'Pulling together for the customer' - ERSA conference report
ERSA held its annual conference earlier this week, with organisational support from Inclusion. There were a range of breakout sessions, plus plenaries with various industry luminaries. Many of the sessions did not have PowerPoint slides, but those that did are available here.
As always, it's impossible to provide an adequate account of the conference, so I've put together a few highlights.
ERSA's perspective
Matthew Lester, the vice chair of ERSA and Director of Operations for Papworth Trust, was one of the first speakers of the day. His speech highlighted ERSA's commitment to outcome based commissioning and the black box approach. He also quoted Samuel Johnson: 'The safe and general antidote against sorrow is employment.'
Social Return on Investment
Much of this session mirrored the content and discussion of the following day's SMF event (report here). Further content was provided by Debbie Scott of Tomorrow's People, who pointed to the evaluation reports that her organisation commissions to analyse the social return on investment of their projects. The reports estimate savings in public spend on benefits, crime, government administration and many other areas, plus benefits such as increased tax revenues, and frequently show a very high rate of return. The point was clear: procurement that takes the full range of benefits into account would drastically increase the delivery budget. There was also a passing snipe at the perpetual pilots approach to procurement.
A side point in the Q&A was a brief discussion of whether private providers are better than public sector ones. The only example that anyone could cite was the Australian model, where the public sector provider was driven out of the market within a few years.
Joined up government
Sir Robin Wales, the directly elected mayor of Newham, represented the local authority side of things at the conference, and was passionate about the importance of devolving the powers necessary for local areas to meet their own needs. Top tip for future events - he was also the most entertaining speaker of the day.
Keynotes - Yvette Cooper and Theresa May
As usual, the keynote speeches didn't contain much that wasn't already known - it's inadvisable to announce a new policy every week. The Q&A threw up a couple of responses that added depth to what we already know:
- Yvette responded to a question about raising the state pension age by committing Labour to a gradual increase, arguing that too fast a rate of increase would mess up people's retirement planning, and could lead to higher youth unemployment.
- Theresa alluded to the policies outlined in more detail by Freud the following day, stating the FND2 contracts would not be signed, but that they would try to avoid restarting the procurement from scratch. She also said that they would work with providers to secure the funding needed to run the Work Programme.
Terry Rooney
Terry, in his role chairing the Work and Pensions Select Committee, spends a lot of time immersed in the detail of DWP operations. His recommendations were specific and to the point:
- The hand-offs between JCP and providers need to be improved. Customers often arrive at a provider without knowing why they're there or what they're expected to do
- Pathways to Work has been less than spectacularly successful. This was the nicest thing anyone said about the programme all day
- Welfare to work is psychological warfare - its job of persuading people that they can get back into employment is occasionally undermined by media doomsaying
- The adverse publicity around fraud early in the summer has damaged all providers, even though they were isolated incidents without any intention at senior level
- The first JSA interview is now around 7 minutes, which is not long enough
- There is no meaningful customer choice at present
- There's no reason not to devolve Access to Work budgets to providers to enable instant access during the transition to work, and prevent the dropouts that occur during processing delays
- 'More broadminded people have appeared in Sheffield, who understand the way the world works'
Alan Cave
Alan, the DWP's Delivery Director, paid tribute to providers for their roll-out of FND despite the attendant difficulties, and referred obliquely to current issues with security. He was cautiously optimistic about provider performance, and noted that PRaP was on track to roll out within a couple of weeks. He also pointed out that 'we know what bad looks like', but that the characteristics of and measurement processes for good delivery were not widely agreed.
Open contract information
Mike Harvey of EAGA raised the issue of publication of data, questioning the DWP's blocking of providers who wanted to publish their performance offers for FND.
- Terry's response was that he was worried whether any provider could reach target. While he had no problem with publishing the data, he predicted that it would lead to headlines calling the new delivery a failure.
- Alan's response was to argue that it's the right way to go. He felt that openly published Star Ratings, plus sharing of the raw data in local Provider Engagement Meetings, would provide the necessary information.
- Keith Faulkner of Working Links was also on the panel, and said that while maintaining the secrecy of performance offers was vital to developing a proper market, it was necessary to have total transparency on actual performance, i.e. number of starts, job entries etc.





Comments
Just an overall comment on the ERSA conference this week: I thought it was good in parts but some of the speakers drifted off the main issues a bit and there wasn't an awful lot from ERSA themselves about how they intended to go about representing providers in the big bunfights to come; at least not from the platform. Rob Murdoch decided to talk about customer charters for some reason whereas I wanted to know what his take was on FND, Pathways, Tory proposals, etc etc. Both Theresa May and Yvette Cooper were more political in their speeches than they were earlier in the year at Welfare to Work Convention - not a great suprise but I didn't think either of them were very convincing though which was a bit strange as both have reason to be pushing the boat out a bit on their policies at the moment, surely? They just sort of rattled off lists of how wonderful life is/will be under their respective administrations. Theresa looked a bit apologetic that she was hacking everyone off by not signing their FND contracts whilst Yvette just looked more like her husband than ever, which was a bit worrying, and effectively told us the Govt were "looking into" this and that, which after 12 years in power doesn't really amount to a can of beans.
Nice shepherd's pie at lunchtime though.
I had the vegetarian option - the shepherd's pie looked a bit grim. I've been playing with the idea of a blog detailing the lunches at DWP and provider events for some time now. The old Jobcentre end-of-financial-year provider events were always the best. It's amazing how nice the lunches could get when they were a few thousand underbudget.
There's a wider issue about the role of ERSA in the 'bunfights' you talk about. It represents a diverse array of providers, and I'm not sure they all have the same interests. However, another interpretation is that most of their work is behind-the-scenes and in ways that benefit everyone, for example the Pathways to Work review project.
You should have tried the coffee at the FND2 torture meeting at the NEC this week. I think they had mixed it with some of the aviation fuel from next door.
I thought that the Humble Pie provided by XXX went down a treat, but the sourkraut from XXXXXXXXXXX was awesome.
[Moderation - Tsk]
Re: ERSA, isn't the object surely of a trade body is to amalgam potentially very diverse membership views into a broadly representative voice for the sector? Perhaps even taking a lead where concensus isn't possible? Maybe they do work well behind the scenes, but the conference didn't really tell me anythng about what they think or what they do. I suspect this may be because their leading players are effectively contracted to DWP so can't really be seeing to go into battle with them.
I'm not even sure how diverse they are either. Their joining rates are so astronomical that effectively it's pretty well only those who have serious intentions and capabilities of being PCs that could afford it. I'm familiar with ALP as well who don't do so much on the W2W side but do get involved, and having been to their conferences it seems their membership base is far more diverse than ERSA could ever dream of, yet they somehow manage to be coherent and broadly representative of everyone. Might be resources - they have some excellent paid staff with no contractual ties so can have some humungous fights with the funding agencies whenever they feel like it. ERSA may like to take note.
Does it say something about the ERSA conference though that most comment has been about lunch??I admit the shepherd's pie looked grim, but it was tasty. I didn't get round to the desserts though. What was on offer?
I'll argue ERSA's corner on this one. Welfare to work is a much, much smaller industry than adult learning. This means that each member has to pay a correspondingly higher amount to keep even a smaller scale trade body up and running. The same arguments could be used about this site - the reason nothing existed before Indus Delta came along is that people took one look at the industry and diverted their attentions to adult learning next door.
I used to teach in Cameroon, and organised / attended a number of teacher training weekends to improve the skills of Cameroonian colleagues. The feedback was always, always about the quality of food. It's the only thing any of the attendees had anything to say on. I thought the food was quite nice, myself, and even better for being paid for by somebody else.
I'll buy that. I would note though that there are still a lot of small organisations in W2W that can't afford the representation that ERSA offer. What are they supposed to do?
Last few times I've been to DWP I've been hard pushed to get a coffee, let alone anything to eat. LSC are unable to manage skills budgets properly but do at least have a nice canteen in Coventry.
A large part of selling is about discovering the price that buyers are willing to pay, and charging them accordingly. Of course, discovering that some people are paying less can make higher value buyers a bit grumpy. One way of doing it with industry bodies is to charge according to size, turnover, number of locations etc.
