New welfare to work documentary series - Benefit busters
There's a new documentary series starting on Channel 4 on Thursday 20th August called Benefit Busters. It seems to focus on the experience of ground level welfare to work delivery, filmed in co-operation with providers, which makes a change to some of the stories of recent months. Here's a link with more information, and the blurb follows.
In 2009, Britain will pay out more in benefits than it raises in income tax. Welfare and pension payments cost more than education, health or defence.
Now, as the government attempts to revolutionise the welfare system - controversially rewarding private companies according to their ability to coax people off benefits and into jobs - this documentary series follows the people on both sides of this new welfare state.
******************************************************************************
NOTE - COMMENTS MADE AFTER THE DOCUMENTARY ARE A FEW SCREENS DOWN
******************************************************************************
- 6388 reads
Comments
Coax people is fine.
Sanctions and threatening sanctions for people who have serious and enduring medical conditions is absolutely unacceptable. It creates fear and that is not good for sick people. Especially people with serious mental health problems.
What is the government thinking. What is this industry thinking.
It is shameful and was not what Professor Gregg intended. He said people with severe medical conditions would not be subject to sanctions so why is this happening?
All people with severe and enduring illness must go in the support group before any more harm is done.
Im sure the A4e slagging off will start soon after
Possibly. A4e are the key organisation being followed in the series. I suspect what you'll see is advisers working in positive ways to try and get people ready for work, running up against a whole load of needs and barriers en-route, but still succeeding in some cases. As near as I can tell, episode 1 is a lone parents course, episode 2 might be someone going back into New Deal, and episode 3 is Pathways to Work.
I really hope they don't do the 'X is now on a training course and feeling much more confident' ending that used to crop up in coverage of employment programmes. Panorama last year managed to avoid it.
Also: any A4e slagging off in this discussion will be deleted.
Edit 21/8 - There are some strong criticisms of A4e in the discussion at present. Given that it's impossible to comment on the show without having an opinion on A4e, its tutor and its MD, I'm a bit lost on where to draw the line. Suggestions welcome.
Claimants have just 100 days to prevent their DLA and AA being abolished.
[cut for repetition]
Find out how you can take part from this link:
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/disability-living-allowance-%28dla%29/d...
[cut]
[Moderation - this was included in last week's newsletter, and is a wee bit off-topic. I left the link for people who want to know more]
The first show in Benefits Buster focuses on single parents at A4e Doncaster on the Elevate Scheme. And I trust there won't be any slagging off of single-parents either.
TV does not reflect reality and you good people will be ill-advised to take everything that is shown for granted. People behave quite differently around a camera crew knowing they are being filmed and also, the programme will be heavily edited. Still, it may make for interesting viewing if nothing else is on. Reality TV programmes are big nowdays because they are very cheap to produce; fodder for the masses.
A show about the effects of the welfare reforms.
Which includes kicking the sick and disabled off benefits, and forcing them to look for work, and may well include the 'work for your benefits' forced labour that is in the pipeline, ie work below minimum wage, or lose your benefits.
Its interesting that the series is sponsored by Volkswagen, a company with a past history of being heavily in favour of using forced labour for its workforce during the nazi era.
Either they have forgotten their past, or they dont care - or perhaps the series will be against the changes, and point out the flaws.
Whatever, it will be interesting to watch, although Im not expecting much....
But I am quite suprised VW would want to associate itself with such a topic, considering its dubious history.
anyone know the fnd delivery model yet?
ukbix: Gosh, a simultaneous mix of ad hominem and Godwin's law. On my discussion board?
Jonny: your question's a bit vague. No provider has released full details on their delivery model. Serco have been open about their contracting model, but they act as near-pure contractors rather than deliverers. I'm not sure that anyone has unique or amazing innovations to offer. There's a lot of flexibility to meet individual and local needs, but there's also a very low unit cost to meet this with. See discussion on this post for more information.
Bit biased seeing the production company worked with A4E Director on Secret Millionaire programme. Do you think it will be slightly geared to making A4E look good?
Now that's interesting - I wondered where the connection was. But isn't it about time a documentary looked at what providers did at ground level and gave a positive view of what their staff are trying to achieve? After all, the vast majority of tutors/coaches/advisers spend all day every day trying to support people back into employment. I don't see that as an entirely negative thing.
Personally,I would much prefer a *honest* view of what is happening, based on facts, not something biased on way or the other.
Sadly, I dont hold out much hope with this series, but would love to be wrong.
in another vein I wish someone would tell us what is happening re. subcontractors delivering the fND contract. Serco meeting was cancelled last week in my area and time is rolling on without any of us knowing where and for whom we will be working. Don't they realise how stressful this is for everyone concerned?
Ill be in front of the box with my popcorn and tinnies - I reccomend a box of hankies too; the first episode about single parents will bring tears to your eyes when you see the stress that poor single mum goes through.
Im looking forward to the alternative series when all those over 50s are forced to dig holes in roads for £2 a day under the "work for your benefits" scheme.
Lucy: I've no news at my end, but FND's on an incredibly tight schedule. Providers should have had at least twice as long to set up as they've actually been given owing to all the delays, and I haven't even heard that all the contracts have been signed. It also appears that a number of the primes have basically had to restart their subcontracting from scratch following preferred bidder announcements.
HayforHee: Edinburgh city center is full of holes in the road with the tram works. It's been like that since last year!
