DOCSLIB.ORG

Work Programme Evaluation: Operation of the Commissioning Model, Finance and Programme Delivery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Work Programme Evaluation: Operation of the Commissioning Model, Finance and Programme Delivery Work Programme evaluation: Operation of the commissioning model, finance and programme delivery December 2014 Research Report No 893 A report of research carried out by the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the Institute for Employment Studies and the Social Policy Research Unit at the University of York on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. © Crown copyright 2014. 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/organisations/department-for-work-pensions/about/ research#research-publications If you would like to know more about DWP research, please email: [email protected] First published 2014. ISBN 978 1 910219 66 9 Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions or any other Government Department. Work Programme evaluation: Operation of the commissioning model, finance and programme delivery Summary This report brings together and summarises the main evidence from: • the 2013 and 2014 waves of the Work Programme evaluation about the commissioning model, finance and programme delivery; and • provider surveys from 2012, 2013 and 2014. The report explores the impact of the commissioning model on the provider market, the operation of the financial model and programme delivery. The report draws on: • qualitative interviews, conducted in 2013 and 2014, with Work Programme prime providers, selected subcontractors and DWP and Jobcentre Plus staff; • national surveys of providers; and • an analysis of Work Programme provider market data. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will use the results from this report in the continuous improvement of the Work Programme and the design of any future contracts. The preface notes at the start of the report give an update of the DWP’s response to the research findings. 3 Work Programme evaluation: Operation of the commissioning model, finance and programme delivery Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 17 The Authors ........................................................................................................................... 18 Glossary of terms .................................................................................................................. 20 List of abbreviations............................................................................................................... 23 DWP preface notes ............................................................................................................... 25 Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 29 Part 1 Introduction Coverage of this report and methods .............................................................................. 38 Report structure ............................................................................................................... 39 1 The Work Programme ..................................................................................................... 40 1.1 A new model for welfare-to-work ........................................................................... 40 1.2 The commissioning model ..................................................................................... 41 1.3 Programme delivery and service design ............................................................... 42 1.3.1 Who participates in the Work Programme? ............................................ 42 1.3.2 What do providers offer participants? ..................................................... 43 1.3.3 How do claimants enter the Work Programme? ..................................... 43 1.3.4 How long do participants stay on the programme? ................................ 43 1.3.5 Who are the Work Programme providers? ............................................. 44 2 The evaluation of the Work Programme .......................................................................... 45 2.1 About the evaluation .............................................................................................. 45 2.2 The commissioning model evaluation ................................................................... 46 2.3 The programme delivery evaluation ...................................................................... 48 2.3.1 Provider research.................................................................................... 48 2.3.2 Participant research ................................................................................ 49 2.4 Measuring outcomes and impact .......................................................................... 49 2.5 Locating the evaluation within existing evidence ................................................... 49 4 Work Programme evaluation: Operation of the commissioning model, finance and programme delivery Part 2 The Commissioning Model 3 Market structure ............................................................................................................... 52 3.1 Prime providers, supply chains and third sector organisations ............................. 52 3.2 Current provider market and high-level changes in the last year .......................... 53 3.3 Provider market concentration .............................................................................. 55 3.3.1 Prime provider market concentration ...................................................... 55 3.3.2 Changes in prime provider market concentration ................................... 56 3.3.3 Market concentration including subcontractors ...................................... 58 3.3.4 National market concentration including prime and T1 subcontractor delivery ............................................................................. 59 3.3.5 Effects of supply chain concentration changes at CPA level .................. 64 3.3.6 Prime providers driving changes in market concentration ...................... 66 Figure 3.1 Degrees of change in the concentration of CPA markets 2011 to 14 ............... 67 3.4 Changes to supply chains in the last year ............................................................. 68 3.5 Characteristics of Work Programme subcontractors and providers ...................... 70 3.6 Subcontracting to more than one prime provider in a CPA ................................... 