DOCSLIB.ORG

Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum REGENERATION AND PLANNING SERVICES SCRUTINY FORUM AGENDA Wednesday 22 February 2012 at 3.00 pm in Committee Room B, Civic Centre, Hartlepool REGENERATION AND PLANNING SERVICES SCRUTINY FORUM: Councillors Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Gibbon, Lawton, A Marshall, McKenna, Rogan and Turner Resident Representatives: Ted Jackson and John Maxwell 1. APOLOGI ES FOR A BS ENC E 2. TO RECEIV E ANY DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 3. M INUT ES 3.1 Minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2012 (to follow) 4. RESP ONS ES F ROM T HE C OUNCIL , T HE EX EC UT IV E O R C OM M IT T EES O F T HE COUNCIL TO FINAL REPORTS OF THIS FORUM No ite ms 5. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR SCRUTINY REVIEWS REFERRED VIA SCRUTINY CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE No ite ms 6. CONSIDERATION OF PROGRESS REPORTS / BUDGET AND POLICY FRAM EW ORK DOC UM ENTS No ite ms www.hartl epool.gov.uk/democraticser vices 7. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Investigation into ‘Employment and Training Opportunities for Young People Aged 19-25’ 7.1 Consideration of Draft Final Report - Chair of the Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum Six Monthly Monitoring of Scrutiny Actions 7.2 Six Monthly Monitoring of Agreed Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum’s Recommendations - Scrutiny Support Officer 8. ISSUES IDENTIFIED FROM FORWARD PLAN 9. ANY OTHER ITEMS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS ARE URGENT ITEM S FOR I NFORM ATION Date of Next Meeting to be confirmed. www.hartl epool.gov.uk/democraticser vices Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Regeneration and Planning Scrutiny Forum – 22 February 2012 7.1 REGENERATION AND PLANNING SERVICES SCRUTINY FORUM 22 February 2012 Report of: Regeneration and Planning Scrutiny Forum Subject: DRAFT FINAL REPORT – EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 19-25 1. PURP OS E OF REPORT 1.1 To present the findings of the Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum following its investigation into Employment and Training Opportunities for Young People Aged 19-25. 2. SETTING THE SCENE 2.1 At the meeting of the Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum on 21 July 2011, Members determined their work programme for the 2011/12 Municipal Year. The issue of ‘Employment and Training Opportunities for Young People Aged 19 to 25’ was selected as the topic for consideration during the current Municipal Year. 2.2 Youth unem ploym ent in Hartlepool continues to be above the regional and national average; Hartlepool 16.2%, North East 9.9% and Great Britain 7.5%. The percentage of young unemployed is 32% of the total unemployed in Hartlepool. The Government have introduced a range of measures under the ‘Get Britain Working’ Campaign to support the unemployed back into work, including specific measures for young people such as the Work Programm e, the New Enterprise Allowance Scheme, Work Experience and Sector based academies. 2.3 At the meeting of the Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum on 1 September 2011, during the scoping of the investigation into ‘Employment and Training Services for 19-25 Year Olds’ Mem bers agreed that the concept of ‘Social Return on Investment’ should also be explored as part of the Forum’s investigation. In order not to impact on the main inves tigation, Mem bers agreed that a focus group of the Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum would be tasked with looking specifically 1 HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Regeneration and Planning Scrutiny Forum – 22 February 2012 7.1 at the social return on investment of the Connexions service for 19-25 year olds, with the results being taken as evidence by the main scrutiny forum. 3. OVERALL AIM OF THE SCRUTINY INVESTIGATION 3.1 The overall aim of the Scrutiny investigation was to explore and evaluate the issue of training and employment opportunities in Hartlepool for young people aged 19 to 25. 4. TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE SCRUTINY INV ES TIGATION 4.1 The Terms of Reference for the Scrutiny inves tigation were as outlined below:- (a) To gain an understanding of the issue of training and employment opportunities for young people aged 19 to 25, with particular reference to the very vulnerable who fall in to this category; (b) To explore/evaluate the services currently provided in Hartlepool to young people aged 19 to 25, not in employment, education or training and the effectiveness of these services. To include details of:- (i) services provided by the Local Authority (including 19+ Connexions services); (ii) areas of partnership working and service provision; (iii) transition arrangements for those moving from Connexions; (iv) potential gaps in service provision. (c) To consider the views of the young unemployed in Hartlepool, those in training or who have successfully used services available, and also the views of local employers on the effectiveness of service provision; (d) To gain an understanding of the impact of current and future budget pressures, future funding streams and the potential development of local enterprise zones on the opportunities for employment and training open to this cohort of young people; (e) To explore and consider how support for young people aged 19 to 25 not in employment, education or training should be provided in the future (giving due regard to term of reference (d)). 