figure this out by digging into the offical data releases and comparing the start figures for simialr sized district like Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire).
What that means is that when they did the value for money comparsions between the two programes they were either either masively undersating the cost per particpant on JCP Pathways or massively overstating the cost per particpant on PL Pathways. Similarly the cost per job outcome and the actual outcome figures that we acheived will be massively skewed.
What I can't understand is why a body like the NAO can't understand a very simple difference in how performance is meaured and the implaications that would have for comparisons, even though it was pointed out to them!
The figure was for a high performing W2W adviser (cannot recall name of company, but they work in the disability sector): so hardly representative. In relation to poor methodology of NAO report; could be down to current political climate. However, from my research (with assistance from phd student) into the PTW scheme, it was clear that it offered poor value for money. At the moment, I'm not aware of any research work that demonstrates that the W2W sector offers good value for the government, or provides long term work for the unemployed. I presume that this might occur when the new framework is up and running. The current political and economic climate does not bode well for the implementation of the governments new framework.
If it was hardly representative, why use it? As for there being no point in making a large profit, I'm not sure many successful companies would agree. In fact, I'd go on to say that's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. You may pay corporate tax, but you still end up with NET profit. That's like an individual saying I don't want a 10k payrise because I'll pay 44% in tax and NI... Yes, for people on low incomes the marginal rates of taxation can be very high, which is one of the flaws of the current benefit system (but that's another discussion entirely) but that's not the case for companies is it.
I decided to pay myself a tax free bonus rather than leave it the company and pay corporate tax at 21%, then leave the profit in the bank at a derisory rate of interest. There are many companies in the UK, including large primes, who make low profits but have senior staff who earn six figure sums via basic pay and bonus packages.
'In fact, I'd go on to say that's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard'.
It would be if you've never run a small limited company or prepared company accounts, or been in a senior position at board level in a company.
Anyway, I'm not aware of any research work that demonstrates that the W2W sector offers good value for the government, or provides long term work for the unemployed. This is why the government has cracked down on the W2W industry.
As Faudwatcher mentions:
'I have witnessed fraudulent claims by providers for non-existant clients.
Many are still under investigation...one solution would be to award a £500.00 reward to any "victim" of a ND provider who reports an incident of fraud (to the DWP) which results in a successful prosecution!!'
In response to Tony and the following comment;
"Anyway, I'm not aware of any research work that demonstrates that the W2W sector offers good value for the government, or provides long term work for the unemployed. This is why the government has cracked down on the W2W industry".
The government hasn't cracked down on W2W due to poor performance. On the contrary they are widening access for the jobseeker by suggesting that as soon as a benefit claim becomes active the claimant may have the opportunity to be referred to a provider on the new Work Programme...immediately. This would avoid a 6 month/12 month or even 3 year waiting period for claimants,which is quite a large amount of JSA payments alone. I am not aware of any research that shows this to be a viable financial model. Your insinuation that all providers must be fraudulent is riduculous. You cannot condemn all providers simply because of the minority. Those of us within the W2W sector currently work hard to deliver a service which is respectful,fair and compliant. Ultimately, W2W is about the jobseeker and offering them ways to realise their potential instead of existing and living hand to mouth.
I am however in slight agreement of your last statement with one slight amendment. I would like to see a £500 award for Providers who have consistantly delivered an open, honest and non fraudulent service....I can but dream, the government could not afford the costs of such rewards.
[edited] Well done Chancellor...25 per cent cuts in Government departmental expenditure across the board...most of that...with respect to the DWP/JC+...could be achieved by barring ALL private - FOR PROFIT - providers from tendering for any futre W2W contracts AND instigating a claw-back to recover the millions of Pounds of Tax Payers' money that has been wasted over the past 13 years lining the pockets of the proprietors. Interestingly, most providers do not actually employ many full-time PAID staff but instead use "victims of New Labour's New Deal" to fill various posts including acting as personal advisers! I know...because I was one such individual :-) I have inside knowledge and personal experience of the various abuses that I report on this and other such sites - those who bleat on in defence of the W2W providers DO NOT!
Fraudwatcher, "those who bleat in defence of the W2W providers DO NOT!" Would that be the same people who work in the industry? As for the assertion most providers do not actually employ many full-time paid staff, get a grip. I've been in the industry for a decade and I'm struggling to think of any providers where the majority AREN'T full time paid staff.
Do us all a favour - back up your statements with evidence, or give it a rest. And saying "I know... because I was once such individual" is hardly the most convincing argument. I've been to the moon... It must be true because I said it and nobody can prove otherwise!
Further to my earlier comment - spare the personal abuse...it only serves to prove my point.
Wasting money on for-profit ND providers is a national disgrace - especially at a time when many of our highly regarded adult education colleges are facing substantial cuts (as instigated by the now dead New Labour government).
Dear Secretary of State - please stop this offensive charade - use the money allocated to pay for-profit providers to fully fund our adult education establishments and make sure that every unemployed person is directed to attend ANY course(s) that is/are required to raise their skills to the standard necessary for them to get back into paid work doing a job that want to do - it would be money well spent!