75 3.7 Outsourcing by programme providers ................................................................... 76 3.7.1 Signposting participants to support outside supply chains ..................... 81 3.8 Variations in supply chain design .......................................................................... 83 3.8.1 Development of the model ...................................................................... 83 3.8.2 Primarily in-house, low competition delivery ........................................... 85 3.8.3 Primarily outsourced, high competition delivery...................................... 87 3.8.4 Primarily outsourced, low competition delivery ....................................... 89 3.8.5 Primarily in-house, high competition delivery.......................................... 90 3.9 Summary ............................................................................................................... 92 4 Operation of the commissioning model: contract and performance management .......... 94 4.1 DWP contract and performance management ...................................................... 94 4.1.1 Contract and performance management roles ....................................... 95 4.1.2 Performance measurement by DWP ...................................................... 97 4.1.3 Management of performance by DWP .................................................... 97 4.1.4 Management of contract compliance by DWP ...................................... 100 5 Work Programme evaluation: Operation of the commissioning model, finance and programme delivery 4.1.5 Management of quality by DWP ........................................................... 100 4.1.6 Black box contracting and performance management by DWP ........... 101 4.2 Prime provider views and experiences of DWP management ............................ 101 4.2.1 Provider views of DWP market share shift ............................................ 103 4.2.2 Provider views on contract termination ................................................. 104 4.3 Supply chain management .................................................................................. 105 4.3.1 Performance management by prime providers ..................................... 105 4.3.2 Black box contracting and performance management by prime providers ................................................................................ 106 4.3.3 Competition and collaboration in supply chains .................................... 107 4.3.4 Subcontractor views and experiences of performance management ....110 4.3.5 Management of non-end-to-end providers ............................................112 4.4 Providers’
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DWP Work Programme PDF 108 KB
    WIRRAL Council REGENERATION & ENVIRONMENT POLICY & PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE 3RD DECEMBER 2014 SUBJECT: DWP WORK PROGRAMME WARDS AFFECTED: ALL REPORT OF: STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION & ENVIRONMENT RESPONSIBLE PORTFOLIO COUNCILLOR PAT HACKETT HOLDER 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides Members with information on the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Work Programme launched throughout Great Britain in June 2011. Locally DWP has contracted with two ‘prime’ contractors (A4E and Ingeus) to deliver this provision which aims to support local people in receipt of DWP benefits into sustainable employment. The report will provide the latest performance data for delivery in Wirral as published by DWP and will seek to provide comparators where available. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The DWP Work Programme introduced in June 2011 is a nationally contracted programme which has rolled out a payment by results model on a large scale, where Prime Contractors are paid on sustainable job outcomes. The payments are designed to incentivise the contractors to work with the full range of benefit claimants with larger payments on securing job outcomes and ongoing payments for up to two years for those furthest from the labour market. All referrals to the Work Programme are through Jobcentre Plus. There are different thresholds for referrals to the Work Programme depending on age and benefit type. 2.2 DWP contract with providers over large geographical areas known as Contract Package Areas (CPA) with Wirral being part of the Merseyside, Halton, Cumbria & Lancashire CPA. The payment group for a claimant is the group that Jobcentre Plus assigns the claimant to, on the basis of the benefit they receive.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Bridges Into Work Overview
    The Bridges into Work project started in January 2009. Its aim is to support local people gain the skills and confidence to help them move towards employment. The project is part funded by the Welsh European Funding Office across 6 local authorities in Convergence areas of South Wales – Merthyr Tydfil , Rhondda Cynon Taf, Torfaen, Blaenau Gwent, Bridgend and Caerphilly. In Merthyr Tydfil the project is managed and implemented by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, which has enjoyed massive success with its recent venture The Neighbourhood Learning Programme. It has helped to engage local people to secure full time employment and to progress onto further learning in recent years. Carrying on from the achievement is the Neighbourhood Learning Centre, Gurnos and the newly established Training Employment Centre in Treharris. Both centres seek to engage with local people from all parts of Merthyr Tydfil and fulfil the Bridges into Work objective of providing encouragement, training, advice and guidance for socially excluded people with the view to get them back into work. The Neighbourhood Learning Centre has a range of training facilities covering a variety of sectors including plumbing, painting and decorating, carpentry, bricklaying, plastering, retail, customer service and computer courses. There are a team of experienced tutors who deliver training for local people within the community. Bridges into Work successfully delivered a Pre-Employment course for Cwm Taf Health Trust to recruit Health Care Assistants. With the help and support of the Neighbourhood Learning Pre-Employment Partnership fronted by the Bridges into Work Programme which includes organisations such as Voluntary Action Merthyr Tydfil, Remploy, Working Links, Shaw Trust, A4E, JobCentre Plus and JobMatch successfully provided and supported participants interested in becoming Health Care Assistants.
