Misplaced Pages

Work Programme: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:28, 21 January 2014 edit86.29.247.185 (talk) →SupportTag: section blanking← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:40, 13 September 2024 edit undoGreenC bot (talk | contribs)Bots2,547,815 edits Rescued 1 archive link. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#xyz.reuters.com 
(89 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|UK welfare-to-work scheme}}
⚫ ]The '''Work Programme''' is a government ] programme introduced in ] in June 2011.<ref>http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/the-work-programme.pdf</ref> Under the Work Programme the task of getting the long-term ] into work is outsourced to a range of ], ] and ] organisations. The scheme replaces a range of schemes which existed under the previous Labour government including ], ], ] and the now abolished ] scheme which aimed to tackle ]. The Work Programme has been the subject of a number of criticisms surrounding its effectiveness. However, the ] website highlights examples of people who have been helped into full-time work through participation in the programme.<ref></ref> The programme is, along with the recently introduced ], a major aspect of the UK Coalition Government's welfare reform programme.
{{distinguish|text=the voluntary scheme ]}}
⚫ The '''Work Programme''' ('''WP''') was a UK government ] programme introduced in Great Britain in June 2011.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Work Programme |url=http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/the-work-programme.pdf |website=assets.publishing.service.gov.uk}}</ref> It was the flagship welfare-to-work scheme of the ]. Under the Work Programme the task of getting the long-term ] into work was outsourced to a range of ], ] and ] organisations. The scheme replaced a range of schemes which existed under previous ] governments including ], ], ] and the now abolished ] scheme which aimed to tackle ]. Despite being the flagship welfare-to-work scheme of the Conservative-led coalition government, and then the incumbent Conservative government from May 2015, the DWP announced, in November 2015,
that it was replacing the Work Programme and Work Choice with a new Work and Health Programme for the longer-term unemployed and those with health conditions. The DWP also announced that it would not be renewing ] and ] which included ]s.<ref>{{cite press release|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/department-for-work-and-pensions-settlement-at-the-spending-review|title=Department for Work and Pensions' settlement at the Spending Review|publisher=Department for Work and Pensions and HM Treasury|date=25 November 2015|access-date=17 January 2016}}</ref>

DWP staff were notified that, as of February 2017, new referrals to the Work Programme are discontinued. It was officially stopped on 1 April 2017.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/self-employed-or-looking-for-work/government-employment-schemes/ |title=Government employment schemes |website=Citizens Advice |access-date=2017-06-29}}</ref>


==Participation== ==Participation==
Individuals may be mandated to take part in the Work Programme if they are in receipt of ]: Individuals could be mandated to take part in the Work Programme if they were in receipt of ] or Employment Support Allowance:


*after three months if not in education, employment or training *after three months if not in education, employment or training
*after nine months - if aged 18 to 24 *after nine months - if aged 18 to 24
*after 12 months - if 25 or over<ref></ref> *after 12 months - if 25 or over<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Jobseekers/programmesandservices/DG_197781|title=Help with moving from benefits to work|work=direct.gov.uk|access-date=26 October 2015}}</ref>