Shaw Trust have published a press release about Benefit Busters:
To balance it, does any one know how many people the shaw trust has handled since the programme was introduced, and how much it cost the taxpayer in total.
Then we can work out how much it cost for each of the 4000 that were helped back into work, to see if it was a cost effective excercise.
A figure such as 4000 into work is fairly meaningless if the public has no idea of the failure rate/costings etc.
As mentioned in the last newsletter, Shaw Trust lost £2.4m last year, primarily because of Pathways to Work. Given this, and given the well-known operational difficulties with Pathways (I'll write about these sometime soon), it would not be terribly helpful to analyse value for money. Future delivery is unlikely to match past delivery, and future payments are unlikely to match past payments. The accounts are available through Companies House, and the annual report will be published in a month or two and made available through the Shaw Trust website.
The documentary should be interesting, they can only film what happens you can't select people for filming, you film the clients who are sent and the staff do what they do everyday, I'm sure the providers in question have had a say in editing but any company being filmed would do the same thing, it's just nice that something Is been put out from the providers point of view and not just the usual slating you get from those wanting to blame someone else for them not having a job,
I have not seen any previews, but I'm sure that the producers "cherry pick" clients, to follow and only film those who are interesting, out of the ordinary, or have an unusual background to hold the viewer's interest. After all, this is reality TV! I believe that this programme is shown neither shown from the provider's, nor the client's point of view, but from the viewpoint and bias of the Director and Editor. They always have the final say of the finished product - which is what will be telecast tomorrow nite. Moreover, how many of you know reality TV shows also employ "WRITERS"? With the rubbish currently on terrestrial TV, this may be the only programme on worth watching. I eagerly await all your comments and reviews on Friday!
They didn't employ writers at all and the group of people they had to work with were selected for the course not the filmin as is still the case with elevate courses, the film crew could only focus on a small number of people so theyhad to choose certain people
It's not a reality TV show, it's a documentary. Documentaries are a somewhat older and more established format than reality TV. There's nothing stopping documentaries from being biased (i.e. having a viewpoint), but repeatedly using the term 'reality TV' to refer to a documentary doesn't make much sense.
************************************************************************************
BELOW THIS POINT ARE THE COMMENTS MADE AFTER THE DOCUMENTARY WAS SHOWN
************************************************************************************
I think the A4E Tutor in the documentary '20th Aug' was out of her depth. I do hope she is not a trained counsellor.
Lottie: I sense the A4e Tutor, Hayley is a self-made woman. And I can't imagine she has a HR background either.
Cringe Cringe Cringe!!! Not only out of her depth but quite frankly a big embarrasment. Those poor Lone Parents having to put up with weeks of motormouth (and the vast array of loud blouses), listening to endless drivel hour upon hour, being patronised to boot. Never mind girls, I'm sure you got lots out of the 'elevate' 'alleviate' or 'levitation' programme whatever it was called...specifically a job at the local Poundland store with little prospects which pays minimum wage. Now then Emma Harrison, what a fantastic success your Miss Gawdy Blouse made of those peoples lives. You must be very proud. This documentary made my blood boil, I can't tell you how much. And to think A4E rolled out their finest (in every respect) for the benefit of the camera's. There will be a few senior DWP personnel thinking 'what have we done' after watching that. A4E at the helm of FnD. Well done boys...what the hell were you thinking of. Can't wait for next weeks thrilling installment. 18-24 Gateway to Work successes at MacDonalds maybe? Any chance Emma of a cuppa with a jammy dodger next time i'm in your neck of the woods? If it wasn't so laughable I would cry.
Yes I agree with all your comments, one week of Hayley and my confidence would be in tatters. Either that or, I would have to take action to gaurd my ears alongside my temper.No wounder one of the women drank!she was a nervous wreck.
Hayley could of given those ladies firm examples of how people can work their way up the ladder from a Poundland assistant to assistant manager if they wanted. In these kind of situations it is always best to adopt the 'world is your oyster' attitude.Still, it goes to show what Hayley really thought those ladies capable of doing...she set very low outcomes for all of them.By the way did she know Emma Harrison?
I know one thing Hayley is not a Tutor , she has zero people skills...DWP you should be ashamed of yourself. If this course continues with people like Hayley or follows the same themes DWP will have a revolving door situation on their hands. Although A4E will of met their targets :)
Here are the press responses to the show so far:
All of them display unease with the approach taken by the tutor, which is partly or wholly allayed by her success in engaging with and moving the lone parents into employment. It would be unfair to censor comments on the A4e staff featured in the programme, as long as they deal with the actual content rather than dropping into abuse and generalisation.
For what it's worth, I've met one or two 'star' tutors in the past, who were more successful than anyone else in their organisation at moving people into work. They were also fairly strong characters. I'll have more to say once I've actually seen the show though (waiting for it to appear on 4OD as I had to go out last night!).
My only way to cope with this was to switch off - absolutely shocking and cringeworthy. How proud DWP and Emma must be - more tea anyone?
The Journalist on the London Paper who wrote “Butterfly... egg... ugly caterpillar,” she adds, taking her group through the life cycle of the lepidoptera like Bill Oddie in a neckerchief did make me laugh. She reminded me of Pauline's younger vulgar sister from League of Gentlemen. How do they get away with it. Obviously she has never been through the scrutineering of OFSTED's Lead Inspectors delivery watchers! Absolutely spot on the previous post under Gerry's.