One more point - have just been examining the annual reports of a couple of charities (as submitted to The Charities Commission) which are connected with W2W...very interesting reading...charities...my a**se!
This area also needs to be examined closely with respect to cutting DWP expenditure and...possibly...fraud.
Some of these organisations CLAIM to train unemployed people when in fact they don't! That being the case, they are paid millions of Pounds of Tax Payers money but are not delivering the goods...a clear case of breach of contract...and fraud! DWP please take note...earn some points (with respect to the public) by clawing back that which has been paid out!
Don't believe me? Check The Charity Commission's website and read the annual reports for yourself. A trawl through those providers who lodge annual reports at Companies House would, I am sure, also prove highly enlightening!
presumably those highly regarded adult education colleges that also act as welfare to work providers are exempt from your criticism?
Fraudwatcher your messages are all mixed up. "use the money allocated to pay for-profit providers to fully fund our adult education establishments and make sure that every unemployed person is directed to attend ANY course(s) that is/are required to raise their skills to the standard necessary for them to get back into paid work doing a job that want to do"
Don't you realise that directing unemployed people to attend courses that will increase their skills is precisely what we are trying to achieve in the W2W sector. The issue is that sometimes the jobs that people want to do are at odds with what is available in the labour market. Most people are sensible enough to take any job they can do until such time as their ideal becomes available but some have no intention and we need to find ways to help get them back to work. Welfare is a back up not a lifestyle choice.
As for the colleges, well yeah I am really interested in keeping on paying institutions that draw down hundred percent funding money for bums on seats and if the learner leaves don't have to pay back a penny. Its about time they had their budgest cut. Colleges are more money driven than W2W providers and are notorious for manipulating learning plans to ensure vastly high achievement rates. I wouldn't send my dog to my nearest Grade 2 College. A good close look will show that huge percentage are not achieveing full frameworks and many achievements are low level qualifications.
I do agree with you on one thing, some of the so called charities are anything but. Some of the bigger primes are too swollen to have a grip on the real issues, however W2W providers are paid on results. The lower the results the less they earn.
“Don't you realise that directing unemployed people to attend courses that will increase their skills is precisely what we are trying to achieve in the W2W sector.”
“I wouldn't send my dog to my nearest Grade 2 College.”
Bit of a contradiction, there.
[edited] Some of our workforce may have been unemployed at time of application but have gained their jobs competitively through the normal recruitment process. Your assumed knowledge seems to be based on your experience of one provider not all of them, as a result your assumptions are inaccurate and narrow. I do not bleat on....these are my opinions based on FACTS. If you cannot substantiate your claims or engage in useful discussion (well said Chunky), I question your motives in viewing this site. If your diatribe is not aimed at me, my apologies but the language you use is inflammatory and comments you make are vague. Interestingly you haven't commented on the JSA payments that are currently paid to jobseekers who , under the current system, have to wait 6 months for a Personal Advisor (unless they request one). Your manipulative selective hearing ("however the ears are deaf !!") leaves you ill-informed and serves only to fuel your cynicism and inaccurate view of the reality that is W2W. Finally, I won't be commenting on this any further as I think it has run its course. Instead, I am looking forward to work tomorrow where I have just helped 10 young people gain permanent work and we are having a celebratory meal to welcome in the weekend.
http://twitter.com/futurepathUK
DWP have issued the invitiation for expressions of interest for the Work Programme.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/framework-eoi.pdf
And a Q&A. See above tweet.
I have been told by my local Job Centre that I am to go on Flexible New Deal. I have nearly completed a 26 week course on Flexible Routeway. Flexible Routeway helped me to improve my computer skills in excel, helped me to complete my CV, interview techniques and job search. Do I have to go Flexible New Deal as it seems to duplicate what I have already done on Flexible Routeway. I have not had one interview, and have received no encouragement as a 54 year old, educated and over 35 years experience.
When I told my adviser at the Job Centre do I have to go on Flexible New Deal even though I have been on Flexible Routeway,he said it was mandatory. I don't see the point!
Please help thanks
So then...it is becoming clearer by the day...DWP will in future only deal with those organisations which are cash rich - so that rules out all of those we know/talk about and loathe then...good...:-)
SERCO is basically the Civil Service privatised...hardly surprising then that their name pops up frequently as a company the DWP would like to do business with...plus...it has a very full piggy-bank...which in these days of banks not lending means that they must be in a unique position to take the main seat at the table...
Silverstream: I've never heard of Flexible Routeway, but generally speaking you can be fast-tracked to Flexible New Deal if you have a irregular employment history.
Obvioulsy I don't know your circumstances, but I would recommend you do voluntary work where you could use your computer skills. If nothing else it gives you something current to put on a CV.
This FND was never going to work, i realise that there are people who have taken the mick out of our sickness benefit system, but this has gone too far now, the people we are getting on our caseloads, their not well enough for work.
Who in the right mind thinks that somebody with terminal cancer and who has been given 6 months to live, is fit enough for work all because they can walk and talk.