5. MEM BERS HIP OF THE REGENERATION AND PLANNING S ERVICES SCRUTINY FORUM 5.1 The membership of the Scrutiny Forum was as detailed below:- 2 HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Regeneration and Planning Scrutiny Forum – 22 February 2012 7.1 Councillors Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Gibbon, Lawton, A Marshall, McKenna, Rogan and Turner. Resident Representatives: Ted Jackson, Peter Joyce and John Maxwell 6. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 6.1 Members of the Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum met formally from 1 September 2011 to 2 February 2012 to discuss and receive evidence relating to this investigation. A detailed record of the issues raised during these meetings is available from the Council’s Democratic Services. 6.2 A brief summary of the methods of investigation are outlined below:- (a) Detailed Officer presentations and reports supplemented by verbal evidence from the Employment Development Team, Integrated Youth Support Services and the Community Services Team; (b) Evidence from the Authority’s Elected Mayor; (c) Presentations and verbal evidence received from representatives from Jobcentre Plus, Avanta, North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, Hartlepool College of Further Education and Redcar and Cleveland Council; (d) The views of local residents, employers and young people who use services; and (e) The report of the Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum Social Return on Investment Focus Group. FINDINGS 7 ISSUES AFFECTING TRAINING AND EMPLOYM ENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 19 - 25 IN HARTLEPOOL 7.1 The Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum met on 1 September 2011 where Members received detailed evidence from the Economic Development Manager and the Employment Development Officer from Hartlepool Council regarding:- • the numbers of young people aged 19 – 25 in Hartlepool who are not in education, employment or training; • local economic trends and factors that affect employment and training opportunities; and • where Hartlepool sits in comparison to regional and nation figures. 3 HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Regeneration and Planning Scrutiny Forum – 22 February 2012 7.1 Unemployment statistics and trends in Hartlepool 7.2 The Forum was informed that it was difficult to obtain exact figures for the 19-25 cohort as the ‘Nomis’ system, which is used to obtain such information, uses 16-24 and 18-24 categories. Members were advised of the following figures:- Hartlepool Population • Total = 91,300 • 18-24 year olds = 8,300 Unemployment (July 2011) • Hartlepool = 7.1% (4,143 residents) • North East = 5% • Great Britain = 3.8% Youth Unemployment (18-24 July 2011) • Hartlepool = 16.2% (1350 residents, 930 male and 420 female) • North East = 9.9% • Great Britain = 7.5% 7.3 The Forum was provided with a table of 18-24 claimant rates between the years 2000 – 2011:- Table 1 18-24 Claimant Rates Year Job Job Incapacity Income Employment Seekers Seekers Benefit Support Support Allowance Allowance Allowance 6 months plus 2000 890 175 450 900 - 2001 825 160 510 990 - 2002 840 165 470 950 - 2003 845 210 500 870 - 2004 695 100 490 860 - 2005 780 120 480 790 - 2006 870 175 440 760 - 2007 840 80 400 750 - 2008 895 115 400 790 - 2009 1190 170 290 780 70 2010 1095 260 190 760 130 2011 1350 345 130 720 180 7.4 Members queried the effect of the closure of the Garlands call centre on the figures but were advised that this did not show as a major trend due to the majority of staff finding alternative employment relatively quickly. 4 HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Regeneration and Planning Scrutiny Forum – 22 February 2012 7.1 7.5 Members also noted the increase in those claiming job seekers allowance (JSA) in 2009 and a reduction of the number claiming incapacity benefit in the same year. Member were advised that the former was due to the downturn in the economy with the loss of a number of jobs, particularly in the retail sector, and the latter was due to changes in the benefits regime with a number of people being moved from incapacity benefit onto employment support allowance.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Work Programme: Providers and Contracting Arrangements