I can hardly begin to articulate the frustration and vitriol last night's programme induced in me. There are a number of points I could pick fault with but I'll concentrate on one. What is the point in subjecting someone to weeks of patronising pop-psychology with the aim of "helping" them back into work without doing an in work benefit calculation at the very beginning? In my experience the JCP Better-Off calcs are often inaccurate so I always do my own right at the start, I was stunned that Hayley, rather than checking the facts just accepted that the lady with 4 kids would be worse off in work and gave up on her. With the information the production team gave us I could see no reason why this woman wouldn't be better off in work. WTC + wages should have given her an extra £50 per week after the loss of IS & a reduction of HB/CTB (on min wage CTC & CB should have been unaffected). School dinners for 4 at approx £10 per week would have been covered by IWC in year one giving this lady an extra £200 per month for her first year back in work. I consider myself to be quite well paid & £200/month extra would still make a huge difference to me!
I assume that A4E chose Hayley to represent them, does this mean that she is the cream of their crop? I'll say no more without incurring Daniels wrath.........well, maybe just a little bit more.....I don't know what was more distasteful, Emma's castle or her self congratulatory mug on a poster.
Please A4E, try to defend yourselves.
Dear lord. Am I going to have to be the nominated A4e defender again? I'm having a cup of tea and a think about the posts here right now, which I may edit a bit. Darned if I know where I'll draw the line. In other news, Channel 4 haven't put the show online, which is a minor disaster. I may have to watch it next Tuesday at 3am.
The consensus I'm seeing so far is that tutors in the industry didn't feel they were fairly represented by Hayley, other people involved in the industry thought she was rather similar to Marjorie from Fat Fighters or Pauline from League of Gentlemen, and reviewers were rather taken aback because her approach actually produced results, despite being wide open to scorn and derision.
Some people are also discussing the programme over here for some reason. Try and keep discussion to the right topic!
Daniel. I'm confused. Why defend the indefensible? It is only fair that people should be allowed to voice their opinion on last night's show. It's not as though the film crew descended upon A4E's flagship Doncaster offices unannounced now is it. They had months to prepare for this documentary and should have used the opportunity to showcase their best delivery staff. Maybe they did which is very worrying. The facts are A4E have won multi-million pound contracts and if that's the best they can come up with to depict what they are all about then what a disgrace. They couldn't even bother to fill in their typically corny wall adornment posters (Job Stars) for the benefit of those watching. People who work in the industry are angry and rightly so. I haven't spent the best part of 20 years dedicated to this work to be tarred with the same brush as Hayley. It was embarrassing. Why censor any of the posts it was on the telly for all to see in all it's tacky, cringeworthy glory.
yeah the office was given time to prepare but what can they do in this time??? Hayley was picked by the production company as she is the elevate tutor and thats what they wanted to film. The production company filmed for months and showed an hour and it was edited to show Hayley as some type of monster, all the ladies opened up to her not because she bullied them but because they trusted her and she cared about them. Everyone has wathced this programme and slated Hayley for what she did, but they havnt mentioned she not only raised people's self esteem but got people into work.
Thanks for your views. Not a criticism but an observation. Watch your spelling and grammar. You may need to fine tune it a tad when writing a cv and covering letter!
hayley doesnt even work for us any more!!!
I don't think the fact that she doesn't work for you anymore is at all relevant. When you were offered the opportunity to represent the industry on national TV she was the example you chose.
Do I take it from the fact that you're making this point, that you weren't impressed either?
Something's tells me that your boss wouldn't have been pushed around by C4, if she wasn't happy with who was representing her it wouldn't have gone ahead. Anywho, Hayley wasn't the worst part of it, most of the insincere cheese came straight from the horse's mouth.
Come on, you're getting panned here! Surely you have a better defense then "she doesn't work her anymore"?
Chosen by the production company? What a ridiculous defence.
Having watched the show I feel so sorry for the lone parents, especially the poor lady who had the drink problem, what happened to customer confidentiality, I was so angry when Hayley approached the ladys drink problem in a room of other people and showed so little remorse for the customer's feelings, any customer barriers to work should be highlighted and appropriate support /referral made for additional help and not discussed in a open forum, this show was more like a comedy sketch "carry on A4E". Would be intersting to see how many of the lone parents actually sustained employment following the worktrial and christmas period. Maybe Channel 4 should do a follow up programme "How It Should Be Done".
". Would be intersting to see how many of the lone parents actually sustained employment following the worktrial and christmas period. Maybe Channel 4 should do a follow up programme "How It Should Be Done".
The answer to that is, 4 women were employed at poundland and all 4 were there 13 weeks later, which is classed as sustainable employment according to the job centre
In what capacity does Emma employ David Blunket ?
The 'HAYLEY' show was a disgrace! Hayley did not/does not have people skills.Tutors' are hired, among other things, if their personality fits with the organisation - most organisation have a house style ; Hayley must be A4es house style which says a lot lol lol
I know highly skilled counsellor who would get better results; they do not take Hayleys approach. Thank god!
After a week with Hayley, most people attending the course would need to check into a rehab... talk about giving Tutors' a bad name.
Still, one positive thing came out of the show; so called scroungers now know they are responsible for keeping Emma in a life style made off the back of them! Hayley even admitted that ...
