Performance statistics, you say?

Submitted by Daniel on Sun, 15/03/2009 - 5:31pm
in

In December, the DWP announced that they would be publishing individual performance statistics for all provisions starting in January. Nothing appeared, so I submitted a Freedom of Information request asking for them.

The FoI request is now overdue for response, so the DWP are breaking the law. This may seem familiar to those of you who were following the site before Christmas, when they failed to respond to my last request in the legally permitted timespan. Hopefully I'll get a response soon, that's better than the embarrassingly bad one Tony McNulty gave to MPs the other week.

Also: I've been told by many people that individual Pathways to Work performance tables are circulating among providers, but nobody has plucked up the courage to send them to me. For the avoidance of doubt, if performance is already being shared with competitors, then there is no defense of commercial confidentiality. That information should be out there, and I would appreciate somebody having the balls to send it through.

Comments

Submitted by davemassey_99 on Mon, 16/03/2009 - 9:39am.

This reminds me, last week there was supposed to be a Work and Pensions select Committee one-off session on the performance of JC+, no sign of it on the site yet, link here http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/work_and_pensions_comm...

Submitted by Daniel on Mon, 16/03/2009 - 10:11am.

Thanks for pointing me to that Dave. The meetings tab shows the JCP Chief Exec in for last Wednesday, and Leigh Lewis with the DWP's Autumn Performance Report this Wednesday. I'm assuming the meeting minutes will be published here, but I've no idea how long it will take.

I occasionally wonder if I should set up scraping for all of the various DWP-related documents across the web and import the whole lot onto this site - it's annoying trying to follow the conversation all over the web. It's all on Crown Copyright, which means it actually can be copied!

Submitted by davemassey_99 on Tue, 17/03/2009 - 4:09pm.

Its there now for anyone who's interested

Submitted by Daniel on Tue, 17/03/2009 - 5:30pm.

You can find the minutes here. The Select Committee takes evidence from Mel Groves, Ruth Owen and Mark Fisher, with lots of congratulation of JCP for holding up to the recession so far, and questions about how it's going to continue to do so. Some material on contracting. The only really new thing is the news that no providers have dropped out of FND bidding due to the increase in numbers. A few of the answers were a bit fuzzy, but I guess it can be quite stressful facing a committee of MPs.

Submitted by Daniel on Fri, 20/03/2009 - 4:35pm.

I've read through the meeting minutes again, and chatted to a couple of people about them, and the vagueness of the whole thing is a bit spooky. Specifically:

  • Mel Groves quoted a figure of 125,000 people being helped back into work through Local Employment Partnerships. When the Chairman queried this figure, he wasn't able to back it up with any detail on 'real job outcomes', i.e. how many got jobs because of the Local Employment Partnerships. Nor was there any detail on sustainability, although Mel did state that the first review would be carried out towards the end of 2009.
  • Likewise, answers on whether JCP offices were full, why JCP didn't respond to the recession earlier, what JCP was doing to make sure that space was available (use children's centres!), what proportion of Jobcentre vacancies were hard-to-fill or in skill-shortage areas, how the REC-led support for redundant executives is going to work, or how they planned to stop providers from falling over sideways in the gap before FND rolls out, were all somewhat, well, vague.

So, were the select committee asking really difficult questions? Was Mel Groves unprepared? Or is it just really scary giving evidence to a select committee?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 23/03/2009 - 10:19am.

The Committee were fairly easy going on Mel Groves and team - not so on Leigh Lewis - if you have the chance, watch the DWP evidence session back on Parliament TV - I found the grilling hillarious!

Submitted by Daniel on Sat, 04/04/2009 - 9:39pm.

Update 4/4 - I've requested an internal review of this request, specifically regarding the lack of response. I have still not received any response from the DWP, and it's getting on for two months since I made it. Given that I've made other requests within the last two weeks that have been responded to, and have sent two reminders of this request, I'm inclined to ascribe the lack of response to deliberate obstruction rather than overwork or oversight.

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 05/04/2009 - 1:40pm.

I agree there is nothing factual to base findings on. What would you suggest to evaluate the effectivness of these companies and to measure performance.

I know if the FOI request is answered this will give quantitative data but surely qualitative information is needed to to give a holistic picture of these services.

By the way, i have taken your advice and posted on a new topic instead of posting everywhere. I am new to this site and am still finding my way around, nice to know you are supporting me in the process!!

Submitted by Daniel on Sun, 05/04/2009 - 1:56pm.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, ratemyprovider.com! Seriously though, internal quality processes cannot feed into external comparisons. Trying to do so would introduce perverse incentives into the processes to make the ratings as high as possible.

Submitted by Daniel on Thu, 09/04/2009 - 11:09am.

I've received an FoI response on something that Mel Groves said in his evidence. Follows:

In his evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee on 11th
March, Mel Groves stated:

'We have just organised in the 48 districts that Ruth looks after
to make sure we do an audit of what is there so we can establish
the provision that is there now and what we expect to have in
October and if there gaps we shall know by the end of this month'

I would be grateful if you could send through the audit results
(believed to be an audit of what provision is available where
throughout the country) once they're available, which as stated by
Mr Groves should be the end of March.

And the DWP's response:

I am writing in response to your request for information which was received on 17 March. You requested the following,

'The audit results of what provision is available, throughout the country, as stated by Mel Groves in his evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee, on 11 March.'

The audit which Mel Groves referred to was not as you suggest one of all the Provision currently available throughout the country but an internal audit with Jobcentre Plus Districts to identify any current gaps or issues with provision and address them.

This information is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act. This exemption relates to the commercial interests of both the Department and our suppliers. I consider that the exemption applies because it is intended to protect the ability of the Department to obtain goods or services on the best possible commercial terms and to protect the legitimate commercial interests of our suppliers.

In applying this exemption the department has balanced the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosing the information

Dagnanit! They've unleashed their superweapon again!