DOCSLIB.ORG

Work Programme Evaluation: Findings from the First Phase of Qualitative

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Work Programme Evaluation: Findings from the First Phase of Qualitative Research report Work Programme evaluation: Findings from the first phase of qualitative research on programme delivery by Becci Newton, Nigel Meager, Christine Bertram, Anne Corden, Anitha George, Mumtaz Lalani, Hilary Metcalf, Heather Rolfe, Roy Sainsbury and Katharine Weston Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 821 Work Programme evaluation: Findings from the first phase of qualitative research on programme delivery Becci Newton, Nigel Meager, Christine Bertram, Anne Corden, Anitha George, Mumtaz Lalani, Hilary Metcalf, Heather Rolfe, Roy Sainsbury and Katharine Weston A report of research carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies, the Social Policy Research Unit at the University of York and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions © Crown copyright 2012. You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. This document/publication is also available on our website at: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rrs-index.asp Any enquiries regarding this document/publication should be sent to us at: Central Analysis Division, Department for Work and Pensions, Upper Ground Floor, Steel City House, West Street, Sheffield, S1 2GQ First published 2012. ISBN 978 1 909532 01 4 Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions or any other Government Department. Contents iii Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. ix The Authors .................................................................................................................................................x Summary .....................................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................8 1.1 The Work Programme .............................................................................................................8 1.1.1 The commissioning model ......................................................................................9 1.1.2 Programme delivery and service design ........................................................... 11 1.2 The evaluation of the Work Programme ......................................................................... 12 1.2.1 The commissioning model evaluation ............................................................... 13 1.2.2 Programme evaluation ........................................................................................ 13 1.3 Coverage of this report and methods .............................................................................. 14 1.3.1 Qualitative research with Work Programme providers and Jobcentre Plus ......................................................................................................... 15 1.3.2 Qualitative research with participants ............................................................... 17 qualitative research ........................................................................................................ 18 1.3.3 Participant observations ....................................................................................... 18 1.4 Report structure .................................................................................................................... 19 2 Provision: overview of delivery models and their key features ............................................... 21 2.1 Structure of delivery models .............................................................................................. 21 2.1.1 Pre-employment support ..................................................................................... 21 providers used ................................................................................................................. 23 2.1.2 In-work support ...................................................................................................... 24 2.2 Overview of support provision ........................................................................................... 24 2.2.1 Stages of support provided .................................................................................. 24 2.2.2 Focus of support on specific groups .................................................................. 26 2.2.3 Additional expenditure on external provision .................................................. 27 2.2.4 Use of performance pay and incentives ............................................................ 28 2.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 28 iv Contents 3 Jobcentre Plus perspectives on the Work Programme ............................................................ 29 3.1 Knowledge of Work Programme provision ...................................................................... 29 3.2 Training for Work Programme implementation ............................................................. 29 3.3 Early impressions of the Work Programme ..................................................................... 31 3.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 31 4 Information sessions ...................................................................................................................... 33 4.1 Jobcentre Plus perspective ................................................................................................. 33 4.1.1 Information for claimants .................................................................................... 34 4.1.2 Information for voluntary participants .............................................................. 34 4.2 Provider perspective ............................................................................................................ 35 4.2.1 Information for participants about specialist support ................................... 35 4.2.2 Information for voluntary participants .............................................................. 35 4.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 36 5 Referral and handover ..................................................................................................................... 37 5.1 Jobcentre Plus perspective ................................................................................................. 37 5.1.1 Response to referral ............................................................................................... 37 5.1.2 Random allocation ................................................................................................. 38 5.1.3 Referral of voluntary participants ....................................................................... 