It's nice to know that these 4 clients sustained however, no one has taken issue with the fact that Hayley got these clients into work; it's the quality of work they found and the methodology she used to get them there. Was an intensive 6 week bootcamp really neccessary to get these quite capable ladies into minimum wage, ringfenced retail jobs? One of the clients was a graduate with teaching experience & she seemed astute enough to stretch herself a lot more than this. Lack of ambition is as much a cause of worklessness as the inherent weaknesses of the system.
It's clear that A4E staff are taking part in this discussion but as yet no-one has offered any sort of structured defense. Was last night's programme a true picture of how your best staff operate? If so, are you satisfied with this?
Isn't there something rather tragic that the best A4e could offer a graduate (one of the women identified)was a 2 week placement with an attached job opportunity to "work the till" in Poundland. This is particularly disappointing as D&T (the learner's discipline) have been ientified as being a Secondary Subject Shortage. Correct career guidance, coupled with appropriate motivational training could have offered the learner the potential for a highly successful career that would have been ideal given their parenting situation. Now several possible explanations for this perhaps:
a) It was the best A4e could offer. (I think we would all hope this is not the case, if only for the sake of the learner.)
b) A4e were unaware of how to deal with a learner with graduate qualifications.
c) A4e were only interested in a "result" and postgraduate training would not have achieved that goal.
d) Some other reason - as yet unexplained.
It would be most interesting to hear the rationale employed that minimised (without any disrespect intended to those who work at Poundland) the qualification and experience of one of their learners.
To repeat, judging purely by sustained job outcomes, the course and tutor were actually fairly effective.
There's potentially a conflict of approaches here. One approach that can be taken is sensitive, empathic, and counselling-oriented. Another is to drive people in the direction you want them to go through force of personality, as a means of overcoming the inertial mindset of long-term unemployment. I don't believe there's any research showing that one approach is better than the other, although it would be interesting and useful to compare them.
There have been some very interesting practical suggestions coming out of the discussion so far, around better career avenues or benefit calculations for the customers in the show. One of the big issues with welfare to work delivery at the moment is that there's no formal way for people coming into the field to learn about these kinds of things. Individual providers often have training courses, but there's no structured best practice guidance anywhere. I'm working on something that might help with this, so it's useful to know that there's both a need and a potential source of answers.
Oh Dear... today I thank God (my God) for my highly inteligent, empathetic, subtle yet assertive, professional adviser/tutors....... Hayley I'm afraid would be one of the 2.6 million if she'd been working for me
Despite having worked in the W2W industry for a long time - I was absolutely shocked at the tactics employed by Hayley to get 'her ladies' into work. She seemed to affirm that her approach was one of 'knock em down' to build them back up. Unfortunately, these women seemed to have to go through any number of personal hells and crises in order to end up working at Poundland even to the extent of going through the humiliation of being asked if they had a drink problem and being co-erced into having their personal finances scrutinised. She had absolutely NO RIGHT to do this, yet gave the impression to 'her ladies' and the rest of us that she did have the right to do this, simply by the fact that they were on the dole and she had been employed by the state (albeit vicariously though A4E) to get them into work. She is very lucky that the women she was working with were vulnerable and under-confident. I can think of many people who would not respnd to this tye of humiliation with so much deference.
Furthermore - what kind of example was set by finding the women jobs in Poundland? I agree wholeheartedly that a job is a job, but if the aim is to convince lone parents that they can do something better with their lives than staying at home and looking after their children, a better job might have been done by helping these women into work which was rewarding, had options for progression and was above NMW. Indeed, one lady was unable to sustain her job at Poundland because the wage did not match her benefits and this was presented as a failure on the part of the state, rather than a failure on the part of A4E to find her a job which could help her support her children.
Enough ranting - come the revolution, this sort of rubbish won't even get airtime and hopefully the preying on the weak and vulnerable will stop. One can dream...
Absolutley awful. That poor woman being subjected to Hayley's barage of intimidating questions. Where's the emapathy and confidentiality? I am aware that Hayley's cient may have given permission to be filmed, but I suspecty she had no idea what was ahead of her. I cringed through the whole episode.
Update - You can now watch the entire episode over the internet here. I haven't seen it myself yet, but will make time for it over the weekend and write some thoughts up afterwards. As always, don't just post insults, and get in touch if you find specific postings offensive or in breach of the site terms and conditions. I'm heading out for an hour or two. Have a good weekend everyone!
Sorry, but what's this rubbish about low quality work - by whose standards? Yes, lack of ambition may be a cause of worklessness, but so is unrealistic ambition / expectations. How many provider staff have come across customers who think the world owes them a well paid, highly skilled job despite their complete lack of skills or experience. Yes, I agree the graduate probably could have done something else, but lets not forget, for many, many people getting a McJob is a very good result. For some its a starting point, for others its as good as it gets - job snobbery is part of the reason we've had such a reliance on economic migrants for so long. Some of the comments on here just reinforce the belief "I'm too good for that kind of job".
Daniel, you're quite right. Quite often the bright bubbly personality sitting across the table from you in the interview is the 'breath of fresh air' the company needs. Especially when looking for tutors who can motivate, as opposed to the stagnant baldy boring 50+ guy who's done it for years and can put you to sleep 5 minutes into his cv writing session. We all know a Malcolm Mogadon character! However, there needs to be more structure in best practice when giving people life changing advice. I agree with most of the comments here however on A4E's calamatous depiction of a Lone Parent programme. To advise people is one thing but to advise them well is another. I'm afraid after reading Emma's Blog on the A4E website on the Benefit Busters show I can only say 'what do you expect'!
