What do you think of flexible New Deal?
Submitted by Daniel on Wed, 07/05/2008 - 11:08am
I was talking to consultants this morning who are trying to decide whether to recommend investing in flexible New Deal (FND) prime contractors. I couldn't give them a straight answer. Can you? Will it give providers the freedom to truly help people, or the freedom to harm them? Are you looking forward to it? Are there any problems with the existing New Deal that it might solve? Write away!
- Login or register to post comments
- 59115 reads
Largely depends on the quality of the clients being forwarded by DWP/JCP. Remember that these clients have already been intensively 'coached' by JCP for 12 months so the individuals appetite for work is critical.
I'm going to have to kick some people around and get them to post on this. Surely you've got some opinions?!
Some providers have solid experience in delivering flexible programmes, eg Employment Zones. Even so it will be difficult and risky to predict performance on FND. Given that making a profit in the programme depends so much on outcomes, there's a very large financial risk for organisations taking on the contracts.
I think that, even with Customer Choice, providers will have a lot of power to push the DWP around. The winning bids are likely to offer such high performance that no provider will exceed their offer and make above-prediction profits. What happens if a third of contracts underperform?
My understanding of FND makes me think it is a small positive step, assuming DWP don't totally balls up the procurement. The contract size and focus on outcomes moves DWP away from wasting money on contract management and non-performers.
I'd be interested in seeing exactly how work trials are defined. I can't see UK businesses being over the moon about taking on thousands of recalcitrant jobseekers for work placements. The LEPs will have a long way to go before they can pull that out of the bag.
Speaking of ballsing up the procurement, there have been rumours circulating that some providers have been taking advantage of their size to negotiate for better terms from DWP contracting. I can't see any real evidence of this from the outstanding ESF contract awards though - Tomorrow's People, BEST, ERP, and Stoke on Trent College are none of them massive. It does raise the issue of what happens if providers become too important to allow them to fail.
With regard to saving DWP money on contract management, I know what you mean. However, Dan Finn at Portsmouth wrote in a study a while back that large contracts in Australia and elsewhere did not necessarily remove government intervention and micro-management: any perceived unfairness or harshness in delivery could result in tremendous pressure on the DWP to intervene. For example, what would happen if an FND provider decided to park all customers with major disabilities or health conditions?
The focus on outcomes is the driver to saving the DWP money. Money is saved by not being as involved as previously in drafting, managing and implementing contracts and only paying a bulk of the contract against defined outcomes.
So far as large organisations negotiating better terms is concerned, that may be the case in some instances but how much better I think is unlikely to be very much. I do not think the DWP will be unduly concerned about any organisation going 'under' [see Instant Muscle] so long as there is another prepared to replace it.
Regarding 'parking' awkward cases, this will undoubtedly happen but the qustion is to what degree this occurs. I am not privy to the detail of the contracts but would presume there is a performance measure along the lines of x% of clients/customers taken on to meet the off benefits check otherwise there is scope for taking on all the clients/customers you can and cherry pick those with the best chance of getting work whilst you 'park' the rest.
Not wishing to bring up the whole parking issue again here but, if they are driven by outcomes, providers will park people based upon their proximity to the labour market. As long as this proximity is not judged on the basis of their disability, race, gender, etc then it seems pretty bloody fair to me. Get those people into work that can as quickly as possible. Providers have a political game to play to manage perceptions of this - helping people to understand that this approach is best and reducing the negative impact of parking. The threat of micro-management by DWP should be enough to keep providers canny about how they promote themselves.
WakingDragon, your point links back into the current Question of the Week - how can you tell if someone is job ready? Some providers are claiming that it's not possible. I would argue that it is, but that it's very difficult to exclude health conditions, disabilities, basic skills needs, and willingness to work from that calculation. Gender, race, whether someone lives in a deprived estate, and many other factors also affect someone's chances of finding work.
Maybe it would be useful to have an honest conversation about which things should and should not be considered. The alternative is a dishonest situation where anything goes as long as it can be swept under the carpet, in the same way that some recruitment agencies discriminate against whole swathes of society for fear of displeasing their employers.
As per my comments elsewhere - job ready - on job readiness. But I think the issue of parking is key. Consider pways for example. the govt. aims to get 1 million people back into employment from IB but there are c. 3 million people on IB so by default a large number will be parked.
Also, it seems to me that most providers are ill equiped to deal with clients who enter the parked category. Working with these clients could incur substantial losses unless the provider really knows what they are doing. There are, without doubt, processes, techniques, mechanisms and interventions which can be applied to shift a lot of people currently parked - assuming they will want to be shifted. people can be encouraged to want something - but then the ethics come in. Will the person actually be better off - forget the financial side (see below) - in terms of their life (and forget QoL measures for now). If they won't then why try and shift them?
The financial side. I came across an excellent example. The financial calculations showed someone woudl be £320 a month better off in work. Their response (paraphrased): so i'd be working for 80 quid a week, giving up my free time, answering to somebody else, and doing something I don't want to do. For £80 a week. Would you do that?
Re bills comments - customers need to understand wages replace benefits - not necessarily outweigh them in monetary terms. I would much rather earn my income than have to claim it, but some customers just can't see this..The problem is second and third generation benefit recipients - they can often be the odd one out if they want to work.
Re wakingdragons comments - Micromanagement by DWP...that'll be the day!!I think you'll find the attitude will be "You're on your own mate...12month plus is nothing to do with us!"
My concern is that - inevitably - providers will be attracted by the big money on offer here.But they will also have to deal with the hardest to help customers - and what can they do that is different, new, and engages the customer ( who will have multiple barriers to work, not just the ones we pigeon-hole them into). I'm not saying it can't be done.. I just wait to see with interest
Thank you pamplemousse. It's good to get another perspective on the contracting process. There's an interesting question about 'making work pay' - I think you're right that many people are willing to take on work that isn't far above their current levels of income, *but* it's vital that they have transitional support of some kind to smooth out the transition, such as the Return To Work Credit. Going back to work often costs a fair bit of money - buying a travel card or leasing a car, sorting out new clothes, paying for childcare, plus paying rent and other living costs in the gap between benefits phasing out and the first salary payment.
With regard to micromanagement, this may be an issue with contract management teams rather than at individual jobcentre level. The experience in Australia is that the 'black box' approach has gradually been phased out, as the government comes under huge pressure to reign in perceived injustices and take responsibility for provision that it's mandating. Thus the providers there have ended up delivering increasingly defined programmes rather than being allowed to do what they want as long as they get people into work.