==Suppliers== ==Subcontractors==
Below is a list of providers under the Work Programme for each area of Britain. Note that these "primes" may sub-contract some cases to other providers. Below is a list of providers under the Work Programme for each area of Britain. Note that these "primes" could sub-contract some cases to other providers.
* Scotland : ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk">http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/cpa-preferred-bidders.pdf</ref> * Scotland: ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk">{{cite web|url=http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/cpa-preferred-bidders.pdf |access-date=2023-03-22 |title=Work Programme |format=PDF |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130131055802/http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/cpa-preferred-bidders.pdf |archive-date=January 31, 2013 }}</ref>
* Merseyside, Halton, Cumbria and Lancashire : ] and ] <ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * Merseyside, Halton, Cumbria and Lancashire: ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* North, West and Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Warrington: ], ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * North, West and Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Warrington: ], ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* Coventry, Warwickshire, Staffordshire and The Marches: ] & ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * Coventry, Warwickshire, Staffordshire and The Marches: ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* Birmingham, Solihull and the Black County: ], ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * Birmingham, Solihull and the Black Country: ], ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* Wales: ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * Wales: ] and Rehab JobFit<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and West of England: ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and West of England: Rehab JobFit, ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* Devon, Cornwell, Somerset and Dorset: ] and ] <ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset: ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* North East: ] & ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * North East: ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* North East Yorkshire and Humber: ] & ] <ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * North East Yorkshire and Humber: ], ], ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* West Yorkshire: ] & ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * West Yorkshire: ] (Now ] Ltd, part of ]) and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* South Yorkshire: ] & ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * South Yorkshire: ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* East Midlands: ] & ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * East Midlands: ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* East of England: ] & ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * East of England: ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* West London:], ] & ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * West London: ], ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* East London: ] ] & ] <ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * East London: ] ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* Surrey, Sussex and Kent: Avanta and ] <ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * Surrey, Sussex and Kent: Avanta and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>
* Thames Valley, Hampshire and Isle of Wight: ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/> * Thames Valley, Hampshire and Isle of Wight: ] and ]<ref name="dwp.gov.uk"/>


==Criticism== ==Criticism==

===Opposition to workfare=== ===Opposition to workfare===
{{Further|Workfare in the United Kingdom}} {{Further|Workfare in the United Kingdom}}
Some criticisms of the Work Programme reflect a more explicitly political objection to what these critics view as ]. John Downie of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Services has argued that workfare is effectively a "handout to business" whereby taxpayers are subsidising the wage bill of the private sector. Downie also argues that the Work Programme exploits unemployed people desperately seeking work, and that it further provides a disincentive for employers to create jobs.<ref></ref> The anti-workfare group ] make similar arguments stating that workfare replaces jobs and undermines wages.<ref>http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=663</ref> Some criticisms of the Work Programme reflect a more explicitly political objection to what these critics view as ]. John Downie of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Services argues that workfare is effectively a "handout to business" whereby taxpayers are subsidising the wage bill of the private sector. Downie also argues that the Work Programme exploited unemployed people desperately seeking work, and that it further provided a disincentive for employers to create jobs.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scotsman.com/news/john-downie-the-work-programme-is-about-handouts-to-business-not-jobs-for-people-1-2794683|title=John Downie: The Work Programme is about handouts to business, not jobs for people|date=16 February 2013|newspaper=The Scotsman|access-date=26 October 2015}}</ref> The anti-workfare group ] makes similar arguments stating that workfare replaces jobs and undermines wages.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=663 |title=Facts |publisher=Boycott Workfare |access-date=2015-09-07}}</ref>


===Allegations of conflict of interest=== ===Allegations of conflict of interest===
''The Guardian'' has reported that several high profile donors to the Conservative Party have made money from workfare contracts. ], set up by Ryan Nash and Ryan Robinson is a company owned by ]. This group was awarded a £73 million workfare contract.<ref></ref> ''The Guardian'' has reported that several high profile donors to the Conservative Party have made money from workfare contracts. Sovereign Capital, a venture capital firm set up by ] (subsequently Lord Nash, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools 2013–2017)<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/people/lord-nash|title=Lord Nash|website=GOV.UK|access-date=14 December 2020}}</ref> and Ryan Robinson owned ]. ESG was awarded a £73 million workfare contract.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jul/29/sovereign-capital-tory-donors-millions|title=Firm established by two Tory donors made millions from work schemes|author1=Solomon Hughes|author2=Rajeev Syal|date=29 July 2012|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=26 October 2015}}</ref>


===Failures to create a viable market=== ===Failures to create a viable market===
In November 2013 Deloitte sold its 50% stake in the Work Programme contractor Ingeus. Critics argued that this showed the government have failed to create a viable market in the welfare-to-work industry. Alastair Grimes from the consultancy Rocket Science has stated: "I'm not aware of people who are making money out of the Work Programme".<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24806973</ref> However Employment Minister Esther McVey has argued that the sale shows the success of the Work Programme, with Deloitte exiting when their business was performing well. In November 2013 Deloitte sold its 50% stake in the Work Programme contractor Ingeus. Critics argue that this shows the government had failed to create a viable market in the welfare-to-work industry. Alastair Grimes from the consultancy Rocket Science stated: "I'm not aware of people who are making money out of the Work Programme".<ref>{{cite news|last=Chesworth |first=Sally |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24806973 |title=Deloitte to sell stake in government Work Programme - BBC News |work=BBC News |date=5 November 2013 |access-date=2015-09-07}}</ref> However Employment Minister Esther McVey argued that the sale shows the success of the Work Programme, with Deloitte exiting when their business was performing well.