Whereas some may suggest that "a large part of selling is about discovering the price that buyers are willing to pay, and charging them accordingly", "Price" simply represents one component of the Marketing Mix (pursue a google search on the 5 P's of Marketing).... and, in terms of New Deal, suppliers have developed a tendency to deliver the lowest quality of service which the buyer (ie the DWP) is prepared to accept.
Given that vendors expect to make a healthy profit on the deal, where profit is a function of a "successful outcome", don't be surprised if vendors simply dump candidates into any vulgar set up and into any scenario (such as voluntary work) which, whilst conforming to the notion of a "successful outcome", doesn't deliver what long term unemployed candidates require.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that, if in due course, a FND Contract Holder makes a bid for the German Prisoner of War Camp (currently being online auctioned in Durham), and for its City Centre Offices (used to train the inmates) to then transfer facilities to Stalag Luft Eins.
Brilliant Megan. Alternatively, vendors could be forced to "dump" candidates into any scenario which ACTUALLY conforms to the notion of a "sucessful outcome", which would be - gasp, shock, horror - employment of at least 16 hours a week, for 13 continuous weeks, followed by another 13 weeks out of 17 (or 26 weeks out of 30). The killer for the heinous FND contract holders is that these are the only notions of "successful outcomes" DWP are willing to accept. Always a pleasure to hear from enlightened people who can't be bothered to read the specification before having a pop!
It is amazing just how many people have no idea what Flexible New Deal actually involves. But then, a lot of people seemed to be unaware of the flaws of the original New Deal until recently, so I guess it's not surprising that people are tarring FND with the same brush. Time for an article methinks: 'Why FND is not the same as New Deal (and why I'll delete anyone who doesn't acknowledge this)'.
I've been to two events held by Primes to discuss their delivery model with potential subcontractors, and at both events there were people - who think they want to be subcontractors - who hadn't even read the specification.
That's very cynical Megan.
Emma Harrison, of A4e fame, has been promising all FND customers a cup of tea and a hobnob on a comfy DFS sofa in a recent article in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/30/emma-hamilton-unemployment...
Emma's obviously cottoned on to the worst kept secret in retail that DFS (and most other furniture emporiums) have always got a sale on.
On ERSA, something is only worth what somebody is prepared to pay for it but membership has to be viewed a bit differently. ALP seem to have meetings at Ministerial levels (Welfare to Work and Skills agenda) on a monthly basis because they represent such a huge cross section of providers. They also have the happy knack of actually being able to inform policy from time to time (it helps when you have a comedy/industry genius like Graham Hoyle to bang on the door with total objectivity). This alone means that I'm more than happy to lump out on Membership.
On the most important topic of food, i've found that the quality of grub is more dependent on the venue than the organiser. As a general rule, I find Football Stadiums tend to be consistently rubbish and hotels and conference centres are that little bit better. Community centres can vary from life-threatening to michelin starred. I'm usually happy to play Russian Roulette, sometimes with apocalyptic consequences although I've made some good friends racing to the traps as some Minister begins the afternoon session by warbling on about green shoots, blah, blah, blah...
Thanks for your comment, Daniel, about having an article explaining why FND is not the same as New Deal. Good idea. I know a few people, myself included, who think FND will be the same as the old New Deal except you have to attend 30 hours a week for a year instead of 13 weeks.
Hmmm.....that's not my understanding of Stage 4. In our area, I think one prime is talking about seeing people two days a week, or four afternoons.
Apart from a requirement that clients will have to do at least four weeks full-time placement/experience, I thought providers had a great deal of flexibility?
Providers do have a lot of flexibility, ahomage. Stage 4 (what most non-DWP people think of as FND) doesn't have mandated hours of attendance, although there may be a few other rules that have sneaked in when nobody was looking. It should all be in the provider guidance for FND in any case. I'll see about getting a piece done sometime soon...
Just reading the Guardian article from Ms Harrison (Or Hamilton - nice to see the Guardian made the effort to get her name right...) where she states that she would not be cashing in...
...a rumour I have heard (though might not be for this forum) is that A4e is in the process of selling up to a private equity company, though specifics aren't clear on this. My source is xxxxxxx (save on the moderation, Daniel) and seemed pretty sure it would be happening before FND2 results.
Certainly makes for an interesting slant on W2W when private equity houses get involved in buying up well known W2W brands