With regard to hardest-to-help - yes, there is a risk. It's only possible to make a good estimate of how many you can get into jobs if you have a good knowledge of how hard they're going to be to help. Providers with Employment Zone experience are probably in a good position to know this, as a large part of their core client base would have been New Deal repeaters. We may see some providers desperately trying to renegotiate their prices upwards if they discover they've got the sums wrong, or if the economy makes it substantially more difficult to place people.
With regards to FND, I have concerns whether providers will be able to sustain the expenditure that will be required up front in order to address the barriers of their clients. The way the funding model is designed, looks to me like it is for the big organisations only as massive reserve of funds will be required to sustain the costs without any guarantees that there will be a return through job outcomes. When you add into the equation the fact we are in a major economic depression, this will mean even larger reserves of cash will probably be needed.
My main worry is whether providers who have historically cared more about the "bottom line" than the learner experience, will be prepared to put the funds up to give FND clients a proper chance of finding work.
I guess we will have to wait and see....
With regard to the earlier post by jbending 24/01/2009
Quote: "My main worry is whether providers who have historically cared more about the "bottom line" than the learner experience, will be prepared to put the funds up to give FND clients a proper chance of finding work."
As only the big players will be left surely this is inevible? The small sub contractors or stand alones who originally set out with a mission to help clients, and in some cases still really do put client above profit, will all be driven out.
Just look at the current major players and the new ones circling likes sharks around a surfboard. All of them are concerned with the bottom line first and foremost inspite of their stated lofty ideals and "mission statements".
It would be interesting to have comment from a few people working inside these "charities" and businesses.
The cynical might believe that DWP have designed FNS at government behest to acheive exactly that but I couldn't possibly comment...
Hi DELPH and Jbending,
It's interesting to see that discussions on the site don't really die off like they do on most websites. It's an indicator that a lot of people's concerns still haven't been answered, and I suspect won't be until a few years into FND delivery.
Both of you raise a big point about companies that only care about profits. The big question is, can the DWP set up and run a contract where it's easier for those firms to do a good job than find loopholes and game the system? If the DWP can't, then the logic of markets dictates that companies who cheat will do better than honest ones, gradually driving them out of business.
I'm an optimist on this. There are limits on 'perfectibility of contracting', but there also limits on how attractive companies find doing the wrong thing. Small organisations do not have a monopoly on competence or good customer service. The DWP's new Commissioning Strategy says all the right things about open performance measurement and paying companies for doing the things that matter (i.e. getting people into a long-term job and keeping them there), rather than measuring 'quality' by the things that don't.
This may or may not help small companies, but if it's done well then it should help people on benefits. Sadly, Star Ratings look like they're not doing it well, but I'll write about that some other time.
Incidentally, I appear to be the only person on the internet ever to have written 'perfectibility of contracting', according to Google. Which is weird because I'm sure I read a paper on it once.
Daniel,
Why is profit such a dirty word?
If contracts were ran at a loss then the company would go bust, at break even it would have no cash flow to go for other contracts so private sector companies need profit to grow.
Charities are allowed to make surplus, and I don't think I'm alone seeing directors of charities and social enterprises driving large cars.
The bottom line DWP pay by results..if you don't perform you don't get paid so if private sector companies are making a profit it's because, even though people might not like it, they are good at delivery.
If this attitude to real world economics is not addressed, I feel this will be the cause of many a company dying..not big nasty companies plundering money out of a very strictly regulated system. Drop the conspiracy theories and get back to work...!!!
Here's a question...why did DWP & JCP staff strike for a pay ride during the middle of the biggest recession in 100 years..nobody actually supports them and the real world has to tighten it's belt to survive. It makes the unions look worse than private sector companies who at least pay on reward!!!
Hi Anonymous,
I think you're right that there's a suspicion in the third and public sectors that private companies would be harsher and less caring towards people on benefits. Having worked with all three, I'm agnostic on this - targets drive behaviour, and bad targets drive bad behaviour. That's true in the public sector and the third sector, as well as with private companies.
Hi Anonymous,
Just to comment on your statement: The bottom line DWP pay by results..if you don't perform you don't get paid so if private sector companies are making a profit it's because, even though people might not like it, they are good at delivery"
In some cases, I would definitely agree with you, however I don't think that anyone can deny that the payment model for the current prime contract is open to organisations being paid vast amounts of money for doing half a job.
I could only hazzard a guess that around 50% of all jobs claimed by the different organisations do not lead to sustainable employment which is where the problem is, and where a massive amount of funds has been paid. FND which is payable on a start and then only after a person has been in work for 13 and then 26 weeks will certainly put a stop to this waste of public funds for limited results.
There is certainly no conspiracy theory being touted on my part here, just a recognition through having worked for 7 years within the industry that something has to change if we are to meet the needs of the people who really need the help. The main thing in some organisations will be to invest more into the training and recruitment of proper staff.
And you are right in that if organisations manage to perform well and achieve the right results then no sane person could begrudge them their profits...
I think it is interesting and challenging times ahead...
The big problem with FnD is cashflow and risk. Nothing wrong with profit it's just there isnt any to be had under FnD unless you can achieve 50% sustainable job outcomes which no one is doing.
Essential dwp is passing on the costs and risks of welfare support onto private provision (be it third or commercial sector)
The nature of Fnd clients is that they are the furtherest away for the job market.
Therefore a very risky propositioned in terms of payments and not a sustainable financial model. All the primes know this and are basically playing a tendering game. ie they hope they will win and when the service fee money runs out they feel they will be able to re negotiate better terms. There is a strong tradition of providers in this sector promising the earth to obtain a contract and then being unable to deliver.
DWPs contracting systems do not help. Given that most primes are reliant on smaller subcontractors there is no robust and open tendering process for those that actually deliver a large percentage of the service. Also it should be noted that the primes are passing the risk down the line to smaller (often third sector) organisations who are not really able to sustain the programme.
I agree that the public purse should demand value for money and that clients deserve good individualised interventions with skills training. But there just aint the money and cashflow there to deliver it, so you will end up with something worse than you have now, which isnt all that great.
Fnd was based largely on EZ models which have large client bases. most of the country isnt like that...Do the sums...they dont add up and everyone is now faced with limited credit, fewer jobs...etc.. etc..
