Key Points from the Select Committee report on FND and Commissioning

Submitted by Daniel on Thu, 05/03/2009 - 1:12pm
portcullis.png

The Select Committee were broadly supportive of the current contracting reforms, but had particular concerns about the future of local delivery and small organisations, and about the deliverability of FND in a recession.

Good and Bad

Where the Committee gave a verdict on current DWP activity, these ranged from very good to somewhat vexed. Starting with the areas where they're happy and moving down:

Thumbs up!

  • Support for most recent government announcements - Including the increased DWP budget, extra staffing, halt on closures, and extra support for NEETs
  • Black box approach - Very happy with the black box approach to contracting
  • Personalised support - Happy with the approach taken by FND
  • Longer contracts - Happy with longer contracts for providers
  • AME-DEL - Happy with the AME-DEL pilots
  • Local commissioning involvement - Happy with proposals for local involvement in commissioning, but want to see the details
  • Enhanced JSA - Happy with the JCP delivery of enhanced JSA
  • Self-assessment - Support self-assessment by providers, but recommend that this be incorporated into DWP contract management processes to add weight to it
  • Third Sector Taskforce - welcome this, and want it to look at the effects of the new Commissioning Strategy
  • Customer Choice - happy with this, want clarity on the information that will be needed and given to customers to help them choose. Also want investigation when Customer Choice is blocked because one provider is too popular
  • Joint commissioning - strongly support this, and agree with the DWP that it's absolutely crucial. Want more detail on the actual delivery though

Mixed reports

  • Star Ratings - Support the concept of star ratings, but have heard concerns that its current form may be inadequate. Ask the DWP to review the accuracy and value of it for performance management
  • Code of Conduct - Welcome the concept, but noted concerns by contributors about its lack of teeth, and recommended an independent Ombudsman
  • Rural delivery - Were told that rural delivery costs more, welcomed the Differential Pricing pilot, asked the DWP to find out how much difference it actually makes

Thumbs down

  • Inspections - Unhappy with the level of information on the different roles of Ofsted and DWP contract managers in FND, and how they'll work together
  • FND transition - Concerned at the lack of a detailed transition strategy for the end of previous programmes and startup of FND
  • Local providers - Concerns about the impact of prime contracting on local specialist provision, with a recommendation that the DWP monitor this closely
  • FND and the recession - Requested a detailed explanation of how FND will cope with 300% of the planned number of customers, and contingency plans for delays to the October roll-out date. Doubts were also expressed about the size of the budget
  • FND performance targets - Serco gave a convincing explanation of how FND targets assume an increase of 37.5% sustained job outcomes on EZs, for rather less money. The Committee asked the DWP for detailed supporting evidence around their targets, and contingencies for underperformance. It also noted that the introduction of ESA could result in a harder-to-help customer base
  • On-flow modelling - The Committee noted the concern of some providers that the DWP hadn't fully modelled the impact of benefit changes on the characteristics of claimants, making it difficult to know just how many people would need specialist support
  • Creaming and parking - The Committee identified these as likely to happen with the current FND payment structure, supported the accelerator pilots proposed by the DWP, and urged rapid piloting and adoption of either this or Australian/Netherlands-style profiling of claimants to tackle the issue. Dan Finn's report on the topic makes for good further reading
  • Major concerns about "Work For Your Benefit" - The Committee point to the DWP's own findings that workfare doesn't work and is especially unhelpful for the hardest to help and in weak labour markets (i.e. during a recession). It welcomes the government's statement that WFYB is not workfare, and recommends that WFYB is only implemented if the pilot convincingly demonstrates its success

Other recommendations

The Committee also had some more neutral suggestions:

  • Public vs private vs third sector - The DWP should compare the performance of public, private and voluntary sectors to provide an evidence base for contracting decisions. The Committee states that this is a repeat request, although it's worth noting Alan Cave recently stated that Pathways to Work would provide this evidence base over time as it's being delivered by all three
  • FND early entry - Consider fast-tracking vulnerable groups to FND Stage 4
  • Performance data - Support the publication of monthly management information on contract performance by the DWP
  • TUPE - Ask the DWP to produce a TUPE factsheet for all those affected by FND
  • FND customer charter - recommend service standards for customers, with an independent Ombudsman
  • Employment Officer status - provider staff will get official Employment Officer status, with input into benefit decisions and sanctions. Recommendation to ensure standardised training levels for this
  • Childcare - Ensure affordable, high quality childcare, and give parents the final say on whether childcare arrangements are adequate. This appears to suggest that parents should not face mandatory delivery

The evidence cited by the committee was an interesting guide to who is most involved in analysing and supporting contracting reform in the UK. Work Directions, Serco and the Social Market Foundation were all notable for their detailed critique of contracting.

Press coverage

Reporting focused on concerns over the FND budget and timetable:
BBC News
Financial Times

The Work and Pensions Select Committee provides independent parliamentary oversight of DWP service delivery, and the government is required to respond to their recommendations within 60 days. The full report is available here in pdf format, and is Crown Copyright.

Comments

Submitted by silverbells (not verified) on Fri, 06/03/2009 - 1:35pm.

I'm thinking of setting up a welfare to work group on LINKEDIN. It might be a faster way of sharing jobs, info etc and I was wondering if Indus Delta would like to be a part of it?

Submitted by Daniel on Fri, 06/03/2009 - 4:05pm.

I've got three responses to that:

  1. I'm going to try and set up a CV sharing system on here over the weekend. Initially this will be for people who don't mind their CV being viewable by all employers, as stopping your current employer from seeing your CV is going to be non-trivial - it's not something that most jobs boards offer as it's difficult to police
  2. Although the total staffing in welfare-to-work will likely double over the next year, providers are holding off on recruiting until FND comes out. We're going to be absolutely rammed with adverts if you wait a few weeks, although that may not seem useful now. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you'll become more valuable with time, not less!
  3. I'll help out with a LinkedIn group. In fact, I just set one up right here. There's an issue, however. LinkedIn's business model does not include any kind of profit-sharing for group managers, so the site would cannibalise Indus Delta's content and keep all the profits from job ads etc. for itself. Long term, this would kill the site and leave the industry much poorer! Thoughts on this are welcome.
Submitted by dinkiecarr on Sun, 08/03/2009 - 4:22pm.

My 2 pennies for what its worth:

1) I think a CV sharing site would be hugely beneficial. I know that there are going to masses of ads once the fND results are out, but there are individuals and job roles which will undoubtedly benefit from being looked at prior to that.

2) The above will be particularly useful now, for those who have already been made redundant in "streamlining" excersises. Without a current employer the matter of them seeing your CV is, well, redundant (seriously, no pun intended what so ever!)

3) You are right in that good people will become more valuable not less - hang in there! It can only get better and easier. But still, it would be good to get some movement sooner rather than later

4) re LinkedIn - I think it would be a huge shame to dilute/cannabalise any of Indus Delta's content. The site is good and it has an extensive, established (and growing) subscribership. It makes more sense to capitalise on that rather than adding something new.

Really looking forward to seeing this all kick off in the
coming weeks!

Submitted by Karate (not verified) on Wed, 11/03/2009 - 11:10am.

Hi, I also think that the CV sharing site is a good idea and would also prefer it to remain within Indus Delta for integrity and ease of use. Best...