    [Show full text]
  • Labour Activation in a Time of High Unemployment
    Labour Activation in a Time of High Unemployment Key Developments in the OECD September 4, 2011 Douglas J. Besharov Douglas M. Call In recent years, various OECD countries modified their financial assistance programs in an effort to “activate” those receiving unemployment, disability, and social assistance. These changes are both substantive (such as eligibility, and the terms, conditions, and amounts of assistance) and administrative (such as consolidating, decentralizing, and privatizing services). The countries that have been most active in these reforms are Australia, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and, to a lesser extent, Italy and Norway. Key aspects of these changes are summarized below. Tightened eligibility rules. In an effort to improve the targeting of programs on the most deserving or needful, some countries have modified how they define and measure eligibility. United Kingdom. As part of broader reforms to unemployment, disability, and social assistance programs, in 2008, the UK replaced the disability assessment used since 1991 (the Personal Capability Assessment) with a new assessment (the Work Capability Assessment) that reduces the number of exemptions to work and assesses the extent to which the individual’s disability prevents them from working.1 1Child Action Poverty Group, “The Work Capability Assessment,” http://www.cpag.org.uk/cro/wrb/wrb204/wca.htm (accessed July 16, 2011); and Department of Work and Pensions, Work Capability Assessment: Internal Review (London: Department of Besharov and Call Labour Activation in a Time of High Unemployment New claimants have been subject to the Work Capability Assessment since its inception in 2008. In addition, the UK instituted a reassessment of claimants who began receiving disability benefits under the Personal Capability Assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Work Programme
    Work Programme Standard Note: SN/EP/6340 Last updated: 26 September 2013 Author: Feargal McGuinness Section: Economic Policy and Statistics The Work Programme is the Government’s main welfare-to-work programme. Unemployed people are referred on to the programme from their local Jobcentre Plus after they have been receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) for a minimum amount of time. Participants remain on the programme for up to two years. The scheme is run by providers who have the freedom to introduce and implement their own ideas and schemes to help unemployed participants find work – the ‘black box’ approach. These prime providers (who are mostly private companies) are able to subcontract delivery to smaller, more specialised suppliers if these are better equipped to help participants find work. Providers are awarded payment at various stages rather than upfront, in order to reward providers for placing and keeping individuals in work. The harder it is to help an individual into work, the higher the total payment a provider can receive. Between June 2011 (when it began) and June 2013, 1.31 million people were referred to the Work Programme in Great Britain. The total number of ‘job outcomes’ (participants who completed 13 or 26 weeks in employment, depending on their payment group) was 168,000. The proportion of claimants achieving a job outcome after 12 months on the programme increased from 8.5% of people referred in June 2011 to 13.0% of people referred in June 2012. In the first year of contracts, no provider met the minimum expected level of performance set by DWP; however some providers met or exceeded minimum performance levels for JSA claimants in the second year of contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • A4e Ltd Independent Learning Provider
    Further Education and Skills inspection report Date published: June 2015 Inspection Number: 461179 URN: 50083 A4e Ltd Independent learning provider Inspection dates 18–22 May 2015 This inspection: Good-2 Overall effectiveness Previous inspection: Requires improvement-3 Outcomes for learners Good-2 Quality of teaching, learning and assessment Good-2 Effectiveness of leadership and management Good-2 Summary of key findings for learners This provider is good because: . the majority of learners receive good support to overcome multiple barriers to achieve their qualifications . learners develop good personal, social and employability skills that prepare them well for work . effective initiatives with major employers help learners find employment . senior managers work effectively with Local Enterprise Partnerships to redesign the curriculum to meet regional skills’ shortages . English and mathematical skills are successfully developed through their practical application in realistic vocational settings . pre-course information, advice and guidance are good and, coupled with thorough initial assessment, ensure that learners are placed and retained on the right courses . equality of opportunity is skilfully promoted, and through carefully planned activities, learners develop a good understanding of life in a diverse society . board members and senior managers have worked successfully and quickly to address the majority of the areas for improvement identified at the last inspection . performance management of staff and the use of management information are effective and enable managers to drive improvements in all areas of delivery. This is not yet an outstanding provider because: . not enough apprentices achieve their qualifications on time . written feedback is not sufficiently detailed, and targets are not always specific enough to inform learners what they need to do to progress .