....hmmm...done the sums....Im glad I negotiated a payment structure with most of the bidding primes that will enable me to concentrate on getting starts irrespective of job outcomes.
They all were trying to gain brownie points by showing how they will support the smaller agencies who can't bare the financial burden through the prime payment structures but could deliver.
Bring 'em in and stack 'em high I say....
Hi Kazza,
Congratulations on getting a good deal from the primes. That last sentence does make the whole thing sound more like a labour camp than a support programme though. Hopefully you'll be running engaging, interesting, motivating courses and building strong personal relationships with clients to help them meet their needs to move back into employment, rather than a mini-Mauthausen.
Incidentally, this makes me the first person on my own site to invoke Godwin's Law
Will FND be postponed for a year?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/feb...
Thanks for the link, ahomage. The DWP have traditionally had a fair amount of impunity in messing about with welfare-to-work contracts after bidding, so it must be something of an awakening for them to be dealing with large providers who aren't afraid of the courts. It's also interesting to see some activity from ERSA. Now to get a copy of that letter...
More exploitation of the unemployed by unscrupulous 'training' providers.
The whole sector is awash with ex-double glazing sales people, with their eye firmly on profit and not on the long term future of the unemployed.
Hi Anonymous,
Given that FND, unlike New Deal, pays on the long term movement of the unemployed into unemployment, I suspect that it would if anything be less likely to result in providers pushing people into unsuitable jobs.
@Daniel
Did you mean to say "Movement of the unemployed INTO unemployment" ? Surely not !
Or was that a subconscious slip ?
If 'training' meant giving new skills, qualifications & practical experience to the unemployed, that would indeed be a good thing for both the unemployed and the country as a whole, however providers and many businesses tend to exploit the unemployed, the providers as a source of income and businesses as free labour.
Heh, my slip. There's an article on that theme in the last newsletter, all about the opportunities for a career of unemployment that are opening up.
With regard to skills training and work experience in unemployment, I'm somewhat ambivalent. These tend to be process-driven activities, and unless there's a specific job with a specific employer to focus the delivery, then people can finish their course, get a bit of paper and go straight back onto the dole queue. I guess it's nice to get out of the house occasionally, but still. Not to mention that the mixing in of mandatory and voluntary customers on such courses makes them fairly fraught to begin with. Just a personal view, obviously, and there may be organisations out there that have very different experiences.
An alternative to consider might give people the support they need to get and keep a specific job with a named employer, with in-work training after job start to help them progress within the organisation. There's an interesting issues around part-time work with this, certainly in Pathways to Work delivery: gradually ramping up from a few hours a week to full time employment often works very well for both the unemployed person and the employer. Unfortunately, it falls outside the Pathways definition of a job outcome, so providers are penalised if they do it.
With regard to the free labour point, I don't know of any provider that uses its customers to carry out its own business. I'm not sure I'd see it as the end of the world if they did, funnily enough - involving customers in their own delivery could be a very good thing if done well, in the same way that e.g. Montessori schools stress the importance of children looking after their own environment. Micro-teaching, i.e. people teaching to and supporting their peers, also has advantages. Again, FND and the new commissioning model are specifically designed to get rid of the kind of behaviour you're alleging, by only paying for long-term paid job entry.
Yes, you see it on the faces of the clients here.
The new ones are all expectant of training and moving onwards and upwards ... But then there are the returnees who've been through the system before, and know it's 2 weeks of 'games' like 'name 5 things to take to a desert island', then shelf stacking in the local supermarket or litter picking for the council. Now the problem is very few are ever taken on by these companies, and why would they? The companies get all this free labour and the 'provider' gets more unemployed people to make profit from.
Gordon Brown likes to drop sound bites about a skilled UK workforce, but unless someone is going to provide 'actual' training this will never happen. And to be quite frank UK business does not want an educated workforce, because they are harder to exploit.
If a client is sent to a company and prove they can do the job they should be taken on, not swapped for another unemployed, un-waged and ultimately disillusioned individual who'll return here next year.
The unemployed should not be seen as existing for the sole benefit of the providers, the providers are here for the benefit of people looking for a helping hand and training to re-enter the work place, not a revolving door to unemployment and exploitation.
The trouble is the only people consulted about 'schemes' are business leaders, politicians and specialist consultants, who are so out of touch with the real world all their 'schemes' (and we all know schemes are run by schemers), end in abject failure. Has anyone ever asked the unemployed what training they need ? Of course not, no one asks turkeys if they're in favour of Christmas!
'Not to mention that the mixing in of mandatory and voluntary customers on such courses makes them fairly fraught to begin with'
Not as fraught as being forced to mix with the 'socially diverse' members of the community you would normally avoid at all costs in the street. Adults and pregnant teenagers ranging in age from 18 to 60 years old with mental health and drug problems kicking off at the staff, no manners, making insulting comments to other clients about the way they dress or their sexual orientation. A lunatic asylum. A very threatening and intimidating situation to be in when one is normally used to relaxing in a peaceful environment at home with a cup of tea and The Guardian.
Guardian article on FND
'This follows demands from the firms involved for hundreds of millions more in "up-front" cash'
'The difficulties besetting Gordon Brown's core welfare policy present a severe headache to ministers, who vowed last year - when jobs were abundant and unemployment low - to bring more private-sector rigour into the welfare system by paying employment firms and the voluntary sector "by results". This meant they would receive a sum for each person for whom they found a job, with extra cash when workers stayed in their new posts for more than 26 weeks.'
As someone who has recently finished a 6 week job placement working outside in all weathers for my extra New Deal £15, instead of sitting in a nice warm office sending clients to work for nothing in charity shops, hotels and local supermarkets, when do I get my slice of the 'up front cash millions?'
I'd like my share too of 'the sum' when I eventually get a job and a share of the 'extra cash' when I stay in that job for more than 26 weeks. How much is that 'extra cash'?
With regard to the 'Guardian' article:
What you have to remember these 'programmes' are primarily run for the benefit of the companies involved, and to the detriment of the unemployed.
That's why there's no meaningful training, training costs money, which in turn means substantially less profits. Now the question is, should the unemployed be exploited for profit, morally no! But in a society that rewards failed bankers with millions in bonuses, the despicable can seem to be justified by some.
Given that many of the organisations involved in delivery are charities or public organisations (Jobcentres, councils etc.), you're presumably saying that the entire welfare system is set up to harm unemployed people and enrich the organisations involved. Conspiracy theories at that level are not terribly useful.