=== Debate over effectiveness === === Debate over effectiveness ===
A 2012 report found that only 18,270 people out of 785,000 people enrolled on the Work Programme had held down employment for six months or more - a success rate of 2.3%.<ref></ref> Given that 5% of the long-term unemployed would be expected to find employment if left to their own devices the Work Programme can be considered less successful than doing nothing at all.<ref></ref> A 2012 report found that only 18,270 people out of 785,000 people enrolled on the Work Programme had held down employment for six months or more – a success rate of 2.3%.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-work-idUKLNE8AQ00M20121128|archive-url=https:/web.archive.org/web/20160203203858/http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-work-idUKLNE8AQ00M20121128|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 3, 2016|title=Flagship work programme a miserable failure|author=Christine Murray|location=London|date=28 November 2012|work=Reuters UK|access-date=26 October 2015}}</ref> Given that 5% of the long-term unemployed would be expected to find employment if left to their own devices the Work Programme can be considered less successful than doing nothing at all.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9706074/Iain-Duncan-Smiths-Work-Programme-worse-than-doing-nothing.html|title=Iain Duncan Smith's Work Programme 'worse than doing nothing'|author=Tim Ross|date=27 November 2012|newspaper=The Telegraph|access-date=26 October 2015}}</ref>
However, Employment Minister Mark Hoban has argued that "as the Work Programme supports people for two years or more...it is too early to judge Work Programme performance by Job Outcome and Sustainment Payment data alone."<ref></ref> However, Employment Minister Mark Hoban argued that "as the Work Programme supports people for two years or more ... it is too early to judge Work Programme performance by Job Outcome and Sustainment Payment data alone."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/work-programme-figures-awful-unemployment|title=Work Programme: why I knew the figures would be awful|author=Zoe Williams|date=28 November 2012|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=26 October 2015}}</ref>


In February 2013 the ] of the House of Commons revealed that the Work Programme had only got 3.6% of participants off benefits and into secure employment during the first fourteen months of its operation. The Department for Work and Pensions had set a target of 11.9%. The Chairman of the PAC Margaret Hodge has described the performance of the Work Programme as "extremely poor"<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21532191</ref> In May 2013 the House of Commons' Work and Pensions Select Committee published a report critical of the Work Programme which described the performance of Work Programme contractors as variable in quality. The report also stated that specialist services dealing with problems such as drug dependency and homeless were underused and that specialist subcontractors received a raw deal.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/21/work-programme-failing-taxpayer</ref> In September 2013 A4E had its number of referrals cut for poor performance.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24286806</ref> In February 2013 the ] of the House of Commons revealed that the Work Programme had only got 3.6% of participants off benefits and into secure employment during the first fourteen months of its operation. The Department for Work and Pensions had set a target of 11.9%. The Chairman of the PAC Margaret Hodge described the performance of the Work Programme as "extremely poor".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21532191 |title=Welfare-to-work scheme 'is failing' - BBC News |publisher=Bbc.co.uk |date= 2013-02-22|access-date=2015-09-07|work=BBC News }}</ref> In May 2013 the House of Commons' Work and Pensions Select Committee published a report critical of the Work Programme which described the performance of Work Programme contractors as variable in quality. The report also stated that specialist services dealing with problems such as drug dependency and homelessness were underused and that specialist subcontractors received a raw deal.<ref>{{cite web|author=Richard Johnson |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/21/work-programme-failing-taxpayer |title=The Work Programme is failing the taxpayer &#124; Richard Johnson &#124; Society |work=The Guardian |date=21 May 2013 |access-date=2015-09-07}}</ref> In September 2013 A4E had its number of referrals cut for poor performance.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24286806 |title=Welfare-to-work provider penalised - BBC News |publisher=Bbc.co.uk |date=2013-09-26 |access-date=2015-09-07}}</ref>


