Indus Delta becomes part of the Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion
On February 15th, the Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion took over responsibility for the content and management of the Indus Delta website and discussion forum.
Over the last two years, Indus Delta has become established as the most reliable site for up-to-date information and dialogue aimed at practitioners in the welfare-to-work sector. More than 2,500 users rely on Indus Delta as a trusted source for policy news, reliable analysis and good market intelligence. It has also carved out a niche as the place to openly debate the rapidly changing welfare-to-work environment.
Inclusion is taking-over the website at a critical moment in the development of welfare-to-work services. The last five years have witnessed a slow evolution in the delivery landscape but the pace of change has accelerated and the procurement of Flexible New Deal has marked a decisive stage in the Government’s contracting model.
The DWP’s Commissioning Strategy published in February 2008 described the defining features of a new contractual landscape. It argued that "in the past, our contracts have been too small and we’ve told providers how to do their jobs". Instead the DWP says it is now creating a system "where we free providers from direct control and reward them for their success getting people into a sustainable job."
Their aim is to establish "a stable core of reliable providers". Bringing-in new entrants and encouraging competition between providers are two of the main dynamics behind the new system. DWP says that "as the market matures" the future will consist of fewer, larger contracts covering a wide range of publicly funded services including jointly commissioned skills services.
As a result, the newly emerging market consists of private companies, not-for-profits and public sector delivery organisations. This market is led by prime contractors many of whom operate a business model based on subcontracting a significant volume of their contracted work. So this market will only work effectively by having maximum transparency in performance, the scoping of new services and awarding of contracts.
That’s where Indus Delta plays a key role - as an independent platform for knowledge transfer, debate and dialogue. In moving the website to Inclusion, the Indus Delta team is guaranteeing the service a long-term future with an organisation that has been a fiercely independent voice in the welfare to work field for the past 25 years. And the website will be underpinned by the considerable research, information and analytical resources of the country’s leading researchers and think tank in this field.
The site’s Editor-at-Large is Paul Convery. Paul is widely known in the industry as an independent researcher and policy consultant specialising in labour market and welfare to work strategy and programmes. He was one of the founders of the Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion. During the 1990s he was a Director of the Unemployment Unit and the Training and Employment Network. Paul has spent much of the last decade providing analysis of the policy environment, demographics, economic and labour market to many local authorities, the DWP, LSC and regional development agencies. Inclusion is delighted to have him on board.
Daniel Johnston says: "I've enjoyed building what has become the main site for welfare to work in the UK, and I'm confident that Inclusion is the best choice to take Indus Delta forward and maintain its ethos of accessibility and openness."
Dave Simmonds, Chief Executive of Inclusion says: "Regular users of the site can be assured that the Indus Delta style will not change but we also hope to add new functions and services. It will remain an authoritative source and a place for fair and open debate. It will strive at all times to be balanced. We’ll continue to tell it the way we see it, and we want you to do the same."

Comments
WOW
Daniel you should be proud a lot of hard work and dedication from you which will sustain now and forever.
A big thnak you and well done form me and from him and well just about everybody i would guess
Absolutely - completely endorse the previous comment. The site has gone from strength to strength and is an invaluable resource.
Congratulations, and great to hear that the site will sustain.
This is interesting. It's good that Indus Delta has a secure home; but aren't Inclusion and Indus Delta odd bedfellows?
My impression is that the site is firmly in the camp of the pro-marketeers - that it is in favour of welfare to work being out-sourced to massive private (and some not-for-profit) providers on a competitive basis, even if critical of the ways in which this is done sometimes; viewing those who advocate a public service approach as hopelessly old-fashioned, at best.
Inclusion (the centre for social and economic inclusion) descends from the Unemployment Unit and though it has been transformed over the years it retains a sense of advocacy on behalf of the most excluded. While that can sit well with support for some government policies like localisation of welfare to work, I had never seen it (Inclusion) as a cheer-leader for the DWP's Commissioning Strategy. Privatisation and marketisation are certainly a long distance from where it started.
Well, maybe that's how much things have changed. Or maybe with this merger we can start a well-informed debate about best ways to organise and manage employment services. Or maybe I just misunderstood it all.