I love my job but this contract as pushed us all to our limits, lets hope when Work Programme is live, that all provision have the same start date that would make life alot easier
I am appalled by the number of people who are critising the work that employees in the w2w sector do. These people are committed and passionate about their roles. I for one certainly do not do it for money.. I get paid 1/2 of what i was on in a truly private sector role, it costs me £250 to get to work a month and i have to get up at 4.30 every morning often not getting back till after 8pm. When i worked on ND I helped 50-60% of my customers each month back into work.. these are people who had been out of work for 12/18 months or more... i now work on fnd and although the figures are not that high, I know the job i do makes a HUGE difference to the lives of my customers. Unemployment is a state of mind. There are plenty of jobs out there however they may not be ideal roles. The question I ask my customers is what is more important the type of job you do or the what a job brings to you, your family and wellbeing. Guess which one they choose? Just yesterday, I spoke with a painter and decorator and warehouse specialist and they start work Monday in a call centre earning £18,000 a year PLUS commission. Now please tell me we do not do a good job. Yes the business has to earn a profit.. but think of hospitals, doctors, dentists etc they all earn profits too yet provide a "free service" to the less fortunate (which comes from the tax payers) oh by the way I am a tax payer and am more than happy for my tax to subsides w2w programmes knowing the excellent role they have to play in decreasing unemployment.
OH TISCH, I agree - recently i had a new case who was 5 months pregnant.. and was asked to join fnd.
How there are people with huge barriers to work and fnd more than nd provides provision to support those people utilising external VS services.
The question is have these people made it clear that they want to work, as my experience is that they are given the option of esa,dla etc however want to work... albeit reduced hours and limited job roles. Surely each person should be given the opportunity to work regardless of their disability and/or situation and not automatically put into a box.
In your case I am certain that if the customer did not want to work and went to the doctors they would provide a sick note.
The main issue is, which employer is likely to hire this person? Thats the issue I have with the inclusion of said people onto FND
Justpeter - at last a sensible voice that speaks sense, more balanced comments like this please
Justpeter: All credit to you for your hard work and dedication but you shouldn't be appalled by the number of people who criticise your work. From my own personal experience as a client of both New Deal and FND with two different providers as well as being in contact with a number of ex-New Deal, and current FND clients in different parts of the UK I can tell you that providers are hated with a passion.
fightworkfare: to be honest with you that is a pretty small sample. You have had a bad experience, this is true. And it has inspired you to get in contact with others who have suffered the same, this is also true. But what of all those who have had good experiences with providers and don't see the need to moan and criticise great swathes of the sector? The truth is that, as with all industries, there are good providers and there are bad providers. There are providers that have the best interests of the clients at heart, and there are those who don't. However, to say that providers are universally hated with a passion is just wrong and is not grounded in fact, but in personal opinion - experience, not empiricism. Now I can provide you with plenty of counter-examples of people who have had massively positive experiences with providers, as I'm sure justpeter could also. So calm down and if you want to contribute to a balanced argument that's fine - but don't just always pull out the personal experience card. It's not nearly as powerful as you think. This goes for Fraudwatcher also.
Dangerboy: I never said providers were UNIVERSALLY hated. They are all bad providers as indicated by the OFSTED reports. I know from experience there are well intended and dedicated staff, but that doesn't change the fact the whole idea of paying private companies to run a bewildering array of job programs has proven to be a huge waste of taxpayers money. But at least now it looks like the gravy train has hit the buffers,
Three things:
a) Ofsted is not really fit for purpose when it comes to assessing welfare to work as it does not understand the sector very well i.e. achieving job outcomes is rather different to achieving training/educational outcomes because it exists in an external environment, whereas training exists in a vacuum. For instance, you can achieve a training outcome even if the job market is absolutely dead, whereas you can't achieve a job outcome very easily. Hardly surprising as Ofsted were not set up to inspect welfare to work, but have been co-opted because it seemed cheaper than setting up a cheaper, specialist inspectorate.
b) Not all providers do have bad inspections regardless. I can name you quite a few providers with stacks of Grades One and Two assessments.
c) It is very hard to say whether contracting out to the private sector has been either an unqualified success or an unqualified failure. I think the fact that the unemployment count is far lower than it was in lesser recessions in the 1980s and 1990s probably point to a partial success. I think Pathways has been a bit of a failure, but mostly down to wrongheaded policy. Anway we'll see, but I think that the new government is right to both simplify the sector and contract more out to the private sector (as now looks pretty much definite). All we require now is proper, audited and transparent publishing of results and then we'll see how good the sector is (or isn't). Right now, the whole issue is pretty cloudy but the organisation I work for has overseen an uplift from JCP performance in each area it delivers. I don't think this is universally true across all providers in all areas, but certainly isn't universally false as fightworkfare would imply.
thats the best i have heard... Ofsted is not really fit for purpose...if they are not fit for purpose, why quote them. Not all providers do have bad inspections regardless. I can name you quite a few providers with stacks of Grades One and Two assessments