39 5.2 Provider perspectives .......................................................................................................... 39 5.2.1 Handover .................................................................................................................. 40 5.2.2 Referral information ............................................................................................... 40 5.2.3 Problems with referrals and handover ............................................................... 41 5.3 The participant experience ................................................................................................ 42 5.3.1 Information received ............................................................................................ 43 5.3.2 Feelings and experiences of handover .............................................................. 43 5.3.3 The observational data ......................................................................................... 44 5.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 45 6 Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 47 6.1 Assessment structure .......................................................................................................... 47 6.2 Assessment tools ................................................................................................................. 48 6.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 49 Contents v 7 Provision: pre-employment support ............................................................................................ 50 7.1 The role of advisers in pre-employment support .......................................................... 50 7.1.1 Ambition to provide one adviser throughout ................................................... 50 7.1.2 A change of adviser at each stage of the journey .........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision Notice
    FS50441818 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice Date: 1 October 2012 Public Authority: Department for Work and Pensions Address: IGS Directorate The Adelphi 1-11 John Adam Street London WC2N 6HT Decision (including any steps ordered) 1. The complainant asked the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for the names of the organisations that JHP Group use when delivering Mandatory Work Activity in the Scotland Contract Package Area (CPA). 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that by withholding the information under sections 43(2) and 36(2)(c) the DWP did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA. 3. By failing to state or explain in its refusal notice that section 36(2)(c) was applicable to the requested information the department breached sections 17(1)(b) and (c) of the FOIA. 4. The Commissioner requires the department to disclose the information within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. 5. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. FS50441818 Request and response 6. On 11 January 2012 the complainant requested the following information: “Please could you provide me with the names and locations of organisations which are participating in the Work Programme in the Scotland Contract Package Area, by providing mandatory work placements through the DWP’s prime providers Ingeus, and Working Links, through JHP Group Ltd or any relevant sub-contractors.” 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Making It Fit For
    Making it fit: a guide to preparing for the social sector size criteria A publication by the Making Best Use of Stock Team Chartered Institute of Housing Supported by Learn with us. Improve with us. Influence with us | www.cih.org 2 The Chartered Institute of Housing The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) is the professional body for people involved in housing and communities. We are a registered charity and not-for-profit organisation. We have a diverse and growing membership of over 22,000 people – both in the public and private sectors – living and working in over 20 countries on five continents across the world. We exist to maximise the contribution that housing professionals make to the wellbeing of communities. Our vision is to be the first point of contact for – and the credible voice of – anyone involved or interested in housing. Chartered Institute of Housing Octavia House, Westwood Way, Coventry, CV4 8JP Tel: 024 7685 1700 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cih.org The Making Best Use of Stock Team provides free advice and guidance to local authorities and housing providers to support them in making the best use of existing stock. The team focuses on four core areas – using existing stock more effectively to meet housing need, tackling social housing fraud, making use of potential new freedoms and flexibilities and assisting providers in responding to tenancy and welfare reform. The team offers practical advice and guidance and shares good practice to help you make the best use of existing resources and ultimately to help secure improvements in services delivered to tenants.
    [Show full text]
  • Promises and Pitfalls in the Work Programme's Private Power Market
    Making Markets in Employment Support: Promises and Pitfalls in the Work Programme’s Private Power Market Eleanor Carter Department of Geography June 2018 Submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Acknowledgements The heartiest of thanks go firstly to Adam Whitworth. The time, thought and effort that Adam has dedicated to both me and this PhD project have been immense and I am hugely grateful for his support. From my first inklings of interest in undertaking doctoral research Adam has been a tremendous source of encouragement and advice. I owe Adam a deep intellectual debt: his insights have been crucial in helping me work through ideas and approaches. Beyond this, Adam’s persistent backing and reassurance has been a crucial underpinning to a new-found confidence in my own ideas and abilities. My second supervisor Dan Vickers also played a formative role in sharpening my analytical skills. I am grateful for the support of other friends and colleagues across the Geography Department at the University of Sheffield and DWP teams based at Rockingham House. I would also like to thank the Economic and Social Research Council who funded the project through an advanced quantitative methods studentship. I owe much to my friends and family. My parents in particular are key culprits in nurturing my inquisitiveness and determination. Thank you for your generosity, support, and care. Thanks also to my sister Rosie, who has reminded me throughout that it is important to have fun and who has provided plenty of entertaining distractions. Finally, to Mark McCombs whose quiet and sturdy support I have cherished through it all.