    House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee Work Programme: providers and contracting arrangements Fourth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/workpencom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 27 April 2011 HC 718 Published on 8 May 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50 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) Harriett Baldwin MP (Conservative, West Worcestershire) Andrew Bingham MP (Conservative, High Peak) Karen Bradley MP (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands) Alex Cunningham MP (Labour, Stockton North) Kate Green MP (Labour, Stretford and Urmston) Mr Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) Glenda Jackson MP (Labour, Hampstead and Kilburn) Brandon Lewis MP (Conservative, Great Yarmouth) Stephen Lloyd MP (Liberal Democrat, Eastbourne) Teresa Pearce MP (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Ms Karen Buck MP (Labour, Westminster North), Margaret Curran MP (Labour, Glasgow East), Richard Graham MP (Conservative, Gloucester), Sajid Javid MP (Conservative, Bromsgrove) 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.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Coalition Government Extends “Slave Labour” Welfare Policy
    Analysis Discipline and discontent: coalition government extends “slave labour” welfare policy Chris Jones Under the government’s Work Programme, unemployed people must work for free for private companies such as Tesco and Primark or face losing their benefit payments. These companies manage the programme “without prescription from government” and are given access to sensitive personal data. The government is determined to bolster the number of people involved in the scheme. Disabled people have been increasingly targeted for enrolment and the government’s Universal Credit welfare plan will see thousands of individuals become eligible for referral. Since the late 1990s, successive governments in the UK have introduced “work-for-your-benefit” policies through which the receipt of unemployment benefits is conditional upon the undertaking of certain activities – for example, filling in a minimum number of job applications every week. Following its formation in May 2010, the coalition government introduced the Work Programme which raised the number and intensity of activities required of those claiming benefits. It also increased the severity of sanctions that can be imposed should people not comply. The activities – which in many cases include unwaged work – are prescribed by private firms with government contracts. These firms exercise considerable power over the individuals involved. Upon referral to the Work Programme by a member of staff at a Jobcentre Plus, a letter is sent to the claimant. It states that the provider or one of their partners: “Will support you whilst on the Work Programme. They will discuss what help you need to find work, and draw up an action plan of things you’ll do to improve your chances of getting and keeping a job.
    [Show full text]
  • DWP Conditionality and Sanctions: an Interim Report in to the DWP's Regime and Impacts in Salford
    1 DWP Conditionality and Sanctions. An interim report in to the Department for Work and Pensions’ regime and impacts in Salford. 15th August 2014 Review of DWP conditionality & sanctions August2014 2 CONTENTS Foreword Executive Summary 1. Background 2. Terms of Reference 3. Limitations of this Review 4. Understanding DWP’s Conditionality and Sanctions Regime 4.1 Current benefit conditionality 4.2 Amount of benefit cut through a sanction 4.3 Length of a sanction 4.4 Decision making process 4.5 Manatory reconsiderations and appeals 4.6 Hardship Payments 5. Effects of Welfare Reform on Conditionality 5.1 JSA related sanction activity 5.2 ESA related sanction activity 5.3 Targets 6. Summary of Interim Findings 6.1 Communication issues 6.2 Concerns about consistency and proportionality 6.2.1 Consistency 6.2.2 Proportionality 7. Impact on Individual Claimants and their Families 7.1 Financial impacts 7.1.1 Help with rent and council tax payments 7.1.2 Personal Debt 7.2 Well-being and Health 7.2.1 Well-being 7.2.2 Health 7.3 Skills, training and employability 7.3.1 The counterproductive effects of conditionality 7.4 Offending 8. Impacts on agencies and partner organisations 8.1 Recording sanctions 8.2 Dealing with demand Review of DWP conditionality & sanctions August2014 3 8.2.1 Financial impacts 8.2.2 Well-being and health impacts 8.2.3 Skills, training and employability 8.2.4 Offending 9. Conclusion 10. Recommendations APPENDICES Appendix 1: Task group members and report contributors Appendix 2: Sanction by reason Appendix 3: Length of sanctions Appendix 4: People who are members of a vulnerable group for the purposes of entitlement to hardship payments Appendix 5: Additional sanctions data Appendix 6: Position Statement on the GM vision for volunteering Appendix 7: DWP response to proposed recommendations Review of DWP conditionality & sanctions August2014 4 Foreword ‘Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) provides financial support to individuals while they look for work.