===Lack of funding=== ===Lack of funding===
A further analysis by the ] found that the service that the Work Programme can offer has been negatively affected by a lack of funding and that in some instances there was not enough money to provide interpreters to those with poor English language skills. The report suggests that the level of support that the Work Programme can offer has been negatively impacted by the sheer number of people requiring help.<ref name="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/14/work-programme-jobless-people</ref> A further analysis by the ] found that the service that the Work Programme could offer was negatively affected by a lack of funding and that in some instances there was not enough money to provide interpreters to those with poor English language skills. The report suggested that the level of support that the Work Programme could offer was reduced by the sheer number of people requiring help.<ref name="guardian.co.uk">{{cite web|author=Daniel Boffey, policy editor |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/14/work-programme-jobless-people |title=Work Programme can't keep up with number of jobless, government told &#124; Society |work=The Guardian |date=13 April 2013 |access-date=2015-09-07}}</ref>


The report states: The report stated:


<blockquote>"Particular issues reported as resulting from a lack of funding included an inability to pay for interpreters and for participant transport in rural areas. Some subcontractors felt this also had an impact on their ability to meet the needs of particular groups of participants."<ref name="guardian.co.uk"/></blockquote> <blockquote>Particular issues reported as resulting from a lack of funding included an inability to pay for interpreters and for participant transport in rural areas. Some subcontractors felt this also affected their ability to meet the needs of particular groups of participants.<ref name="guardian.co.uk"/></blockquote>


===Impact on charity sector=== ===Impact on charity sector===
The Work Programme has been blamed for the closure of some charities who have criticised the way in which WP contracts are structured.<ref></ref> The Work Programme was blamed for the closure of some charities who criticised the way in which WP contracts were structured.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19822669|title=Work Programme under fire as charities shut down|author=Michael Buchanan|date=4 October 2012|publisher=BBC News|access-date=26 October 2015}}</ref>


===Drafting of legislation=== ===Drafting of legislation===
{{Further|Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions}} {{Further|Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions}}


The workfare element of the Work Programme was ruled 'ultra vires' in a 2013 Court of Appeal judgment which stated that the ] did not describe the employment schemes to which they apply, as is required by the primary legislation.<ref></ref> The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith responded to the Court of Appeal judgment by announcing emergency legislation in order to correct this. He also appeared to attack the utility of geology as a profession when attacking unemployed geology graduate Cait Reilly who had challenged the workfare scheme.<ref name=autogenerated1></ref> His remarks were criticised by the ].<ref name=autogenerated1 /> The workfare element of the Work Programme was ruled '']'' in a 2013 Court of Appeal judgment which stated that the ] did not describe the employment schemes to which they apply, as is required by the primary legislation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://welfarenewsservice.com/dwp-response-to-todays-workfare-judgement/|title=DWP Response To Today's #Workfare Judgement|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130216080643/http://welfarenewsservice.com/dwp-response-to-todays-workfare-judgement/ |archive-date=16 February 2013|date=12 February 2013|website=Welfare News Service}}</ref> The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ] responded to the Court of Appeal judgment by announcing emergency legislation in order to correct this. He also appeared to attack the utility of geology as a profession when attacking unemployed geology graduate Cait Reilly who had challenged the workfare scheme.<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/18/geologists-iain-duncan-smith-shelf-stacking|title=Geologists erupt after Iain Duncan Smith shelf-stacking jibe|author=Ian Sample|date=February 2013|work=The Guardian|access-date=26 October 2015}}</ref> His remarks were criticised by the ].<ref name=autogenerated1 />