    [Show full text]
  • Nigel Lawrence [email protected] DWP Central Freedom of Information Team Caxton House 6-12 Tothill Stre
    DWP Central Freedom of Information Team Caxton House 6-12 Tothill Street London SW1H 9NA Nigel Lawrence freedom-of-information- [email protected] [email protected] DWP Website Our Ref: FOI2020/69472 7 December 2020 Dear Nigel Lawrence, Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FoI) request received on 12 November. You asked for: “Please provide a list of all private sector organisations to which DWP has awarded a contract to purchases services in connection with the provision of any interventions designed to help claimants to enter the labour market. My request includes, but is not limited to, employability courses and individual employment advice including tailored assistance with completing employment applications.” DWP Response I can confirm that the Department holds the information you are seeking for contracts awarded since 2009. Since 2009 DWP Employment Category has awarded contracts for interventions designed to help claimants enter the labour market to the following providers. 15billion 3SC A4e Ltd Aberdeen Foyer Access to Industry Acorn Training Advance Housing & Support Ltd ADVANCED PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT GROUP (UK) LIMITED Adviza Partnership Amacus Ltd Apex Scotland APM UK Ltd Atos IT Services UK Limited Autism Alliance UK Babington Business College Barnardo's 1 Best Practice Training & Development Ltd Burnley Telematics and Teleworking Limited Business Sense Associates C & K Careers Ltd Campbell Page Capital Engineering Group Holdings Capital Training Group Careers Development Group CDG-WISE Ability
    [Show full text]
  • Inflicting the Structural Violence of the Market: Workfare and Underemployment to Discipline the Reserve Army of Labor
    Fast Capitalism ISSN 1930-014X Volume 12 • Issue 1 • 2015 doi:10.32855/fcapital.201501.011 Inflicting the Structural Violence of the Market: Workfare and Underemployment to Discipline the Reserve Army of Labor Christian Garland “Taking them as a whole, the general movements of wages are exclusively regulated by the expansion and contraction of the industrial reserve army, and these again correspond to the periodic changes of the industrial cycle. They are, therefore, not determined by the variations of the absolute number of the working population, but by the varying proportions in which the working-class is divided into active and reserve army, by the increase or diminution in the relative amount of the surplus-population, by the extent to which it is now absorbed, now set free.”[2] — Marx, K. (1867) Inflicting the Structural Violence of the Market As the ongoing crisis of capitalism continues beyond its sixth year, the effects have been felt with different degrees of severity in different countries. In the UK it has manifested in chronic levels of underemployment which veil the already very high unemployment total that is currently hovering not far off the early 1980s levels of around three million. This data takes into consideration the official unemployment total and combines it with the number of Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) claimants now ‘self-employed’ who work in various odd jobs such as catalogue selling or holding an eBay account now claim Tax Credits to supplement their meager earnings. As such, “record falls in unemployment” and “record numbers in employment” are really not what they seem.