I would beg to differ that there is no evidence to support empathic, sensitive, counselling oriented approaches, Daniel. In a broader context, I would refer you to the Prochaska and DiClemente (1983) approach (first adopted in the treatment of smoking in their paper “Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change”). This motivational model has been well documented and analysed in a number of areas and can be seen in action in many provider locations. At a more specific level there is an abundant literature on issues such as enhancing self-efficacy and the advantages of implementing cognitive behavioural approaches to reduce barriers.
Secondly, before we let A4e "off the hook", we are basing our analysis on a total of 4 outcomes. It would of value if we could have been given an idea of their overall success raate for the project.
Given this, it makes the approaches demonstrated in the TV programme (which I felt closer resembled an advertisement than an example of investgative journalism)all the more disturbing
OK, one more posting before I go get some lunch. Thanks for the feedback Mick, here's Emma Harrison's blog post on the show for those who want to know more about how it was made.
To anonymous who states
"hayley doesnt even work for us any more!!!"
That does not match up very well with Emma's comment on the channel4 website (comments down at the time of writing, they go up and down like a yoyo) which from memory was full of praise for emma, and asked people to come and work with her.
When the comments are back up people will be able to read it for themselves.
I have just watched the first few minutes of the programme, and need to stop to recover, will watch the rest later. However, what I have seen so far was shocking, she actually admitted to knocking people down and getting them feeling bad about themselves, guilty etc - I hope she is allowed time by a4e to attend the funeral of anyone who commits suicide on her course, as its highly possible that one day she may get someone who has serious mental health problems who has been classified as perfectly fine by ATOS/DWP and gets shipped to her course. Behaving the way she does, with a person with mental health issues could push them over the edge, literally.
She is a danger to the public.
HAY - HAY - I've got an idea! Why dont we just get the poor unwashed down to Emmas' castle and get them to do the gardening and waiter jobs under Future Jobs Fund?...
I have never seen anything quite so condescending as that show - we have slipped into a world where we, the providers, assume we can patronise unemployed people who need our Janet-and-John pop psychology and need spoon-fed as if they are lesser beings.
Is this really where provision is going?
You wait, Karma will one day put you providers on the dole when Serco buys the whole Welfare To Work provision as the Uberprime monster and farms it out to an overseas friend of theirs.
Lets see how you feel when you are treated like a half-whit who needs told how to live your life by a provider who is owned by someone who is proud to have made multi-millions out of other peoples unemployment and misery....
I blew chunks and had to lie down Im afraid.
You have to remember that the filming lasted 2 months and 1 hour was shown, The production company can edit this how they like, they could have easily made Hayley look very soft with her clients, then everyone would slate her for being to soft with all the job seekers and that they all get money for nothing.
As for looking at the success rate for the whole project it is difficult because of people leaving very early in the course before anyone has chance to work with them, and before its said they don’t leave early because they are bullied
^^ previous post of mine should read full of praise for hayley. instead of emma.
Having no axe to grind on either side of the A4E debate, I have seen better AND worse tutors and providers in action. Taking a broader perspective on the programme, and rising above the inevitable "have a go at A4E" comments, at least this programme showed the personal side of the Lone Parent position - benefit trap, going into debt to provide the best for their children, rather than the usual - "they are all scroungers", which is the impression the previous DWP "managed" benefit buster series depicted. For me the single biggest issue the programme highlighted was that the benefit trap is as deep as ever, not least because of passported benefits, and more of the training funding needs to be spent on better off in-work incentives than 101 courses/ways to write a CV. The programme showed 6 weeks of a 14 week provision. Next weeks trailer looks more gritty, and can't wait for the charity provider episode to see how different, more innovative and able they are.
The show did a real service in highlighting some of the issues facing large numbers of the unemployed. How many members of the public would realise that one of the barriers to work is having to repay debts. Or that it's possible for someone living on benfits to run up £75,000 of debts. Or that a graduate who could find a job tomorrow would choose not to engage with the world of work and be able to get away with it for many, many years. Or that you could be better off on the dole.
Hayley was good TV and that's probably why she was chosen. Undoubtedly the editors picked the 'best bits' and it certainly seemed inappropriate to broadcast the converstions around someone's drink problems.
The fact of the matter is that the old ways have not worked and new approaches have to be tried. And a job in poundlound is better than no job at all.
And no, I don't work for A4E.
In respose to Chunky's comments about job-snobbery.
I think the depth of feeling around the quality of the work the women moved into - is a result of the lengths that were taken to get them there. All of the women involved in the programme were perfectly capable of being able to get themselves a job in Poundland without being harrangued, abused and humiliated. The fact is, that is what happened to them, most ended up in tears at some point throughout the programme. Is that what providers are there to do? I would have thought that most provider staff would be ashamed of themselves if they had reduced one of their clients to tears as a result of their actions and certainly would not turn round at the end of all of that and say 'hey this is how much i value you, this is how much you are worth in the job market - you can now achieve a NMW temporary job, that will leave you struggling to pay your bills, frustrated at your inability to spend time with your children and probably the subject of ridicule amongst your friends.