    [Show full text]
  • Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum
    REGENERATION AND PLANNING SERVICES SCRUTINY FORUM FINAL REPORT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 19-25 APRIL 201 2 Cabinet 16 April 2012 CABINET 16 April 2012 Report of: Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum Subject: FINAL REPORT – EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 19- 25 1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To present the findings of the Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum following its investigation into Employment and Training Opportunities for Young People Aged 19-25. 2. SETTING THE SCENE 2.1 At the meeting of the Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum on 21 July 2011, Members determined their work programme for the 2011/12 Municipal Year. The issue of ‘Employment and Training Opportunities for Young People Aged 19 to 25’ was selected as the topic for consideration during the current Municipal Year. 2.2 Youth unemployment in Hartlepool continues to be above the regional and national average; Hartlepool 16.2%, North East 9.9% and Great Britain 7.5%. The percentage of young unemployed is 32% of the total unemployed in Hartlepool. The Government have introduced a range of measures under the ‘Get Britain Working’ Campaign to support the unemployed back into work, including specific measures for young people such as the Work Programme, the New Enterprise Allowance Scheme, Work Experience and Sector based academies. 2.3 At the meeting of the Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum on 1 September 2011, during the scoping of the investigation into ‘Employment and Training Services for 19-25 Year Olds’ Members agreed that the concept of ‘Social Return on Investment’ should also be explored as part of the Forum’s investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony Ways and Means TANF 11 0922
    Testimony_Ways and Means_11_0922.wpd Douglas J. Besharov School of Public Policy University of Maryland (301)405-6341 [email protected] Testimony Subcommittee on Human Resources Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives September 8, 2011 Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Doggett, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on this important topic. My name is Douglas Besharov, and I am a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, where I teach courses on poverty alleviation and program evaluation. I also direct our Welfare Reform Academy (WRA) and our Center for International Policy Exchanges (CIPE). Of particular relevance to this hearing, at the university, I lead a project called “Learning from Abroad,” which is designed to glean policy ideas from other nations. Our web site is www.umdcipe.org. Today, I want to emphasize that, even in this time of high unemployment, TANF and, actually, all major income-support and social welfare programs—including Unemployment Insurance (UI), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/food stamps), and disability programs (Social Security Disability Insurance [SSDI] and Supplemental Security Income [SSI])—have important roles to play in encouraging people to stay connected to the labor force, by which I mean working, seeking work, or seriously increasing their job-related skills. Prolonged high unemployment We are in the midst of what most informed observers expect will be a prolonged period of high unemployment. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, from a low of about 4 percent in 2000, the unemployment rate rose during the 2001–2003 downturn to about 6 percent, after which it fell but remained disappointingly high at between 4.5 to 5.0 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Foi Blog Site
    DWP Central Freedom of InformationAnnex ATeam e-mail: [email protected] Our Ref: FoI1202 02 April 2012 Annex A Dear Frank Zola, Thank you for your Freedom of Information request of 15 March 2012. You asked: How many of your Work Programme Subcontractors [1] also provide compulsory four week work experience activity placements [2] to your Mandatory Work Activity Provider A4E (CPA1 South East)[3]? If within your £600 fee limit, please also supply the same information for your Mandatory Work Activity Providers: JHP Group (CPA10 Scotland) Rehab Group (CPA11 Wales) Then if within your £600 fee limit, please also supply the same information for your Mandatory Work Activity Providers: Rehab Group (CPA2 South West) Seetec (CPA3 London) Then if within your £600 fee limit, please also supply the same information for your Mandatory Work Activity Providers: Seetec (CPA4 East of England Ingeus (CPA5 East Midlands) ESG (CPA6 West Midlands) Then if within your £600 fee limit, please also supply the same information for your Mandatory Work Activity Providers: JHP Group (CPA7 North West) BEST CPA8 (Yorkshire and Humber) Ingeus CPA9 (North East) When responding please state the names of each Subcontractor, that offers work experience activity placements to your Mandatory Work Activity Providers. Numbers of Work Subcontractors who provide Mandatory Work Activity placements by CPA as specified in your request: CPA1 x 8 CPA2 x 9 CPA3 x 7 CPA4 x 6 CPA5 x 9 CPA6 x 7 CPA7 x 7 CPA8 x 15 CPA9 x 5 CPA10 x 6 CPA 11 x 7 With regard to the names of each sub-contractor 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Social and Political Significance of Workfare in the United Kingdom a Normative Human Rights Critique
    SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY - UNIVERSITY OF LONDON The Social and Political Significance of Workfare in the United Kingdom A Normative Human Rights Critique Eleanor Hinton LLB This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the following degree: MA Understanding and Securing Human Rights at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London. Date of Submission: 03.09.2012 Abstract This paper provides a critical analysis of the workfare schemes introduced by the coalition government. Workfare is presented as the product of neoliberal ideologies that have introduced notions of conditions and reciprocity to the realisation of traditionally entitlement-based rights. The history of the welfare state is assessed from a political- economic perspective. It is suggested that the rationale behind the schemes is fuelled by political and corporate motivations, which effectively subordinate the importance of human rights. This new social contract is explored from different philosophical perspectives of economic and social rights. Evidence of corporate and political reactions to social pressure suggest that civil society can be effective in discouraging decisions that pose a threat to human rights standards. The compatibility of workfare schemes with a normative understanding of specific rights is assessed. The study concludes that workfare constitutes a serious threat to human rights, signifying the erosion of the British welfare state, and hence basic welfare entitlements. There is a strong
    [Show full text]