    [Show full text]
  • Econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Maddock, Su Working Paper A MIOIR case study on public procurement and innovation: DWP work programme procurement - Delivering innovation for efficiencies or for claimants? Manchester Business School Working Paper, No. 629 Provided in Cooperation with: Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester Suggested Citation: Maddock, Su (2012) : A MIOIR case study on public procurement and innovation: DWP work programme procurement - Delivering innovation for efficiencies or for claimants?, Manchester Business School Working Paper, No. 629, The University of Manchester, Manchester Business School, Manchester This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/102375 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur
    [Show full text]
  • Foi Blog Site
    DWP Central Freedom of InformationAnnex ATeam e-mail: [email protected] Our Ref: FOI 699 01 March 2012 Annex A Dear Mr Smith, Thank you for your Freedom of Information request which we received on 16 February 2012. In that request, you asked: Please could you provide a list of organisations signed up to provide unpaid work placements under the Mandatory Work Activity and Mandatory Work Programme schemes as referred by Jobcentre Plus, and the name of the linked providers in the Poole and Bournemouth area. The information you have requested is being withheld under Section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this exemption relates to the commercial interests of the Department for Work and Pensions and any other company or organisation delivering services on our behalf. I consider that the exemption applies because disclosure could, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of companies providing work-experience placements and the ability of the Department and its contracted providers to work in partnership with these companies to secure such opportunities. In line with the Department’s transparency commitments, we have previously provided information about companies who participate in a number of our programmes that offer work experience, where we can collect this information without disproportionate cost. However, we are now invoking the exemption because it has become clear in recent weeks that there are a minority of people who appear to be seeking to undermine the goodwill of employers who are prepared to offer opportunities to unemployed people by attempting to harm those companies’ commercial interests.
    [Show full text]
  • A Micro-Econometric Evaluation of the UK Work Programme
    'I, Daniel Blake' revisited: A micro-econometric evaluation of the UK Work Programme Danula K. Gamage∗ Pedro S. Martinsy Queen Mary University of London Queen Mary University of London CRED & NovaSBE & IZA June 19, 2017 Work in Progress Abstract Although many countries are making greater use of public-private partnerships in em- ployment services, there are few detailed econometric analysis of their effects, in contrast to a large body of small-sample or qualitative case studies. This paper contributes to this literature by examining the case of the UK Work Programme, drawing on popula- tion data of all nearly two-million participants between 2011 and 2016. We also exploit the original structure of the programme to disentangle the impact of different provider and jobseeker characteristics from business cycle, cohort, regional and time-in-programme effects. Moreover, we consider both transitions to employment and transitions out of unemployment. Our main results indicate considerable differences in performance across providers and across jobseeker profiles. The latter results suggest that, by changing the incentive structure offered to providers, the government could obtain better results at the same cost. Keywords: Public employment services, job search, public policy evaluation. JEL Codes: J64, J68, J22. ∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected], Address: School of Business and Management, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, United Kingdom. yEmail: [email protected]. Address: School of Business and Management, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, United Kingdom. Web: http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/pmartins 1 1 Introduction Focusing on the individual case of a fictional elderly widower, the award-winning film 'I, Daniel Blake' portraits a negative facade of UK welfare-to-work programmes over the last years.
    [Show full text]
  • Work Programme Supply Chains
    Work Programme Supply Chains The information contained in the table below reflects updates and changes to the Work Programme supply chains and is correct as at 30 September 2013. It is published in the interests of transparency. It is limited to those in supply chains delivering to prime providers as part of their tier 1 and 2 chains. Definitions of what these tiers incorporate vary from prime provider to prime provider. There are additional suppliers beyond these tiers who are largely to be called on to deliver one off, unique interventions in response to a particular participants needs and circumstances. The Department for Work and Pensions fully anticipate that supply chains will be dynamic, with scope to flex and evolve to reflect change within the labour market and participant needs. The Department intends to update this information at regular intervals (generally every 6 months) dependant on time and resources available. In addition to the Merlin standard, a robust process is in place for the Department to approve any supply chain changes and to ensure that the service on offer is not compromised or reduced. Comparison between the corrected March 2013 stock take and the September 2013 figures shows a net increase in the overall number of organisations in the supply chains across all sectors. The table below illustrates these changes Sector Number of organisations in the supply chain Private At 30 September 2013 - 367 compared to 351 at 31 March 2013 Public At 30 September 2013 - 128 compared to 124 at 30 March 2013 Voluntary or Community (VCS) At 30 September 2013 - 363 compared to 355 at 30 March 2013 Totals At 30 September 2013 - 858 organisations compared to 830 at March 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Work Programme: Background and Statistics