Here it's certainly a for profit organisation, to the detriment of the clients.
The jobcentre plus no longer delivers anything in relation to training, and the local council is only interested in the un-waged labour, there was one charity organisation (I previously worked for them), but they no longer exist as the sole contract was awarded to my current employer, again to the detriment of the unemployed.
Maybe the DWP should insist in 2 or more providers in any given area, to offset the monopolistic and detrimental effects a sole provider tends to have.
Anonymous - 9 Feb
I take your point, one of the greatest challenges is the mix of those clients who want to work and are 'job ready', those who want to work, but have massive barriers to overcome and those who have no intention of finding work and are only on the provision to protect their benefits. Until the 'system' recognises and treats each of these client groups differently (and pays accordingly) FND is set to fail in its present form. Particularly as such a large proportion of clients sit in the third of these categories.
Anonymous, just because an organisation holds charitable status, it doesn't mean that surplus business capital goes to elderly grannies in the Channel Islands or to support endangered wombats in Patagonia. More often than not it goes on wage increases, bonuses, investment in the future, etc.
Equally, just because an organisation is a "for profit" organisation, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will do just that. Instant Muscle and Carter Carter, two of DWP's biggest private providers, went into administration with over £400 million of debt and over 1000 redundancies between them.
Under FND, good providers that get people into sustained work may not even break even until year 3/4. Hardly mercenary is it? Bad providers will find that it doesn't even begin to pay the bills and will scatter or fold.
It's a decent programme that responds to the primary complaints of current New Deal customers of monotonous, meaningless, mandated provision and does offer a more tailored approach.
I just don't know who's got the estimated £9m lying around that it might take to bank roll a single FND contract on the new volumes. Maybe the solution is to award 3 or 4 contracts per region instead of 1 or 2 - this would minimise financial risk for all concerned and offer the customer more choice.
Anyway, back to the Patagonian Wombats. The poor things....
I think you should realise, Bungle, that the organisations that exist to help these wombats are really just self-interested blood-suckers that force wombats to shuffle through supposedly helpful activities while really enriching themselves at the wombats' expense. You'd be far better off just sending money directly to the wombats.
Daniel
Ancient proverb say 'Give a wombat some fruit (if that's what wombats eat) and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a wombat to grow fruit and you'll feed him for a lifetime.'
The problem is, training wombats cuts into the profits, and may result in the evolution of the wombat into skill rich animal that will resent being exploited.
A politician or business leader once said something like "It's good to have a large number of unemployed, unskilled workers, because it keeps wages down"
Aren't we past this mindset of "mercenary" private providers in W2W yet? For the vast majority of providers in W2W the profits are very far from huge, with most consistently treading a very fine line between keeping their businesses viable yet still wanting to do their level best for the people they work with who are out of work. If anyone thinks that the public employment services (JCP currently) can do so much better and do it so much more ethically than private providers, perhaps they might care to recall that IB levels shot up because it was the old Employment Service, not providers, that parked clients there to get them off the unemployment registers. And of course it is the taxes of those companies and those individuals in the private sector that is making the very existence - let alone the continuation - of JCP possible in the first place. My pension's shot to pieces yet I'm having to pay out of my income to ensure the pensions of individuals in JCP/DWP are maintained. Yeah, really fair, really ethical.
Raven......I don't know any JCP PA's who necessarily think they are 'better' than private provider staff, especially as the two approach their clients from a slightly different angle.
JCP PA's aren't trained in interview techniques, cv writing, etc, and due to their rigid interview diaries, don't have as much freedom and flexibility. Also, JCP PA's have other issues to look at other than just getting people into work, ie sorting people's benefits out, instigating sanctions for non-compliance, organising paperwork for subsidies, etc.
I don't see the two as being in competition, rather they should work together to achieve the same ends.
The current contracting issues do create one opportunity for improving FND -but all experience suggests it will not be considered or taken.
People entering Self-employment do not need to wait for new jobs to be created. The JCP programme has always punched well above its weight and is capable of doing so within FND. However, it has also always suffered by its inclusion within the Employment option - and a lack of understanding amongst the employed.
Now would be an excellent time to recognise the differences - possibly to contract separately - and allow Clients wishing to take that route to get on with it, without being forced to spend time and effort in job-searching activities in which they have no interest. It would also actually help those who are chasing any available jobs.
Such an approach would be of benefit to everyone and appears very logical...so it probably stands no chance!
Here's a fly for your ointment..
Have a look on NOMIS at the volumes of claimants on JSA over the past 12 months. In one region I've looked (large post-industrial service based urban area) the JSA count has increase overall by 4,000 over the last 12 months...sounds scary!!
But, if you start to check duration of claims the spike is at 6 months not at 12. The rate is about 1,000 up at 6 months but only about 40 up at 12 months plus.
Where is the four-fold increase in volumes, if you don't believe me do the maths? Are we saying that JCP will not be able to handle these extra 1,000 longer term claims and these will the FND first customers..?
Is the "South" (ie London) skewing the figures, are areas with large rural insular economies overall not yet largerly impacted by the recession/depression/apocalypse etc...
Surely the impacts on JSA on-flow, stock and off-flow are so complex that nobody can really say what the FND volumes will be in Oct 09.
I think that is why the announcements have been delayed. The whole model was set up assuming a vastly different set of economic conditions. The current climate dictates that a massive change of thinking is required.
If they go ahead anyway it will be a huge disaster for all concerned, not many job outcomes and no one having any money to actually retrain people to get what few jobs are about.
Until recently a good number of people on New Deal got their placements with my local provider and went onto getting a job with them both administrators and employment trainers. i was led this might be an option for me but it was never discussed. Quite recently they stopped doing this. Up until quite recently they had a lot of new dealers or ex new dealers working for them. Saves money for advertising new staff and its a work trial by another name.The choice of people they retain is interesting! Administration is the achilles heel of the new deal provider it is labour intensive and the people are not up to much given the frequent cock ups and gaffs. This is largely because or might be because a lot of these people are on their first job or they are very young. Work is something you do to pay for clubbing or holidays.I am being cynical but shouldnt we expect these businesses to be efficient.i am bound to be bitter. Last friday i actually saw a new deal employment trainer do some real work for once instead of pacing up and down...