    [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]
  • Adult Training Network
    ADULT TRAINING NETWORK ATN REPORT FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 2013 – JULY 2014 1 | P a g e Adult Training Network Annual Report 2013-2014 Contents Page Organisational Details 3 Mission Statement 3 Aims & Objectives 3 Company Structure 4 Training Centres 5 Business Plan & Aims and Objectives 6 - 7 Company Accounts 7 Staffing Establishment 7-8 Staff Development & Training 8 - 10 Partnership Agreements 10 Accreditation 11 Activities 2013 – 2014 11 -18 Richmond upon Thames College 10 – 14 Waltham Forest College 14 – 15 A4e - JCP Support Contract 16 A4e Professional and Executive and Graduate Programme 16 - 17 Ingeus Work Programme – Routeway Provider 17 Reed in Partnership – Work Programme Pilot 18 G4s – Community Work Placements (CWP) Programme 18 Reed – ESF Families Programme 19 Matrix Accreditation 19 External Verification & Inspection Reports 19-22 Extension Activities 22 -27 Good news stories & Case Studies 27-31 Future Developments & Priorities 31 Conclusion 32 2 | P a g e Adult Training Network Annual Report 2013-2014 ORGANISATIONAL DETAILS The Adult Training Network is a Registered Charity Number 1093609, established in July 1999, and a Company Limited by Guarantee number 42866151. The Head Office is at Unit 18, Arches Business Centre, Merrick Road, Southall, Middlesex, UB2 4AU. The Adult Training Network has a Board of Trustees and a Managing Director, who is the main contact person for the organisation. Further information on the Adult Training Network can be found on the organisation’s website at http://www.adult-training.org.uk. The Chair of the Board of Trustees is Mr Pinder Sagoo and the Managing Director is Mr Sarjeet Singh Gill.
    [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]
  • Social Mobility Business Compact List of Signatories A4E Aberdeen Asset
    This list has been withdrawn and replaced: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-mobility-business-compact-list-of-signatories Social Mobility Business Compact List of signatories A4E Aberdeen Asset Management PLC ACCA Accenture Acorn Environment Addleshaw Goddard LLP Adecco Group UK & Ireland AGR Airbus Allen and Overy Alliance Boots Anchor Trust AOL Arriva Asda Ashurst LLP Aspire Group Associated Newspapers Association of Accounting Technicians (AAT) Aston University Atkins Aviva plc AXA BAE Systems Baker & McKenzie LLP Bank of America Merrill Lynch Bank of England Bar Council Barcelo Hotels UK Barclays Bauer Media Group BBC Be Wiser Insurance Ltd BP British Land BSkyB BT Group Cabinet Office Cancer Research UK Capgemini Capita Capp & Co Ltd Carillion This list has been withdrawn and replaced: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-mobility-business-compact-list-of-signatories Caterpillar Centrica Channel 4 Charted Institute of Public Relations Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) Chartered Insurance Institute CH2M Hill Citi City and Guilds City of London Corporation Clifford Chance CMS Cameron McKenna LLP Coca Cola Enterprises Coca Cola Great Britain Compass Group Credit Suisse Crown Prosecution Service Dell Deloitte Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Education Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for International Development Department for Transport Department for Work and Pensions Department
    [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]
  • A Helping Hand Enhancing the Role of Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Organisations in Employment Support Programmes in London October 2015 Appendix 1
    Appendix 1 Economy Committee A Helping Hand Enhancing the role of voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations in employment support programmes in London October 2015 Appendix 1 Economy Committee Members Fiona Twycross (Chair) Labour Stephen Knight (Deputy Chair) Liberal Democrat Tony Arbour Conservative Jenny Jones Green Kit Malthouse MP Conservative Murad Qureshi Labour Dr Onkar Sahota Labour Committee contact Simon Shaw Email: [email protected] Tel: 020 7983 6542 Media contact: Lisa Lam Email: [email protected] Tel: 020 7983 4067 Appendix 1 Contents Chair’s foreword ................................................................................................. 1 Executive summary ............................................................................................. 2 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 4 2. The challenges to VCSE organisations’ involvement in employment programmes........................................................................................................ 9 3. What can be done to address the challenges to VCSE organisations’ involvement? .................................................................................................... 14 4. Devolution of employment programmes ................................................. 21 Appendix 1 – Recommendations ...................................................................... 26 Appendix 2 – Major employment programmes ..............................................
    [Show full text]