The Work Programme will start to enter that difficult territory where the evasion ‘too early to tell if it is working’ starts to wear off. Certainly the structure and pricing of the WP do not seem to have been designed to deal with a prolonged recession.
Mystic Megan predicts that even before the attachment fees end and everyone moves onto outcome payments some providers will feel the strain and look at DWP bailing them out or throw in the towel.
This poses two crucial issues for DWP. First, will it cave in and find a way of subsidising Prime Contractors who threaten to walk away or will it accept the logic of the market place?
Second, how will it re-contract failures (either financial or performance) and will it take performance/track record into account or go the usual way and look at price as the single most important factor? In short, will it move from the current policy of administering a competition for funds to actually having a view about the sort of market place it wants to create and the long-term results it wants? At the moment it is as if a landowner tells the world he wants a garden with lots of bio-diversity and creativity, but once the tenders come in decides that it is OK to just have grass and concrete because it is so much cheaper.
Finally, the WP was set up as a ‘Single Programme’ to simplify matters and stop the proliferation of parallel programmes for similar client groups. Already this has shifted to a ‘Single Framework’ leaving lots of room for, well, parallel programmes funded by ESF or whatever and the slightly strange sight of organisations who weren’t considered good enough for the WP being given other funding in preference to those organisations who were thought to be good enough for the WP. And, of course, it hasn’t dealt with the issue of local authority funds for employability which remain obstinately un-integrated and quite substantial.
In Scotland, for example, the Government estimates that local authority funds for employability are greater than the WP contracts. One consequence of this is the paradox of money available, but no clients because of the mandatory nature of the WP.
Sooty used to solve his problems by sprinkling ‘oofle dust’. Central and local government may need something as effective if they are to make the best use of the common resources in this area that are still delivered in those silos we are always aspiring to break down.
My prediction for 2012 in this field is that we will still see, to adapt Shaw, ‘too many partners divided by a common objective’.
3 comments:
don't know much about the programme but the points your raise are interesting and seen how much welfare reforms are affecting Wales you'd think representatives of all types and parties would be vocal on the issues and issues would be debates more often.
Your friend would be right 3 times out of 4 - which is much a much better record than most consultants ever achieve.
From the Guardian 'Work Programme contract is putting providers out of business'
I work for an organisation that is part of the supply chain delivering the Work Programme. The terms under which we work are dictated by the Department for Work and Pensions contract; there is no variation or choice. DWP is operating a monopsonistic market. As a result of the terms, my organisation, like many others trying to deliver this contract, is going to go bust. About 40 jobs will be lost, plus a range of valuable services, expertise and advocacy. We are not underperforming, the terms of the contract and the key performance indicators are being met; we are simply not being paid for delivering services on behalf of the government. The contract is set in such a way that the single customer, DWP, will not pay for supporting those in society who most need it: those facing the greatest disadvantage and those who have been out of employment the longest.
DWP will only "pay for results". Even if we, as a supplier of the Work Programme, get a client into work we are not rewarded. We may have spent six months of providing fortnightly advice sessions and weekly interventions (training, workshops, activities, projects etc) and met all the client's expenses for attending, but we will not be paid for any of this. Payment will only be forthcoming after six months of "sustainable employment". The government is expecting charitable organisations like mine to lend money to subsidise a government department. The effects of the economic downturn are magnified for our clients. Employers, if they are recruiting, will take a low-risk decision to take on someone already employed or who has recently been in employment rather than someone long-term unemployed. Vacancies notified have fallen dramatically in the areas where we operate and unemployment is increasing sharply.
As a charitable organisation we have had no choice other than to seek income in the face of falling grant funding from local and national government. What no one could anticipate is the harshness of the Work Programme contract. No one has had any experience of such draconian payment terms. And it seems untimely, to say the least, to launch a major welfare reform based on getting those furthest from the labour market into work during an extended period of economic depression. To some it would seem cynical for the cost of supporting some of the most needy in society to be transferred out of the welfare state.
There is a solution: DWP needs to reward Work Programme providers more realistically for taking on clients and offset the costs against future sustainable work outcomes. The overall cost to the Treasury does not necessarily need to rise but the timing of payments to providers has to change and the risk to be shared.
Nick Bailey
Grampound, Cornwall
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/13/work-programme-contract-providers
Post a Comment