I read the report by Dann Finn - without these alterations recommended serious problems will occur, they need to put the money in to make sure its a good scheme or reduce the numbers to a level where a high standard of service provision is available. There should be strict quality standards monitored by independent assessors. i dont know if this is planned. Its disgusting that Serco as applied for 8 of the 14 contractors. i think that Intraining should not be allowed to bid on account of their poor service record LOL.
Tony
Tony, putting lol after a sweeping negative characterisation doesn't make it less hurtful to people in a company who are often trying really hard to help others, and who in most cases have never dealt with you or anyone else in your local area. As it happens they're not even a private company - newcastle college is the owner. I'm away from a computer right now but will look through the site and emails later and start thinking about what to do with the site discussion longer term. The problems and dissatisfactions that people have with their specific experience of delivery are valid, and i think they should be heard. I do worry that they could overshadow and exclude all other conversations if i don't find a way of putting them in their own space. Will write more later...
It's funny most providers fail to have any kind of forum on their web sites, maybe because they don't want disaffected clients 'saying like it is'.
Even the DWP and Job Centre Plus make it hard for clients to get involved or have any kind of voice, I wonder why that is?
ok i will apologise for monopolising debate a bit but i would like to say i wish i could i meet some of the providers and other dissatisfied customers of new deal in a congenial environment where there is debate? And also Could someone device a framework where you could play a game using virtual money - the same resources and show how it could be spend differently or better.
i have had a really tough time my father died in 2004 and since then or 2003 i have had just scrap of work - my mother has been hospitalised 3 times perhaps the worst was at the beginning of 2006 which was entirely preventable and again at the end of 2006 she broke her hip. i cant go into other stuff!
If people wanted to you could have a debate about what the long term unemployed really need. In my personal opinion society as a lot of values that are debateable and these form the backdrop to peoples lives - for instance some people only value an action in money terms -whats in it for them. In itself this is entirely unhealthy because we depend on others and no entrepreneur can say the profits are entirely the result of their own actions.Recently we have devalued the importance of community action and charitable deeds. We institutionalised greed in the banking system.
If you want i will not write on forum for a week and i will spend some time thinking about how i could improve my situation without adding to my stress levels. I was angry perhaps need to go on an anger management course - i dont know?
what is wrong with taking on board some of the recommendations of dann finns report? Or even think about can it work at all, tenporarily they could extend the jobs of the people who work in the industry for a while until they come with a solution that is appropriate to the situation.
perhaps i will stop using this forum if most people are opposed to my views.
Dear consciousness_stream,
Don't stop posting simply because people disagree with you. However, you should bear in mind that some of your criticisms are generalised and unconstructive, and on a site frequented by a large number of W2W providers it's unsurprising that these remarks get picked up. Also, please keep your comments a little shorter - like backbenchers trying to extend bills, masses of verbiage tends to hinder debate, not encourage it.
i have got something out of it- i am going to mention social enterprise models to the board and i hope to get more from my provider in the last month if i can. i am going to suggest some survival strategies and fund raising ideas we have a staff meeting next week.
I am looking for ideas to set up my own business i might be able to get help for a good idea?
tony
For the past twenty years I’ve been brining up my children, potentially the most difficult and rewarding work one can get. It doesn’t pay wages. Prior to that I remember all sorts of Courses, Initiatives, Programmes, whatever was politically expedient for the times, for the great unwashed. In those days folk were asked their opinions beforehand so that time wasn’t wasted on the disinterested or unwilling (for whatever reason) and sometimes even meaningful work came out of these. But that was a long time ago and in the time it has taken my children to grow into young adults I have watched the conveyor belt of greed and unscupulousness slide by.
There is now a Voluntary Work backlist of three months at the local hospital and there is no suitable paid employment around. I am compensated by welfare payment of Jobseeker’s Allowance, though I managed to find Voluntary Work, two days a week, with a Charity caring for the elderly. After twelve months of this I am introduced to the inappropriately named Flexible New Deal. There is nothing flexible about it, for if I don’t do this or that, appear and re-appear as some private enterprise acting as a ‘Provider’ decrees, sanctions are ready to take the food out of our mouths, and I mean that literally, as we are already at subsistance level (which also includes family members working on low wages).
I received a letter from a company called Maximus telling me I’ve missed an appointment and that if I don’t have an excuse that I can prove I could have welfare benefits removed. I wasn’t aware of any appointment. So they made another one, whether I liked it or not and, notwithstanding they have retrieved my personal data from the DWP without my permission, they made it for a day when I am relied upon in my Voluntary Work.
In the past year I had presented to me another misnomer, the inanely entitled ‘Better-Off Calculation’, a calculation of income, so named because it is bound to result in being ‘better-off’, given that it excludes certain welfare benefits, such as Housing Benefit, Council Tax and so on. To be brief, income on welfare benefits matches or surpasses, in real terms, most of the low and underpaid jobs. FND seeks to redress this by diverting welfare costs to private enterprise and have included a caveat for providing slave-labour i.e. that an applicant or subject must perform. This further provides free labour to private business, contributes to even lower wages and increased unemployment. It is also an affront to human dignity.
I am willing to work for nothing, as it were, where I can identify such work is truly needed. Why should I be willing to withdraw voluntary work, that is needed, to satisfy the profiteers in the latest political scheme ? Would any sensible person work forty hours a week to have less income and no job satisfaction ?
I’ll let all the business-minded people debate the ins and outs, the odds and ends of FND. For my own part, I don’t appreciate the security of my family being threatened from the outset, I abhor slave-labour, regardless of the propaganda tag of ‘Work Experience’, and I am not endeared to businesses or people that expect me to fetch and carry like a dog (‘bring your letter with you’, ‘you must do your best’, and so on). I will be sent to any old job, whether it pays or not, whether I am able to do it or not, that suits the intended profits of the so-called ‘Provider’. It is nothing less than exploitation of an ‘underclass’, the disenfranchised, the under-priveleged. Just as war exploits material resources. It costs lives but it means the rich can sleep at night.
Remember the fiasco of the Child Support Agency ? Families were destroyed, people died. One can argue all one likes about the morality and responsibilities of absent parents but it’s like the death penalty, the innocent are also condemned along with those judged, from a distance, to be ‘guilty’.
When my children were at school I had first-hand experience of corruption within the Education Department/Schools & Families. Soon after they leave school I am treated as a statistic, with no feelings, thoughts or expressions, far less any consultation, of my own. Moreover, expected to believe and dance happily to a system of greed, incomptence and underlying manipulation, exploitation and dishonesty.