===Payment-by-results=== ===Payment-by-results===
It has been argued that payment-by-results whereby companies only get paid for finding people work has meant that they focus on the "easiest" cases among the long-term unemployed with the most "difficult" effectively sidelined. The term "creaming and parking" has been used to describe this process.<ref></ref> The Department for Work and Pensions have denied that "parking" is an issue. A study by the Third Sector Research Centre at ] found that widespread "gaming" of the Work Programme by private sector providers. They argue that because providers are not paid until an unemployed person has been in work for two years it makes little economic sense to concentrate on the most "difficult cases". The study also found that the largest private sector providers known as "primes" were guilty of passing more difficult cases onto sub-contractors. Furthermore "parking" means that charities are not getting referrals under the Work Programme as such customers are not considered likely to result in a payment for the provider.<ref name=autogenerated2></ref> It has been argued that payment-by-results whereby companies only get paid for finding people work meant that they focussed on the "easiest" cases among the long-term unemployed with the most "difficult" effectively sidelined. The term "creaming and parking" has been used to describe this process. The Department for Work and Pensions denied that "parking" was an issue. A study by the Third Sector Research Centre at ] found widespread "gaming" of the Work Programme by private sector providers. They argue that because providers were not paid until an unemployed person had been in work for two years it made little economic sense to concentrate on the most "difficult cases". The study also found that the largest private sector providers known as "primes" were guilty of passing more difficult cases onto sub-contractors. Furthermore, "parking" meant that charities were not getting referrals under the Work Programme as such customers were not considered likely to result in a payment for the provider.<ref name=autogenerated2>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/19/vulnerable-jobseekers-work-programme-providers|title=Most vulnerable jobseekers 'too costly' for Work Programme providers|author=Patrick Butler|date=19 February 2013|work=The Guardian|access-date=26 October 2015}}</ref>


One interviewee told the study: One interviewee told the study:
Line 68: Line 74:
</blockquote> </blockquote>


Journalist Richard Johnson writing in ] argues that the tendering process for Work Programme contracts meant that those companies that submitted the cheapest tenders were successful something that encourages "parking and creaming".<ref></ref> Those driven to submit the cheapest tenders did not have any other business outside of welfare to work and either secured Work Programme contracts or closed. Discounts on the base price of over 30% were offered by some bidders, but with the discounts kicking in in the later years of the contract - when the financial viability of the contracts may be at risk. Former COO of Ingeus Richard Johnson, writing in '']'', argued that the tendering process for Work Programme contracts meant that those companies that submitted the cheapest tenders were successful, something that encouraged "parking and creaming".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/20/work-programme-success-creaming-parking|title=The Work Programme's only success is at 'creaming and parking'|author=Richard Johnson|date= 20 February 2013|work=The Guardian|access-date=26 October 2015}}</ref> Those driven to submit the cheapest tenders did not have any other business outside of welfare to work and either secured Work Programme contracts or closed. Discounts on the base price of over 30% were offered by some bidders, but with the discounts kicking in during the later years of the contract - when the financial viability of the contracts could be at risk.


==See also== ==See also==


*] *]

*] *]
*]


==References== ==References==
Line 87: Line 93:
] ]
] ]
]

Latest revision as of 00:40, 13 September 2024

UK welfare-to-work scheme Not to be confused with the voluntary scheme Work Choice.

The Work Programme (WP) was a UK government welfare-to-work programme introduced in Great Britain in June 2011. It was the flagship welfare-to-work scheme of the 2010–2015 UK coalition government. Under the Work Programme the task of getting the long-term unemployed into work was outsourced to a range of public sector, private sector and third sector organisations. The scheme replaced a range of schemes which existed under previous New Labour governments including Employment Zones, New Deal, Flexible New Deal and the now abolished Future Jobs Fund scheme which aimed to tackle youth unemployment. Despite being the flagship welfare-to-work scheme of the Conservative-led coalition government, and then the incumbent Conservative government from May 2015, the DWP announced, in November 2015, that it was replacing the Work Programme and Work Choice with a new Work and Health Programme for the longer-term unemployed and those with health conditions. The DWP also announced that it would not be renewing Mandatory Work Activity and Help to Work which included Community Work Placements.

DWP staff were notified that, as of February 2017, new referrals to the Work Programme are discontinued. It was officially stopped on 1 April 2017.

