The Work Programme: Experience of Different User Groups
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee The Work Programme: experience of different user groups Written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published Published on 14 December 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Work and Pensions Committee The Work and Pensions Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Work and Pensions and its associated public bodies. Current membership Dame Anne Begg MP (Labour, Aberdeen South) (Chair) Debbie Abrahams MP (Labour, Oldham East and Saddleworth) Mr Aidan Burley MP (Conservative, Cannock Chase) Jane Ellison MP (Conservative ,Battersea) Graham Evans MP (Conservative, Weaver Vale) Sheila Gilmore MP (Labour, Edinburgh East) Glenda Jackson MP (Labour, Hampstead and Kilburn) Stephen Lloyd MP (Liberal Democrat, Eastbourne) Nigel Mills MP (Conservative, Amber Valley) Anne Marie Morris MP (Conservative , Newton Abbot) Teresa Pearce MP (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Harriett Baldwin MP (Conservative, West Worcestershire), Andrew Bingham MP (Conservative, High Peak), Karen Bradley MP (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands), Ms Karen Buck MP (Labour, Westminster North), Alex Cunningham MP (Labour, Stockton North), Margaret Curran MP (Labour, Glasgow East), Richard Graham MP (Conservative, Gloucester), Kate Green MP (Labour, Stretford and Urmston), Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire), Sajid Javid MP (Conservative, Bromsgrove), Brandon Lewis MP (Conservative, Great Yarmouth) and Shabana Mahmood MP (Labour, Birmingham, Ladywood) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/workpencom. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Carol Oxborough (Clerk), David Foster (Committee Media Adviser), James Clarke (Inquiry Manager), Daniela Silcock (Committee Specialist), Emma Sawyer (Senior Committee Assistant), Hannah Beattie (Committee Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Work and Pensions Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 2839; the Committee's email address is [email protected]. List of written evidence 1 Indigo Foundation (Norfolk) 2 A G and I (UK) Ltd 3 DROP the TAG 4 Milton Keynes Women and Work 5 Wallace School of Transport 6 Somali Golden Centre of Opportunities 7 Ms M J Canning 8 Social Firms UK 9 National Association for Voluntary and Community Action 10 LifeLine 11 The Pluss Organisation 12 Wheatsheaf Trust 13 Scope 14 Papworth Trust 15 Single Parent Action Network 16 Locality 17 3SC 18 Turning Point 19 A4e 20 Association of Colleges 21 Shaw Trust and Careers Development Group 22 Cymorth Cymru 23 Clink 24 DrugScope and Homeless Link 25 ERSA 26 UK Council on Deafness 27 Royal National Institute for Blind People 28 Centre for Mental Health, Mind, and the Scottish Association for Mental Health 29 Department for Work and Pensions 30 Rehab Group 31 G4S 32 St Mungo’s 33 Mencap 34 Single Homeless Project 35 Community Links 36 London Voluntary Service Council 37 National AIDS Trust 38 National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (England and Wales) 39 Citizens Advice 40 Social Market Foundation 41 The Camden Society 42 Gingerbread 43 Ross Bradford 44 David Marshall 45 Douglas Coombs 46 Prospects Services 47 Crisis Written evidence submitted by Indigo Foundation (Norfolk) As a charitable organisation working in the field of Specific Learning Difficulties (Dyslexia) we are pleased to submit the following comments on the implementation of the Work Programme. 1. Indigo’s Credentials and Services 1.1 We are the primary specialist provider for dyslexic adults’ services and are a recognised centre for dyslexia related training: we run accredited courses at Level 1 and Level 3 for Dyslexia Awareness and Supporting Dyslexic Learners. 1.2 We are Investors in People and are MATRIX accredited. 2. Identified Need 2.1 At least 10% of the Work Programme population will have a degree of dyslexia, and 4% will be severe. We would therefore expect these people to require our services. 2.2 As many children leave the school system undiagnosed and training providers will come into contact with dyslexic people, providers should know to refer to INDIGO for diagnosis. 2.3 All training organisations need to be fully aware of dyslexia and how to help and support dyslexia. We do not expect them to diagnose the condition – however, support for dyslexic people’s needs is vital. 3. Referral Practice 3.1 We do not receive a noticeable volume of referrals and we believe this is due to the fact that our services need to be paid for. We are a completely not- for-profit organisation. 3.2 Contract holders seem unwilling to provide financial support for disadvantaged dyslexic people in need of diagnosis or support: this is a gap in the services for Work Programme participants. 3.3 There is a discrepancy between the services provided under Access to Work (Department of Work and Pensions) for employed adults to help overcome work-related obstacles and the services provided on the Work Programme. The Disability Discrimination Act applies to the Work Programme just as it does for employers. 4. Conclusion 4.1 The method of payment on result makes it impossible for us to tender for services as we are not an end-to-end provider. 4.2 Whoever holds the contract for the Work Programme should be held accountable for provision of specialist services for dyslexic people to an acceptable quality standard. 4.3 The commissioners of the Work Programme also need to be aware of the acceptable standards required and the reasonable adjustments that must be put in place. As a not-for-profit organisation, we are always pleased to be consulted and provide information, advice and guidance. 15 November 2012 Written evidence submitted by Gill Marshall, A G & I (UK) Ltd I have not been directly involved but as a new Training Provider and having had dealings with providers of Work Programmes in my previous roles, I have the following comments: • There are too many providers delivering the same work programmes which results in money being wasted through duplication of overhead costs. Companies such as A4e/Ingeus are too large to effectively run the programme and have far too much control. It would be better if there were one centre (Centre of Training & Educational Excellence) in each county holding the funding, regulating and managing the training providers to ensure standards and performances are met. Training providers would still have to be approved but there should be a limit on the number of providers in each area. This would reduce the current number of contracts that are awarded and subsequently sub‐contracted, thereby saving money. • Not enough reviews are carried out to monitor the training providers and how they deliver or how successful they are. Anyone can claim that they are successful, A4e being a prime example! • One centre in each county would be easier for people who use the service to know where they can go and to get help • There should also be a more flexible approach to help the unemployed. What is generally forgotten is that everyone is an individual and should be treated equally and fairly – so if there are other programmes that would suit a claimant to help get back into work then they should be able to opt for these. Plus I personally feel a lot of the programmes offered are not challenging enough and more inspiring courses should be offered. The one centre per county approach would be better suited to do this. A lot of problems arise because of the funding and how it is administered. Competition between providers is NOT driving performance up. Arguably it is the other way round with corners being cut and statistics manipulated, in order that the providers get the money to survive. When you only get payment on outcomes paying wages and costs is important, this applies to any size company, otherwise they fail. You should NOT have competition where people’s lives are involved and providers should not have to worry all the time about whether they will have enough money each month to pay staff or if they will keep getting funding to keep going. I also find that funding goes to the same providers and is a ‘closed shop’ for other providers who bid for the funding. If a centre for training by county is approved then the committee approved to manage it must be changed yearly/2 yearly so things do not get stale and so there is openness and fairness. Links to the Apprenticeship Service could also be adopted and also save on wasted funding. If there is one Training Funding Stream then duplication of training and funding would be more effective and better outcomes could be achieved. 6 November 2012 Written evidence submitted by Anna Burke, Consultant Partner, Drop the tag I was the Managing Director of Eco-Actif Services CIC, 46 Throwley Way, Sutton SM1 4AF, a small social enterprise that held a Work Programme contract from July 2011 – July 2012, when the Company went into voluntary liquidation. Eco-Actif was originally a spin-off from Sutton Council and provided welfare-to-work services for the furthest from the mainstream, including ex-offenders, serving prisoners, young offenders and addicts.