Let's be real, working when you have children is very very difficult even when you are not on your own. For those who are on their own, you better believe they expect some sort of payback for the daily grind that is the work/life imbalance.
Hayley showed no remorse and clearly shared your belief that a McJob is as good as it gets for some people. You give your position away with the remarks around customers who 'think the world owes them a well paid, highly skilled job'.
A well-paid job - I thought we were all owed that.
all true, I disagree about the job in Poundland however. Mind you, they do sell frogs with motion sensors for 97p.
With all the comments here on the first of the Benefit Busters series, I can see the potential for a comedy series about the welfare to work industry.
Poor Hayley! Slated on here, is it true that she doesnt work for A4e any more - perhaps Emma didnt like the final cut? For those of us that work in the industry we know how little people like Hayley earn, how little training they receive and the expectations that are placed on them by their managers.
Hayley was trying her best,if she had been a single parent with "confidence" issues she could have stayed at home and received as much as she earns and yet no she bravely soldiered on (causing untold devestation in her wake) and yet nobody has a word of sympathy for her!
If we believe that the unemployed are worth a more skilful approach then stop leaving the welfare to work industry to individuals who cream off all the profits and pay well meaning but untrained/unqaulified people peanuts to do their best. These "tutors" do not have a clue how to deal with the complex issues such as alcohol/debt/self esteem etc that face the majority of participants on governemnt programmes.
A4e is certainly not alone in paying poorly and this could have applied to any provider.
Let us not be snobby about Poundland. They way the UK economy is going, Poundland could be one of the biggest employers in a few years. I am already considering setting up a retail chain in comepetition, it's going to be named 50pland.
welfare: fit for purpose? benefits and employment http://www.community-links.org/linksuk/
The lady who has a D&T degree should have been pointed in the direction of a 'Careers Advisor' because come September Goverment are employing a huge work force of teachers across the country to work one-to-one with disengaged students (NEETS).
Each teacher can picks the number of hours they want to work,minimum hours are twelve, meeting up to teach their particular students at a time and place which suits them both. Not bad for approx £27.00 per hour. By calculations the lady in question could:have a good standard of living;fit work around her kids;slowly ease her way back into the work place.
Would be interesting to know if hayley is not working their any more, why that is the case. And why their was a comment on channel4 to the opposite effect of that, after the programme was aired....
If she was indeed 'fired' that must mean a4e were not happy with how things went, yet that would also mean a4e have absolutely zero quality control procedures in place, and only found out what was going on after watching the documentary.
If she wasn't fired, and a4e are quite happy with how she worked, then does that not mean that all the similar courses they run are done in the same way, it must surely, as the only other alternative is a4e gives advisors/tutors completely free reign on how to run the course..
Either way is pretty unthinkable - all courses run terribly, or all course up to the personal views of the person running it.
I also note that comments on episode one on ch4 have been missing for hours now.
Thats the longest they have been down so far. Either they have been removed permanantly or they are getting inundated with comments (as I suspect that when they are modding the comments disapear, as that does appear from past experience to be the case)
I think I know how my employers would deal with me if I took my kittens to the pub to be terrifyingly waiting to hear if they had been successful, especially if I knew I was right that one of had a drink problem.
"Myself and a couple of others were invited to see the rough edits - as were the DWP. I thought the films were gritty and showed some people's reality very well. Of course - it is TV so, is only ever a slice of reality - and to make good TV there has to be drama - so you only get to see the dramatic bits. DWP commented that it was a gritty and true reflection of the situation that some individuals face. They also commented on the fact that 'Hayley is a star tutor' and were thrilled to see someone with that much passion doing the job she does. Tellingly DWP (who are well aware of the troubles in the Hull job market) were also impressed by the A4e team in Hull"
Qoute from the a4e boss, emma, on her blog
source - http://www.a4eblog.co.uk/Articles/000321.aspx
it also states in the last few days hayley has been doing interviews etc regarding the documentary.
And all your comments are still coming hot and heavy! This episode certainly opened a deluge of emotions, most of them the same. Is anyone planning to watch the rest of the series? Will future episodes discuss the revolutionary political changes necessary to reduce unemployment, create jobs, redistribute wealth, and close down private companies that make the few rich off the misery and misfortune of others? Don't hold your breath.
On the other hand, I do applaud all who had the courage to be filmed (for better or worse). How many of us would do that?
Was it courage, or was it a case of it they didn't turn up to be filmed, they would have their benefits sanctioned?
I've seen clients reduced to tears, I've seen clients forced into very unsustainable employment by threat of their benefits being sanctioned and I've seen clients sink deeper and deeper into the depths of unemployment and the devastation it brings by the hands of the likes of the "lovely, oh let's feel sorry for her, it was because she was in front of the cameras" Hayley.
There is no excuse for the way these people treat vulnerable human beings!! it was a very true reflection of how it is in our sector and we all know it but too many won't admit it and until they do, long term unemployment and what it does to people is here to stay.
WOW - I am very shocked at some of the comments being made on this website about the Channel 4 programme Benefit Busters. It seems there is a lot of people out there who think because they have worked in the W2W industry for years and have what they call the experience they can do better, but as long as it is not in front of the camera for anyone else to see or comment.
I have worked with television crews before and can tell you that from miles and miles of film shot they will only show the bits where something is happening so that it holds the audiences attention and stops them turning over. From what I could see 6 weeks of the 14 week course was shown in just 40 minutes of T.V. once you took out the adverts. If you also took out the shots taken outside the training room ie the client interviews the pub scene and Hayley’s visit to Emma’s House then we are only talking about the whole 6 weeks being rolled in to 25 – 30 minutes of film.