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 6340, 21 March 2016 Work Programme: By Aliyah Dar background and statistics Inside: 1. Who participates on the Work Programme? 2. Statistics 3. Payment model 4. Cost of the Work Programme 5. Work Programme best practice group 6. How the Work Programme works for unemployed people 7. Service delivery 8. ESA claimants and the Work Programme 9. Smaller suppliers and financial risk 10. Concerns over creaming and parking 11. After 2015 www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 6340, 21 March 2016 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Who participates on the Work Programme? 4 2. Statistics 5 2.1 Job outcomes 5 Analysis by monthly cohort (12 month job outcome measure) 5 2.2 Referrals 6 2.3 Sustainment payments 7 2.4 People completing the Work Programme 7 2.5 Variations by provider and geography 7 2.6 Comparison with minimum performance levels 8 3. Payment model 10 3.1 Minimum performance levels 11 3.2 Managing provider performance 12 Market Share Shift 12 Contract termination 12 4. Cost of the Work Programme 14 5. Work Programme best practice group 15 6. How the Work Programme works for unemployed people 16 6.1 Referral 16 6.2 Duration of Work Programme support 16 6.3 What happens when individuals leave the programme? 16 Help to Work 16 6.4 Complaints 17 6.5 Interaction with the Youth Contract: Wage Incentives 17 7. Service delivery 19 7.1 Prime providers and the ‘black box’ 19 7.2 How prime providers were selected 20 7.3 Supply chains and subcontractors 20 7.4 Merlin Standard 21 8.
    [Show full text]
  • The Work Programme: Factors Associated with Differences in the Relative Effectiveness of Prime Providers
    The Work Programme: factors associated with differences in the relative effectiveness of prime providers August 2016 The Work Programme: factors associated with differences in the relative effectiveness of prime providers DWP ad hoc research report no. 26 A report of research carried out by NIESR on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. © Crown copyright 2016. You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU,or email: [email protected]. This document/publication is also available on our website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/research-reports If you would like to know more about DWP research, please email: [email protected] First published 2016. ISBN 978-1-78425-617-3 Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions or any other Government Department The Work Programme: factors associated with differences in the relative effectiveness of prime providers Summary The Work Programme is delivered by 18 private, public and voluntary sector organisations, working under contract to DWP. These organisations are known as prime providers, or "primes", and operate within a geographical Contract Package Area (CPA). Each CPA has either two or three primes and individuals entering the Work Programme are randomly assigned to one of these. Comparing the outcomes of individuals assigned to each prime within a CPA provides robust estimates of relative effectiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • To Download This Magazine for Free
    editorial Corporate It has almost become a self-evident truth that unemployment has been growing progressively over the last two decades, both in scale and in its significance for social and economic policy. How and why are often ignored but a vast Watch industry to ‘manage’ this ‘crisis’ has developed. From flourishing private companies, such as A4e, contracted by the Department for Work and Pensions to deliver what Jobcentre Plus has apparently failed to achieve, through tens of Newsletter 45/46: subcontracted employment services providers, to a growing sector of so-called Winter 2009/2010 voluntary organisations that depend on this reserve army of unemployed people to source their ‘slave’ workforce. This double issue of the Corporate Watch Corporate Watch is an independent not-for- Newsletter takes a look at this relatively new ‘unemployment business’; its profit research group, which aims to expose protagonists, ideological, political and economic premises and how it is being how large corporations function, and the utilised by the New Labour government to dismantle what’s left of the welfare detrimental effects they have on society state. and the environment as an inevitable result of their current legal structure. Corporate The ‘unemployment crisis’ has certainly been exacerbated by the recent Watch strives for a society that is ecologically economic downturn, with many employers going bust, but that’s not the whole sustainable, democratic, equitable and story. Many big businesses have also exploited the current climate to push non-exploitative. Progress towards such a for compulsory redundancies. More importantly, the recession and the rising society may, in part, be achieved through number of jobless people have been skilfully employed by politicians and dismantling the vast economic and political government officials.
    [Show full text]