This is the reality for those unfortunate enough not to be able to find meaningful or decently paid employment. Yes, I could do with Training, real training for new work (where there is any), which requires genuine investment. On the other hand, I’ve already been to school, under compulsory order (at the time), and this is where I am, where we are, today.
Many people do work for forty hours a week with little job satisfaction and to be worse off than your are on benefits. Maybe you ought to ask yourself why they do that and look in the mirror as you do it!
I think that we will look back in shame at the way the unemployed are treated and abused by the system, it seems that the if someone avoids a low paid job that they are a scrounger, etc. The abuse of the system occurs when big contract providers get very rich putting people into low paid temp work. A whole industry has been created that is totally dysfunctional, which seems to be staffed by some very inflated egos chasing targets to get their monthly bonus, using language that is straight out of a sales manual, 'parking'. The unemployment rate is very low and there will always be individuals who will not be able to work, as a high rate taxpayer I accept this.
To Lazarus. I am aware that folk work harder than I do and are worse off than I am. How arrogant is your sense of superiority and futile your personal attack, although I do realise you don't value the experience of others and are hostile to such. Moreover, clearly you do not understand that the policies you are defending contribute to unemployment and low wages (whilst benefiting the rich).
The reason some people knock themselves out for so little is because they are, one way or another, forced to. For your further information, I look in the mirror and I see that I am speaking out against such despicable practices. Given a real and free choice, who would choose to be a prostitute, or does it just depend on the level of financial returns ?
Let me get this straight - the needy have to do without, I have to get greedy and you'll advise us all what we should and can do. Is that right ? Besides, why should you appeal to any sense of shame when you have none yourself ?
Life isn't fair and we live in a capitalist society where there will be rich, poor, strong, weak and lots of other spectrums. Get used to it.
And you think that comment was an "attack"?! You've basically called me arrogant, superiorist, ignorant, shameless when all I said was that you should look in a mirror. Who's attacking who?
Most people (including me) "knock themselves out" because they have a moral sense of contributing to society, paying their way, a sense of pride and self worth, a work ethic and a whole host of other reasons which would take too long to go into.
So bottom line ... when it comes to people like you I am perfectly confident in my sense of superiority.
[Moderator says ... this thread is getting rather heated and I suggest Lazarus and Icarus cool-off. I think this is what they call "flaming" in the blogosphere. It's getting a bit too personal and, as arguments go, it's probably a score-draw anyway. So I will delete any further exchanges like this.]
This is off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread. Can anyone knowledgeable about FND tell me if I'm supposed to be keeping any sort of official record of the jobs I apply for during my jobsearch session?
When I was at TNG I was given Job logs to keep track of what I applied for and what replies I recieved from the employer, then every two week I would discuss them with my advisor when I saw her for a one-to-one meeting. My advisor told me that my job logs might be passed on to the jobcentre so that they could see I had been applying for jobs.
Since then I have been moved from TNG to the YMCA and their methods are completely different. Every time I ask the advisor for a job log she tells me they haven't got any and I should just use scrap paper. In the four weeks I have been going there nobody has asked to see my notes or even asked me whether I have applied for any jobs all. When it comes to my fortnightly review I have just been asked general questions like have I been looking on the Internet and in the papers?
Everything just seems really lax here, and I don't want to get in trouble from the jobcentre for not doing what I should.
Any advice appreciated!
I think your attitude is great and it's good that you want to keep up the good practice started with TNG. Although training providers may work differently it seems odd that YMCA don't have a log as it's pretty much a standard tool.
From your perspective you need to be able to evidence that you are actively seeking work to ensure continued receipt of benefits. You aren't required to do this in a particular format but a jobsearch log does make this easier. It also helps you manage your own jobsearch.
Most jobsearch logs are based on an old JCP form (not sure if it still exists) so next time you're in the Jobcentre ask if they have a log (used to be a green leaflet) and use that format. Alternatively just keep using the same format you used at TNG or create your own. I have my own version if you want me to send you it.
The main point is you can prove you're actively seeking work. Keep up the good work!
Now there's something that I've not seen for a while....... The shortcut to this post on the front page shows the first 5 words - "I think your attitude is". To then see that the 6th word is "great" was totally unexpected. Is this a hint of positivity about the sector? Surely not!
RE: Mrs Tiddlewinkle. I've been at Ingeus about four weeks on FND, and there is no mention of a job log or anything like that. And I don't keep a list of my job applications. But if I for jobs online or by email I will have a record. And the jobcentre said I didn't need a job search log
So if you don't keep a record of your job applications how do you know what to follow up and when, and how do you work out which approach is getting you most success etc?
You are totally right ... you don't need a jobsearch log but if you keep nothing (aside from emails or online) then how are you managing your own jobsearch? You could keep a file of your application forms, letters, emails, a database or spreadsheet (if you love a bit of tech) but I really would advise keeping some easy to use reference of what you've applied for and when for your benefit more than the Jobcentre.
Is anyone else getting concerned about FND providers who don't seem to be teaching their customers good job hunting techniques and the importance of managing their jobsearch effectively? Babies and bathwater?
^^^^^ Thanks for the advise, I didn't think about going to the jobcentre and asking for one of their job logs. I'll pop in and get one later in the week.
Apart from voluntary work I haven't worked in 5 years so what is the point in someone like me keeping an accurate record? I do have a job search record, but not in one place. But can easily provide job search evidence if required.
The jobcentre are usless always have been(even before the current recession). I asked them for a list of employers who take on the long-term unemployed. "We don't have that information" is their reply. They may not have it locally, but it must be available centrally. It's Leith (Edinburgh) jobcentre - name and shame!
I'm just a guinea pig to be sent on one job program after another. What a couintry!
The only people that really benefit financially from these shoddy job schemes are the people that work and run them, no doubt the head of these large firms are living in huge mansions, and driving expensive air conditioned cars. Then they have the audacity to bash the unemployed, when it was the workers who got this country into such a financial mess, via there greed for cheap money to finance holiday homes and extensions. JC - they treat the unemployed with contempt: seems you have committed some sort of sin if you are out of work in the UK. I suppose purgatory is the latest job scheme that the unemployed are forced to go on. I've thought of one it's called W4A, it stands for Work for All, no matter how disabled you are they is work for all in the fictional world that is W2W. In this fictional world the unemployed get training and support, then they go not long term work which pays them a living wage that they can be proud of. W2W is not about keeping people locked up in a room with nothing to do, and then offering them 0 contract work......
@tony jc if you mean job center plus treat you with contempt, i have lived in quite a few areas in the last 20 years and have only had help from the job center staff i think they do a good job, what do you expect them to do for you ?????
I find the attitude about "low paid jobs" astounding, any job that provides you with more money than benefits has to be a good thing (unless of course the customer does not want to work at all), why is it a bad thing for providers to be helping people into a job where they gain a skill, get their self esteem back, improve their health, improve their well-being AND give them MORE disposable income???
I am justifiably proud of the programme I work on - we regularly exceed our performance targets and have changed many, many lives over the years.
I do not have masses of money left each month after I pay my bills but I do not resent having to work for my money. I believe the issue is one of attitude ie many customers DO NOT WANT TO WORK, thus they bang on about their rights being abused and being sent to "meaningless" jobs - there is no such thing, every job serves a purpose.
I meet people every day who use every trick in the book to avoid interviews, mess up interviews, fail to start work etc etc.
By accepting a benefit payment you need to show you are looking for work hence proof in the form of some sort of job search log is required, by trying to work against the system you only serve to make it more difficult for providers and so the cycle goes on.
Work with your provider, or better still do not sign on or take the benefit payment if you do not like what is on offer to help you.
'Boy Racer'? Is that someone who races round on a motorbike?
'I am justifiably proud of the programme I work on - we regularly exceed our performance targets [bonus] and have changed many, many lives over the years'. How modest!
There is no evidence to prove that these so called job schemes actually work in practice, all the evidence that I've looked at indicates that people go back to work anyway, after a period of illness. It seems that you are not happy with you current employment as you cannot tolerate people who do not want to work.
Please note: I'm currently in work and did not get my job via W2W programme, in which staff get bonuses for find people low paid 0 contact work.
Sounds like Boy Racer is a Snake Oil Salesman. "Roll up, roll. What am I bid for this fine upstanding jobseeker".
As others have said, there is no evidence that any of these taxpayer funded job programs have any impact on reducing UK uenmployment. All they do is transfer money from the pubic sector to the private sector.
I don't really see where people get off slating hard working and genuine people who work within welfare to work. Having worked in the sector for nigh on 20 years in various roles I don't think I have EVER come across any member of staff (at the coal face) who isn't in the industry because they want to help people and make a difference. No front line staff are in it for the money ... believe me, there isn't that much money in it; and many companies don't run bonus schemes for their staff.
Maybe before you belittle Boy Racer you should try spending every day of the week trying to find a job for someone with no work history, no qualifications, no experience, with no motivation and a poor attitude. You have to be a salesman to get the job done. At the same time it's a pleasure to help genuine jobseekers and support them in gaining a job that they wouldn't have been able to without the support.
Why shouldn't Boy Racer be modest and proud of the work that his company does? And why SHOULD we tolerate people who do not want to work? I'm in total agreement with Boy Racer - if people don't want to work they shouldn't claim benefits. Why should any of us tolerate people who expect the tax payer to fund them if they have no intention of ever contributing financially to the pot of money that is paying for their rent, their food, their clothes, their social life and so on?
It is difficult to say how much impact "these so called job schemes" have as we've always had them in one form or another. There used to be apprenticeships and unemployment schemes when my dad left school; there were Youth Training Schemes when I left school; there was Employment Training, Community Action then Training for Work 20 years ago. And just think, if "these programmes" were taken away overnight there would be an awful lot more people out of work and on benefits, a higher burden on tax payers, more competition for the jobs that are there, and no one to support those who do appreciate and benefit from the services provided. Would that really make us better off?
Then when I read statements such as, "it was the workers who got this country into such a financial mess" I do wonder why I'm even bothering trying to talk reason. Boy Racer - I think we're wasting our time. Last one out of this forum, switch off the lights!
If you've used a revolving door you'll understand how the welfare to work industry works: by getting people into jobs that are not long term (then they go back on the dole: research work backs this up), that is why the DWP have only recently altered the terms of their contracts. It's easy to get people into low paid part time work, but it is another matter to get them into well paid long term work. From a political perspective schemes like FND look good, and fit into the political discourse regarding work, but they do nothing if little to alter the prospects of the unemployed either short or long term, while anyone with any type of health issue will be 'parked'. What a term to apply to human beings, reminds me of Giddens and his Third Way theory: 'human capital', etc.
It's nice to blow ones own trumpet, but I'm always suspect of the people that do this: is it to impress? I don't doubt the sincerity of some of the individuals that work in the W2W industry, but I do doubt the real long term benefit of their interventions regarding the unemployed. If it is that effective show me any research work that has been peer revued, as I would be most interested to read it. The Pathways to Work success was down to people going back to work anyway, after a short break from illness. I'm not convinced by things like, "I find people full time work everyday", etc. etc.
Actually I ride a bike at (safe) track events
Research shows that people in work enjoy better health and live longer.
Children who come from a home where there is a "breadwinner" also tend to go into work whereas 2nd and 3rd generation unemployment runs in families - have you actually read any research, does not sound like it, I suspect you are now believeing your own rubbish.
Whilst I accept that moving long term unemployed (my programme does not deal with anyone other than bog standard JSA claims) into full time, well paid work is difficult I know from 20 years experience that part time work leads to more choice ie they can look for job that suits them without us "parasites" being on their back, they can take more time to look for something that suits, their health etc improves.
Come on I have seen enough "job seekers" in my time to know slackers when I see them.
You know there are people who will not work under any circumstances, fair enough that is their choice but do not take money from honest hardworking people and start complaining when you are made to justify why you are taking handouts. - the truth hurts.
...'you are now believeing your own rubbish'...'take money from honest hardworking people and start complaining when you are made to justify why you are taking handouts. - the truth hurts'....seems to be taken from the Sun or the Daily Star. I presume you'll claim to be a nice person Boy Racer, you sound very Dell Boy to me!
Research shows that people in work enjoy better health and live longer. You are believing
government propaganda that has been promoted by Unum Research Unit Prof. Aylward, Bob Grove, etc: 'Work is good for you'. The research was based on very low sample groups, some as low as 38 people if I recall, that all recently last work and were given intensive support to get back into work. Working is the biggest cause of stress and ill health in the UK, due partly to long working hours and poor health and safety provision.