Although many of you have condemned Hayley for her efforts by just watching these short clips from the TV, I for one congratulate her for being very enthusiastic about her job in helping people move forward and actually caring about her clients, skills that are often lacking in many providers front line staff. Yes she was not perfect, but who is, she just did her best to try and help the people in her group move forward.
One thing more for all of you to think about ‘What did the clients say themselves about their learning experience with Hayley?’ Have you all conveniently forgotten what positive things they said to Emma about how they found Hayley’s approach on the course.
Overall I thought the group was very tame compared to some of the clients I have had but from my experience Lone Parents are often the best group to have on a course as they can be more responsive to moving forward and bettering themselves. I do look forward to next weeks episode when we should get a look at some of the other courses.
Greyham
I disagree with everything you say!
Hayley was/is a terrible Tutor form start to finish!
Why is it that people who work in the W2W system think that everyone claiming unemployment has low-self image? so untrue!
Perhaps Goverment bodies who claim for duck pond Islands feel the need to attach a top down stigma to claimants, given the current climate through no fault of their own, in order to pay (or maintain) for outlandish intitutionalised MP's fraud.I think you know where I am going with that one ...
Yup , I am in no doubt at all that, it serves Goverment very well thank you, to hand feed the population with the image that claiming benefits is only for the down trodden. A recent showing of a programme called 'Saints and Sinners' backs that up!(although the sinners were extreme examples)Guess the image/stigma created, is meant to rub Joe public up the wrong way ,so that they think twice about claiming benefits ( it's all down to psychology, planting the seeds of doubt).
The air time given to W2W has always been a carefully orchestrated ploy to keep the benefits bill low.
Lottie
I fully understand your point and yes like me you have the right to your opinion of Hayley's tutor skills but did the clients not love her and did she not truly move them forward. For many years now people like you and I have been commenting what we think is the right way or the wrong way to help these people, but surly we should start listening to the people themselves, they actually said the course helped them move forward!- what gives us the right to overide their views.
As I said before the tutor was not perfect but is not the opinion of those clients who attended the full 14 week course more important than our opinion having just watched the course in only 25 minutes of prime time TV???????.
If they had interviewed some people who had previously been on the course, who were not under any threat of benefit sanctions, then I would be more inclined to give more weight to the views of the programme.
However, as you say it was a short program, and surely it wont have just been how hayley operated that was cut, surely what the claimaints thought could have been cut to show only the best bits.
They are also unlikely to say to much on tv, not wanting to
a) come across a scrounger
b) risk sanctions
plus they were pretty much secure in getting kept on in a perm job, as who ever hired them would not treat them as a normal case, knowing fine well how they treated them would be shown on national tv.
Why were the people that left the course not interviewed?
What about the people that were on previous courses, why no facts or figures re outcomes?
Why no interview with the claimaints, once they were OUT of the benefit system.
ukbix
That is a fair point and I agree the programme would of been better if it covered all these points you raised, but as these points were not covered why must we all assume the worst and slate hard working tutors doing their best on the front line on just assumptions. Yes it could of been done better, Yes there were mistakes made, but it is easy for us to talk we were not there and not the ones being filmed, edited and spliced to make what Channel 4 think .....the best viewing.
Having worked with TV before I certainly believe that if there were any negativity among the clients concerning the course or Hayley it would have been shown to improve ratings. As for being afraid of the possible sanctions if they were to speak out then if this was the case why did some drop out of the course risking the same penalty.
Let us just wait and see what is covered next week that we can discuss but stop this kangaroo court on Hayley. As I said before she was not great but it was obvious what she was doing came from the heart, she thought she was helping and again the clients actually gave positive feedback about her.
The voice of reason! I agree with you Greyham. None of us are perfect. I've seen many colleagues refuse to be photographed, much less be filmed and we all are too quick to judge others and not acknowledge our own faults - though expressing our opinions about this programme is an interesting way to kill time and makes for fun reading!
Well done Anonymous - You got it in one. I too know many excellent tutors who fall apart when a camera or a video comes out.
Besides you only need to look at Daniel’s performance tables he got the other month from JCP to see all of us need to improve our game a little if we intend to succeed with FND contracts, maybe it is time for a much different approach to the one we have all be using. – softly, softly approach is not always the answer.
OK, I watched the show over the weekend, and I have some thoughts.
Main thought is, I did not recognise the show from some of the descriptions on here. There have been commenters claiming that the tutor was a disaster zone, that A4e came out of it looking terrible, that the lone parent customers were ill-supported and bullied. Tosh.
To my mind, it's possible to split the response to the show in two. Part of people's response was to the basic delivery approach, and the other part came from specific issues with the delivery of that approach.
The approach: group-led delivery
The course was of a fairly traditional type that I recognise and know well - a single tutor put in a room with a group of customers on a near-full-time basis, with a flipchart and possibly an admin assistant to keep them company. It was very similar to New Deal and pre-employment courses I've been involved with in the past.
Now, this style of delivery has good and bad points:
Group-led delivery is also a style in which tutors with strong personalities tend to shine through. Hayley definitely has a strong personality, and, from the relatively brief coverage of her tutoring, seemed to be doing a perfectly good job of delivery in this context. I've seen far, far worse tutoring. I did a much worse job than Hayley myself when I started out in my first provider.
