Work Programme - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beno1000 (talk | contribs) at 17:29, 25 February 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:29, 25 February 2013 by Beno1000 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The Work Programme is a government welfare-to-work programme introduced in Great Britain in July 2011. Under the Work Programme the task of getting the long-term unemployed into work is outsourced to a range of public sector, private sector and third sector organisations. The scheme replaces a range of schemes which existed under the previous Labour government including Employment Zones and the New Deal and Flexible New Deal. The Work Programme has been the subject of a number of criticisms surrounding its effectiveness. However the Department for Work and Pension's website highlights several examples of people who have been helped into full-time work through participation in the programme. The programme is along with Universal Credit a major aspect of the British Coalition government's welfare reform programme.

Participation

Individuals may be forced to take part in the Work Programme if they are in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance:

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

Suppliers

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.

Scotland : Working Links and Ingeus
Merseyside, Halton, Cumbria and Lancashire : A4e and Ingeus
North, West and Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Warrington: Avanta, G4S and Seetec
Coventry, Warwickshire, Staffordshire and The Marches: Employability and Skills Group & Serco
Birmingham, Solihull and the Black County: EOS, Pertemps People Development Groups and Newcastle College
Wales: Working Links and Rebab
Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and West of England: The Rehab Group and JHP Group
Devon, Cornwell, Somerset and Dorset: Prospect Services and Working Links
North East: Avanta & Ingeus
North East Yorkshire and Humber: G4S & Newcastle College
West Yorkshire: BEST & Ingeus
South Yorkshire: A4e & Serco
East Midlands: A4e & Ingeus
East of England: Ingeus & Seetec
West London:Ingeus, Reed & Maximus
East London: A4e Careers Development Group & Seetec
Surrey, Sussex and Kent: Avanta and G4S
Thames Valley, Hampshire and Isle of Wight: A4e and Maximus

Criticism

Opposition to workfare

Further information: Workfare in the United Kingdom

Some criticisms of the Work Programme reflect a more ideological objection to workfare. 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 the Work Programme provides a disincentive for employers to create jobs. The anti-workfare group Boycott Workfare make similar arguments stating that workfare replaces jobs and undermines wages.

Allegations of corruption

The Guardian have reported that several high profile donors to the Conservative Party have made money from workfare contracts. Sovereign Capital, set up by Ryan Nash and Ryan Robinson is a company owned by Employment and Skills Group. This group was awarded a £73 workfare contract.

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 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."

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 Chair of the PAC Margaret Hodge described the performance of the Work Programme as "extremely poor".

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.

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) 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 has meant that they focus on the "easiest" cases among the long-term unemployed with the most "difficult" effectively sidelined. The term "cremaing andparking" has been used to describe this process. The Department for Work and Pensions have denied that "parking" is an issue. A study by the Third Sector Research Centre at Birmingham University 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.

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."

Journalist Richard Johnson writing in The Guardian 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". Those in a position to submit the cheapest tenders often had substantial business elsewhere such as G4S a private security contractor.

References

External links

Department for Work and Pensions - The Work Programme

v t e Workfare in the United Kingdom
Workfare Programmes	Community Action Programme Mandatory Work Activity Sector Based Work Academies Work Programme Steps to Work Day One Support for Young People Trailblazer Help to Work Community work placements
Workfare Providers ('Primes')	A4e BEST Careers Development Group Employment and Skills Group G4S Ingeus Maximus Newcastle College PeoplePlus Prospects Services Reed Rehab Seetec Serco Working Links
Workfare Companies	List of British organisations who have participated in workfare programmes
Opposition	Boycott Workfare Solidarity Federation
Litigation	R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Department for Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner
Legislation	Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013

Categories: