Analysis - New Deal performance 2008

Following a recent FoI request, the DWP have e-mailed us copies of their current performance data under the 'Flightpath' system, which tracks contract delivery for New Deal, Programme Centres, and one or two other programmes. We've published the e-mailed documents as file attachments at the bottom of this article, so you can carry out your own analysis on the source data if you wish. All UK contracts are covered by the data.

Summary of data
Extracting useful information has been rendered complex by the different report formats for each area, the lack of explanation for the data fields, and the three month period that Flightpath data appears to limit itself to. In the following table, the %job entries column should be taken with a large pinch of salt, to say the least:

Provider	Starts	Job outcomes	% job entry
Armstrong Learning	0	0	N/A
Armstrong Learning	0	0	N/A
Lauder College Options	21	7	33%
Hyfforddiant CT	37	14	38%
Moray College	43	6	14%
East Dunbartonshire Council	52	18	34%
Scout Enterprises	54	22	41%
Management Introductions GtW)	60	25	41%
West Lothian Council	74	18	24%
Pembrokeshire CC	80	13	16%
Kennedy Scott	92	19	21%
Argyle & Bute Council	123	46	37%
SCVO	129	33	25%
Dash Training SW Ltd	137	32	23%
Camarthenshire TTC	138	23	17%
Sencia	143	57	40%
Tydfil Training	144	56	39%
Support Training	149	19	13%
North Herts College	150	34	23%
Swansea College	180	78	43%
Crosby Training	205	78	38%
BPC	221	73	33%
Prospects	227	50	22%
Standguide	229	52	23%
Shropshire County Council	231	48	21%
Lauder College GtW	247	60	24%
Juniper Training	264	122	46%
Claverhouse Training	286	92	32%
Triage Central	299	124	42%
Shackleton Associates	312	60	19%
MBW	356	76	21%
Pertemps	358	135	38%
WEST	384	76	20%
Seetec	450	147	33%
Community Links	465	130	28%
The Wise Group	527	235	45%
Inspire2 Independance	574	180	31%
TWL	645	191	30%
Future Skills Dudley	704	251	36%
YMCA Training	737	135	18%
BTCV	737	200	27%
Biscom	744	269	36%
Workfirst	807	177	22%
Instant Muscle	1070	283	26%
Working Links	1083	266	25%
Steps to Work	1166	258	22%
TBG Learning	1261	474	38%
TNG	1519	562	37%
Skills Training	1890	648	34%
BEST	2184	626	29%
CDG	4782	1259	26%
A4E	8512	2198	26%

• Starts is the number of starts on New Deal provisions in the period January-March 2008. We believe this means that e.g. a customer taking a Gateway to Work (GtW) course then starting an option in the period would count as two starts, but that a customer taking the GtW course, leaving halfway through, then restarting it two weeks later would only count as one start.
• Job outcomes is the number of job entries claimed by the provider during the period January-March 2008. A combination of seasonal variation in flows, the short time period, and the lag between a customer starting provision and starting work mean that this will not relate well to the number of starts.
• % job entries is job outcomes divided by the number of starts. Given the problems in relating the two, this is not a particularly trustworthy figure.

In a number of areas (e.g. North West), New Deal delivery has been broken down into the GtW and Options elements, with separate providers for each. This is not the case in other areas (e.g. London), which makes comparing performance across providers even more fraught with difficulty. We're trying to obtain figures covering the full contract length for New Deal, Employment Zones and PSL contracts, and would suggest waiting for these before making any judgments.

However, there are some results that are useful. The number of starts for each provider gives some indication of relative proportions of delivery, with A4E a clear leader:

Provider	Starts	% Starts
Armstrong Learning	0	0%
Armstrong Learning	0	0%
Lauder College Options	21	0%
Hyfforddiant CT	37	0%
Moray College	43	0%
East Dunbartonshire Council	52	0%
Scout Enterprises	54	0%
Management Introductions GtW)	60	0%
West Lothian Council	74	0%
Pembrokeshire CC	80	0%
Kennedy Scott	92	0%
Argyle & Bute Council	123	0%
SCVO	129	0%
Dash Training SW Ltd	137	0%
Camarthenshire TTC	138	0%
Sencia	143	0%
Tydfil Training	144	0%
Support Training	149	0%
North Herts College	150	0%
Swansea College	180	1%
Crosby Training	205	1%
BPC	221	1%
Prospects	227	1%
Standguide	229	1%
Shropshire County Council	231	1%
Lauder College GtW	247	1%
Juniper Training	264	1%
Claverhouse Training	286	1%
Triage Central	299	1%
Shackleton Associates	312	1%
MBW	356	1%
Pertemps	358	1%
WEST	384	1%
Seetec	450	1%
Community Links	465	1%
The Wise Group	527	1%
Inspire2 Independance	574	2%
TWL	645	2%
Future Skills Dudley	704	2%
YMCA Training	737	2%
BTCV	737	2%
Biscom	744	2%
Workfirst	807	2%
Instant Muscle	1070	3%
Working Links	1083	3%
Steps to Work	1166	3%
TBG Learning	1261	4%
TNG	1519	4%
Skills Training	1890	5%
BEST	2184	6%
CDG	4782	14%
A4E	8512	24%

A regional perspective also gives some handy information on relative throughflows, and the spread of providers in each region makes the % job outcomes marginally more trustworthy.

Region	Starts	Job Outcomes	% job entry
Wales	1305	423	32%
East Midlands	1836	544	30%
South West	1847	533	29%
Scotland	2241	768	34%
East of England	2296	488	21%
South East	2873	941	33%
North East	3073	745	24%
North West	4038	1261	31%
West Midlands	4658	1338	29%
Yorkshire and the Humber	4943	1271	26%
Yorkshire and the Humber	4943	1271	26%
London	6173	1746	28%

Effectiveness of monitoring
As stated in the covering letter, the DWP's PLMI contract management software doesn't work. Flightpath is the DWP staff's way of managing performance in the absence of working software, and is based on manual reporting of figures by providers and collation into Excel spreadsheets by contract management staff. Any crosschecks against claimed performance presumably have to be carried out manually. However, the reports appear entirely sufficient for the short-term needs of direct contract management.

What all this means for flexible New Deal
A clear point to emerge from the data is that flexible New Deal contractors will not be marked primarily on their current New Deal performance. A number of potential primes don't deliver New Deal (e.g. Work Directions, Reed in Partnership), and a number don't deliver employment programmes at all in the UK (e.g. Angus Knight, Serco, Capita). Additionally, the Flightpath MI is not sufficiently rigorous and complete to act as a key source of information on provider performance, so providers will be free to place their own interpretation on their achievements in bidding to the DWP and to primes. If we can get hold of longer term figures before subcontracting is set in place, we can hopefully support the selection process by providing guidance on which potential subcontractors have been performing well.

Programme Centre Performance
Although the spreadsheets below include Programme Centre performance, these have not been analysed, as the contract values and throughflows make them somewhat less interesting.

Credit - Analysis of this information was carried out by a third party researcher on Indus Delta's behalf. Thank you for the help!