As a delivery approach, it can produce strong negative reactions in onlookers by its very nature. The classroom setup reminds people of schoolrooms, and can be seen as infantilising the participants. It relies on tutors manipulating social pressures to create an environment conducive to moving into work, without necessarily acknowledging genuine individual needs.
Specific failings
The only area I had strong reservations about was the drawing out of negative stereotypes of unemployment ('scroungers, lazy...') as a way of motivating customers to get jobs. As it happens, a fair proportion of the comment on the wider internet reflected these negative sentiments. It could be argued that the purpose of these exercises was not unethical, and that reminding people on benefits that they're not contributing to society is not unreasonable. However, it's at best an area to be approached with caution.
There were also some other minor points that came up:
I linked to a League of Gentlemen sketch in one of the first newsletters on the Indus Delta site. Both that and the Little Britain character skewered the way in which maintaining control of a group can turn into asserting dominance at all costs, completely losing the original purpose of the exercise.
I didn't see that in this programme. I saw a fairly old style of delivery done well. I'm not sure how much of a place that delivery approach has in the world of FND, one-to-one delivery and individualised programmes, but its cost effectiveness means that it may not disappear in a hurry.
An excellent debrief Daniel - 100% agree with your findings. - thank you
My comment is:
Some of the commentators believe just because welfare to work programmes have always been like this, they are alright now. The mistreatment of clients on welfare to work programmes was wrong when they began and remains very wrong.
Not all tutors and advisers on welfare to work programmes use oppresive practices but a significant proportion do, to the extent that the abuse of clients is endemic to the system. Hayley’s use of her strong personality comprised of using threats, hostile body language, intimidation and a raised and aggressive tone of voice. She got other group members to round on someone who stepped out of line and reminded everyone of the derogatory terms to describe people in their circumstances. The requirement to be positive at all times was an alternative way of forbidding dissent. All this was deliberate and it was all done to ensure compliance.
And yet it was all unneccesary. Non-oppresive approaches are more effective. We all know, in most, if not all welfare to work providers, staff whose enthusiasm and ability to engage and inspire clients delivers fantastic results and crucially, no victims. These results are also more sustained because they come about from the client’s new sense of self-belief and motivation which lasts much longer than the motivation to get away from someone like Hayley. Staff who do not resort to oppressive practices can do so because their natural flair for the job gives them all the tools they need to help clients move from being stuck to seeing new opportunities and wanting to seize them. However, we shouldn’t be relying on natural flair. We should instead be offering all staff the opportunity to develop the understanding, knowledge and skills required for their role. Professionally trained teachers, social workers and guidance workers don’t have to resort to oppresive approaches because they are properly trained.
So why don’t we professionally train welfare to work staff. Its down to cost of course. Providers would professionally train their staff if they were required to and given the resources to do so. But in order to save public money, Ofsted, Jobcentreplus and the Department of Work and Pensions have turned a blind eye to the routine abuse of the most disadvantaged people in the most distressing of circumstances.
Rob -
I believe some providers out there have trained counsellors helping already as part of their programme but would it not be better to work in partnership with agencies that are already set up to do this who are expert in these fields.
I did not agree however with you comment ‘Professionally trained teachers, social workers and guidance workers don’t have to resort to oppresive approaches because they are properly trained'. Just because they have not resorted to what you call oppressive approaches does not actually mean their way works.
Teachers:
correct me if I am wrong but did I not read somewhere that there are over 8 million people in the UK who have very low levels of Literacy and Numeracy many have come through our doors straight from school and are not some school teachers who are professionally trained being assulted and insulted by their classes.
Social Workers:
Were there not many news stories some resent about some major failings here to, but as you say they are properly trained and they did not have to resort to oppressive approaches.
I appoligise if I have insulted any of the above professions but the point I am trying to get across is that using one approach on everyone (one size fits all) has already been done before and does NOT work, it is very dependant on the Individual. Please also remember for years in the benefit system there was NO sanctions (no stick) and not really any pressure by Employment Services on clients to move in to employment, but this also did not work.
Now there is a change in direction and jobseekers on benefits are going to be asked to do something for their money. Some may see this as harsh but surly it is better and kinder than the American way that only pays benefits for a certain number of weeks in which people have to find work because whether they do or not their benefit and medical care STOPS after this short period of time.
Rob
I have to agree with all of your comments. Treating people in this way is terrible, in fact, its bullying.DWP must encourage this type of behavior. If they don't watch it, one day some of those newly unemployed white collar workers' won't stand for it! I know I won't!!
I never have any problem engaging my students. I treat them with repect and like the responsible adults they are.If people are rubbed up the wrong way then the won't engage in any topic.I can honestly say that out of all the adult leaners I've engaged with, their is not one I've not got on with or progressed onto further education.
However,I do think job seekers should do voluntary work but, not to the disadvantage full-time staff. Oh hell! lets bring back YTS (joke)
I do agree with what you are saying and yes if moves people forward lets go for it, I too have always treated people with respect.
I also agree that job seekers who have been long term unemployed should do something like volutary for their benefit rather than just sit at home getting more depressed.
Right, I'm closing down this discussion. But never fear, I'm opening up a new discussion for the second episode! It looks somewhat different to last week's, so should be interesting.