As you cannot provide any peer revued research work to back up your claims that welfare to work helps get the long term unemployed back into long term work. Moreover, you also state that: (my programme does not deal with anyone other than bog standard JSA claims). This indicates that you do not even come into contact with unemployed people who are a long way from the job market.
Please provide link for peer revued research work that clearly states that welfare to work programmes are an effective way of getting the long term unemployed back into long term full time work.
I guess that no matter what research you are shown you will continue to rubbish it. "work is good for you" of course it is!!
JSA claimants can be some of the furthest away from the job market due to any number of (multiple) barriers, not sure why you would suggest they are closest to the market - sounds as if you do not fully understand.
I am not interested in a personal slanging match, I am simply trying to put across a different view.
I come into contact with a lot of people who can work (by their own admission) but who do not wish to work (by their own admission). I am all for supporting people who wish to work but cannot due to circumastances and am happy to privide help and support to such people but have absolutely no time for whingers and scroungers who decide on a "lifestyle" choice of benefit taking, not sure why you think this is a good thing.
Do a google search and you will find multiple research papers on the merits of work as well as the success of programmes BUT I know you will equally find opposong views on the merits of welfare to work programmes but I challenge you to find evidence that working is not good for you, your familiy, your health when the person is capable of working.
Let's close this chapter, i'm off to help some people get into work !!!!
Tony: Thanks for citing a source for your comment about the claim that work makes you happier and live longer. I also heard, but can't cite a source, that it is those at the bottom end of the jobs market that suffer the most ill health, stress and die younger.
What do you think of flexible New Deal? The feedback from the original post has not been favorable from participants, who have been under the ND regime in the past.
I'm fully aware of the limited 'research' work on the theme of, 'work is good for you' and at one time sent an e-mail to Prof. Aylward, and was in contact with Phd student who studied 'Pathways to Work". As you might be aware, the sample groups used for this 'research' would not be considered significant in relation to statistical analysis. Moreover, nearly all this so called 'research' is funded by the DWP or Unum, so it is bound to come to the same conclusion.
From your postings you seem to have a problem with people that are unemployed and do not wish to take up the job opportunities you offer them, could it be that the jobs you offer are not very good. I doubt if a second hand car salesman has lesser respect for customers that don't buy a car from him. Maybe your in the wrong type of job, given your anger at the very client group that keeps you in work, and has done for a number of years according to your account.
It seems that there is new type of fundamentalism: work fundamentalism, it's similar to a lot of other fundamentalist views; complex issues are simplified and anyone who has an opposing views is denigrated or dealt with in a patronizing manner: 'you are now believing your own rubbish'....'sounds as if you do not fully understand' (I did go to Uni). I've not got an issue with people that assist others in getting long term well paid secure work, but I do think that the government has wasted millions of the W2W sector over the years, via very favorable contracts that allow companies to offer the bare minimum to clients, in the form of low paid jobs and training provision.
Once again, please provide link for peer revued research work that clearly states that welfare to work programmes are an effective way of getting the long term unemployed back into long term full time work.
Tony, getting back to work is the first step, surely you cannot argue that someone with limited skills and/or who has been out of the job market for some time and who may have barriers is not going to walk into the well paid work you talk about. Going into a job that pays MORE than benefit which boosts self esteem, makes your CV look better etc etc MUST therfore be beneficial in getting back into better paid work. I have seen people take part time, minimum wage roles but then move onto better paid work with hours that suit (they do not all want full time). I love my job and am passionate about helping those that wish to be helped that are genuine but yes I do get angry with healthy fit people who tell me to my face that the benefit system suits them - are you still arguing they have a right to take up this option whilst receiving benefits that people like me pay for?
As stated I have no issues with people who are unable to work but are unable to for a whole host of reasons, I accept that people come through my programme and do not get a job but the vast majority have moved closer to work if they are not in a job by the time you leave.
What I read from you is that people have a choice to either work or not to work, on that I agree but where you and I and countless others disagree is that you do not have a right not to work and take benefits if it is proven you have no intention of looking for work let alone take a job if it is offered.
[Moderator says: this post has been removed. It did not add to the debate ... as the following posting observes]
Genius. This site is no longer a forum for either serious debate on welfare to work issues or insider gossip on the industry. It's a platform for nutters. Just look at this thread, barely an ounce of knowledge or sense in it. The above post stands as an emblem to that.
There are a lot of issues to be discussed here, and contributions from jobseekers are very important in that, but this has become like much of the internet - a repository for the disenfranchised and the deranged. CESI - sort it out.
[Moderator says: this thread has indeed become quite wayward. It would be helpful if posters - including some industry folk who have got quite heated in this thread - keep a bit more focussed on what evidence and experience tell us about FND.]
What do you think of new deal?
Original question with some serious (but admittedly conentious) views on the merits therein.
I believe I highlighted a number of serious welfare to work issues
Clearly opinions will differ, given that the thread has been allowed to run for nearly a year would explain why it has become somewhat wayward
Dangerboy - there is a lot of knowledge running through the thread and I agree some of it is point scoring, cannot comment on the post you refer to as it has been removed
What issues have you got to bring to the table to get the thread back on topic, happy to look and provide input where appropriate.
Perhaps this topic should be closed down as it has rambled and strayed quite a bit.
I joined New Deal on January 15th stage 4, however i have been offered the chance of self employment,can anybody help clarrify if being on stage 4 removes my elagability to the Job centres self employment credit?,where they offer you £40 per week for up to 16 weeks, as long as you do 30 hours or more. cheers
I am with working lincs (grimsby) found them prety good, but they cant quite clear the above for me,they have however lumped the four week mandatory work placements together in order that i can give this self employment a shot. any info would be helpful. This thread is prety good as ive only just found it.
The self employment credit isn't listed in the FND provider guide as one that can be accessed while on FND but other in work credits are so I imagine you would be eligible but would suggest you see your JCP Adviser. When you aren't on the mandatory work experience part of the programme you are claiming JSA so would fulfil that element of the eligibility criteria. I'm not sure if being on a training allowance will mean you've broken your JSA claim which could mean you don't meet the duration of unemployment criteria. But talk to JCP, and good luck with self employment!
lazarus, thank you for the infomation much appreciated. will keep up you up dated on self employment, and anything i hear that could help this thread