Well done Daniel - it doesn't say what your involvement will be? Can we still be disrespectful :)
Seems like a sound move and though Sparky's right to some extent I'm pretty confident the site will be in safe hands. Well done though Daniel on building such a must-read site.
Thanks! Paul's going to be the main editorial person from here on in. I'm taking a break for a bit while I figure out what to get up to next. I'll still be on here to add comments, but I'll have to abide by site rules rather than
making them upmoderating them.Sad day. I hope you made a lot of money Daniel. I have seen Symons change his tune nearly as quickly as I change my knickers. Quite understandably, he has to do this to suit the next political agenda as thats how he gets paid.
I guess someone else will have to set up an independent welfare to work discussion forum as there is NO WAY it could remain independent with moderators who are [the remainder of ths comment has been removed by moderator as it breaches site policy]
I agree, sad day....it seems the tentacles of the government are getting everywhere. The site will just become a spin machine.
Tony and "Hay". Could you hold your judgement for a little while? Please just re-read what is said above about openess and accessibility. The style and attitude of this site will not change. Mainly that's because much of the style is set by its contributors not by "us" running and moderating the site. However, abuse will be removed ... as you can see.
oooo Hay for Hee and Tony, I thought I was cynical but I've got nothing on you guys.Inclusion may well have an agenda, but don't we all, and I'm not at all convinced that Inclusion's automatically fits with whatever Government happens to be in power. (Dave Simmonds was only a while ago saying that the Tories' welfare reform paper was a serious and substantial piece of work) (or something along those lines). Paul C is respected in these circles and I don't think he would risk his credibility by building a spin dryer online.
Anyway if the worst happens and it does go the way you fear there'll be still be us lot to post stuff up and spoil the party.
Point taken Raven - I know Paul's work and he is one of the best.
Interestingly, the comment deemed as "breaching site policy" that was removed from my post was one relating to the vested interests of Inclusion, and how that could never lead to independence. Independence, I believe, Daniel Johnston has fiercely defended and the reason this forum is so popular. It seems clear to me that the new "site policy" might be a little more subjective than meets the eye - I certainly did not abuse anyone as Paul suggests in his post above.
I could quote some quite astonishing contradictions I have heard from Simmonds - but I have no doubt that they would rightly be removed very quickly from the site's new owners.
Why did Inclusion buy the site from Daniel Johnston by the way? I have no idea, Im sure there is a good reason?
According to Raven anyone who has an objective view is deemed to be cynical. It seems there are people who have been in the industry far too long to be objective about life, due to their over optimistic work related attitudes, e.g. 'A4E is a great company to work for...' (even if the customers get mentally abused).
I'm sure the site was bought to further the 'effective' work of the Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion.
Good luck to Daniel, I have enjoyed waiting each week with baited breath to find out whats going on in the industry. Interesting enough i have already had to use another user name as the old free thinking was considered...spam....hmmm...interesting
may be it was because it was a 5 letter F word....what could that be?
Well...i shall watch with interest to see if CESI turns the site into a nuetered version of it's old self.
Just thought I'd show up and say hello.
Yes I work for Inclusion (CESI), and have previously sent some ideas to Daniel.
Oldies around will remember Dave Simmonds and Paul Convery running round meetings ot Training and Employment Network (TEN) providers with microphones playing at being Kilroy or similar, encouraging provider people to grill Government/TEC speakers.
This isn't that different, for a world where the big providers have their own organisations and are much bigger and maybe further from the unemployed client than was the case ten years ago or more.
As far as private sector or whatever is concerned - I'll just say something personal.
I've been long-term unemployed, and been helped by a Jobclub (hello, Tomorrows' People), who must have got their outcome payment on my behalf.
It's no contradiction to being an advocate for the unemployed to say 'what works' is what should be supported - if 'works' is getting a job that lasts (and maybe pays OK). If the for-profit people work better than the voluntary sector or the public sector for unemployed people, then that's a good thing to expand. If the voluntary sector or the public sector can do as well, I'd probably choose an altruistic motivation, but it's effectiveness that counts.
Over to you....