Participation

Individuals could be mandated to take part in the Work Programme if they were in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance or Employment Support Allowance:

  • after three months if not in education, employment or training
  • after nine months - if aged 18 to 24
  • after 12 months - if 25 or over

Subcontractors

Below is a list of providers under the Work Programme for each area of Britain. Note that these "primes" could sub-contract some cases to other providers.

Criticism

Opposition to workfare

Further information: Workfare in the United Kingdom

Some criticisms of the Work Programme reflect a more explicitly political objection to what these critics view as workfare. John Downie of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Services argues that workfare is effectively a "handout to business" whereby taxpayers are subsidising the wage bill of the private sector. Downie also argues that the Work Programme exploited unemployed people desperately seeking work, and that it further provided a disincentive for employers to create jobs. The anti-workfare group Boycott Workfare makes similar arguments stating that workfare replaces jobs and undermines wages.

Allegations of conflict of interest

The Guardian has reported that several high profile donors to the Conservative Party have made money from workfare contracts. Sovereign Capital, a venture capital firm set up by John Nash (subsequently Lord Nash, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools 2013–2017) and Ryan Robinson owned Employment and Skills Group. ESG was awarded a £73 million workfare contract.

Failures to create a viable market

In November 2013 Deloitte sold its 50% stake in the Work Programme contractor Ingeus. Critics argue that this shows the government had failed to create a viable market in the welfare-to-work industry. Alastair Grimes from the consultancy Rocket Science stated: "I'm not aware of people who are making money out of the Work Programme". However Employment Minister Esther McVey argued that the sale shows the success of the Work Programme, with Deloitte exiting when their business was performing well.

Debate over effectiveness

A 2012 report found that only 18,270 people out of 785,000 people enrolled on the Work Programme had held down employment for six months or more – a success rate of 2.3%. Given that 5% of the long-term unemployed would be expected to find employment if left to their own devices the Work Programme can be considered less successful than doing nothing at all. However, Employment Minister Mark Hoban argued that "as the Work Programme supports people for two years or more ... it is too early to judge Work Programme performance by Job Outcome and Sustainment Payment data alone."

In February 2013 the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons revealed that the Work Programme had only got 3.6% of participants off benefits and into secure employment during the first fourteen months of its operation. The Department for Work and Pensions had set a target of 11.9%. The Chairman of the PAC Margaret Hodge described the performance of the Work Programme as "extremely poor". In May 2013 the House of Commons' Work and Pensions Select Committee published a report critical of the Work Programme which described the performance of Work Programme contractors as variable in quality. The report also stated that specialist services dealing with problems such as drug dependency and homelessness were underused and that specialist subcontractors received a raw deal. In September 2013 A4E had its number of referrals cut for poor performance.

Lack of funding

A further analysis by the Public Accounts Committee found that the service that the Work Programme could offer was negatively affected by a lack of funding and that in some instances there was not enough money to provide interpreters to those with poor English language skills. The report suggested that the level of support that the Work Programme could offer was reduced by the sheer number of people requiring help.

The report stated:

Particular issues reported as resulting from a lack of funding included an inability to pay for interpreters and for participant transport in rural areas. Some subcontractors felt this also affected their ability to meet the needs of particular groups of participants.

Impact on charity sector

The Work Programme was blamed for the closure of some charities who criticised the way in which WP contracts were structured.

Drafting of legislation

Further information: Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The workfare element of the Work Programme was ruled ultra vires in a 2013 Court of Appeal judgment which stated that the Jobseeker's Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 did not describe the employment schemes to which they apply, as is required by the primary legislation. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith responded to the Court of Appeal judgment by announcing emergency legislation in order to correct this. He also appeared to attack the utility of geology as a profession when attacking unemployed geology graduate Cait Reilly who had challenged the workfare scheme. His remarks were criticised by the Geological Society of London.

Payment-by-results

It has been argued that payment-by-results whereby companies only get paid for finding people work meant that they focussed on the "easiest" cases among the long-term unemployed with the most "difficult" effectively sidelined. The term "creaming and parking" has been used to describe this process. The Department for Work and Pensions denied that "parking" was an issue. A study by the Third Sector Research Centre at Birmingham University found widespread "gaming" of the Work Programme by private sector providers. They argue that because providers were not paid until an unemployed person had been in work for two years it made little economic sense to concentrate on the most "difficult cases". The study also found that the largest private sector providers known as "primes" were guilty of passing more difficult cases onto sub-contractors. Furthermore, "parking" meant that charities were not getting referrals under the Work Programme as such customers were not considered likely to result in a payment for the provider.

One interviewee told the study:

"It's not being PC but I'll just say it as it is … you tend to get left with the rubbish; people who aren't going to get a job … If the thought they could get them a job, they wouldn't someone else to get a job."

Former COO of Ingeus Richard Johnson, writing in The Guardian, argued that the tendering process for Work Programme contracts meant that those companies that submitted the cheapest tenders were successful, something that encouraged "parking and creaming". Those driven to submit the cheapest tenders did not have any other business outside of welfare to work and either secured Work Programme contracts or closed. Discounts on the base price of over 30% were offered by some bidders, but with the discounts kicking in during the later years of the contract - when the financial viability of the contracts could be at risk.

See also

References

  1. "The Work Programme" (PDF). assets.publishing.service.gov.uk.
  2. "Department for Work and Pensions' settlement at the Spending Review" (Press release). Department for Work and Pensions and HM Treasury. 25 November 2015. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
  3. "Government employment schemes". Citizens Advice. Retrieved 2017-06-29.
  4. "Help with moving from benefits to work". direct.gov.uk. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  5. ^ "Work Programme" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 31, 2013. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
  6. "John Downie: The Work Programme is about handouts to business, not jobs for people". The Scotsman. 16 February 2013. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  7. "Facts". Boycott Workfare. Retrieved 2015-09-07.
  8. "Lord Nash". GOV.UK. Retrieved 14 December 2020.
  9. Solomon Hughes; Rajeev Syal (29 July 2012). "Firm established by two Tory donors made millions from work schemes". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  10. Chesworth, Sally (5 November 2013). "Deloitte to sell stake in government Work Programme - BBC News". BBC News. Retrieved 2015-09-07.
  11. Christine Murray (28 November 2012). "Flagship work programme a miserable failure". Reuters UK. London. Archived from the original on February 3, 2016. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  12. Tim Ross (27 November 2012). "Iain Duncan Smith's Work Programme 'worse than doing nothing'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  13. Zoe Williams (28 November 2012). "Work Programme: why I knew the figures would be awful". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  14. "Welfare-to-work scheme 'is failing' - BBC News". BBC News. Bbc.co.uk. 2013-02-22. Retrieved 2015-09-07.
  15. Richard Johnson (21 May 2013). "The Work Programme is failing the taxpayer | Richard Johnson | Society". The Guardian. Retrieved 2015-09-07.
  16. "Welfare-to-work provider penalised - BBC News". Bbc.co.uk. 2013-09-26. Retrieved 2015-09-07.
  17. ^ Daniel Boffey, policy editor (13 April 2013). "Work Programme can't keep up with number of jobless, government told | Society". The Guardian. Retrieved 2015-09-07. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  18. Michael Buchanan (4 October 2012). "Work Programme under fire as charities shut down". BBC News. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  19. "DWP Response To Today's #Workfare Judgement". Welfare News Service. 12 February 2013. Archived from the original on 16 February 2013.
  20. ^ Ian Sample (February 2013). "Geologists erupt after Iain Duncan Smith shelf-stacking jibe". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  21. ^ Patrick Butler (19 February 2013). "Most vulnerable jobseekers 'too costly' for Work Programme providers". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  22. Richard Johnson (20 February 2013). "The Work Programme's only success is at 'creaming and parking'". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 October 2015.

External links

Workfare in the United Kingdom
Workfare Programmes
Workfare Providers ('Primes')
Workfare CompaniesList of British organisations who have participated in workfare programmes
Opposition
Litigation
LegislationJobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013
Categories: