The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Will the Work Programme work?

Some key background reading to understand the debate on welfare reform.

By Rafael Behr Published 04 January 2012 14:38

Liam Byrne, the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, has successfully created a bit of a stir with his intervention on welfare reform in Monday's Guardian. There is more planned, with speeches on the subject over the next few months. 2012, I'm told, is meant to be the year that Labour gets back into the conversation about welfare reform. Since the election, the terms of debate have been effectively set by the Tories. Public opinion remains steady in support of cuts to the benefits bill, with a widespread perception that the last government lost control of spending and was relaxed about people choosing to live on the dole. Iain Duncan Smith's popular promise to reform the system to "make work pay" has, senior Labour figures privately concede, effectively shut the opposition out.

Whether Ed Miliband can get back in is the subject of my column in this week's magazine. One key factor will be the question of whether the government's welfare plans will actually work. There is already a lot of disquiet around the Work Programme, the huge welfare-to-work scheme under which private and voluntary sector providers compete for contracts to place the long-term unemployed in work. The contractors are paid according to how effective they are in matching their "customers" with jobs. As I write in the column, the whole thing starts to break down if there simply aren't enough vacancies around to fill. The scheme was designed at a time when the Department for Work and Pensions expected the labour market to track optimistic growth forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR turned out to be wrong, of course.

But even if vacancies are there for some of the people being transferred onto the Work Programme, there are serious doubts being raised in the welfare-to-work sector about whether some of the providers will be able to meet their targets. There is also a lot of suspicion around that some of the providers won their contracts with unrealistic estimates of how much it actually costs to train someone who has been out of work for a year and find them a job. There are some rumbling noises around about the Work Programme either collapsing or, more likely, needing to be bailed out by government.

For anyone interested in welfare-to-work policy detail, I recommend the following links:

Public Accounts Committee report on "Pathways to Work"

This is a parliamentary investigation into a pilot scheme set up under Labour to use the private sector to help claimants of incapacity benefit back into work. Mostly they failed to meet their performance targets and generally performed worse than the Job Centre. A number of organisations named as serious under-performers in the report won contracts under the Work Programme.

The Social Market Foundation report: Will the Work Programme Work?

The think tank that pioneered payment by results as a mechanism for improving delivery of welfare-to-work programmes questions whether its ideas have been implemented in a way that is likely to get the desired outcomes. (Answer: no.)

BBC Radio 4: The Report - The Work Programme

Almost everything you need to know about welfare-to-work schemes in one handy half-hour radio documentary.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Welfare unemployment

More from Rafael Behr

View the discussion thread.

31 comments

Sun, 2012-10-21 11:42 — Landless Peasant (not verified)

No, the Work Programme will not work! I have been on it for a year now and have just recently walked out and have stopped attending. The Jobcentre asked me why and I told them I can't take any more of it and would prefer to take the option of having my Benefits 'sanctioned' and am prepared to live in Hardship Allowance instead, rather than endure any more of the pressure and bullying on the so-called stupid Work Programme. I am not interested in warehouse work, order picking or packing, neither am I interested in traveling miles to work for minimum wage, nor am I interested in filling shelves in Poundland in exchange for my State Benefits. Just give me my forty quid a week Hardship and sod off!

Wed, 2012-01-04 18:35 — Freeman2

Force down benefits, then you can force down wages. That's what the bosses want - and, by golly sir, that's what we in the Labour party will give you. Scum.

Thu, 2012-01-05 15:58 — Fraziel1

I do not have a problem with people on benefits. Benefits are important and they are needed. It is the rates payable to families that is wrong, not to single people. People who are sick and unemployed should get help, and only a real scumbag would say otherwise, but the figures, not ideology as the fascist left idiots like PJ WAll espouse,show than far too many people are claiming as sick and getting money when they are fit for work. You just can't argue with the figures.

Maybe i do bang on a bit about it but its because i read such ill informed evidence denying garbage on this site from idiots like PJ who brand everyone a nazi because they think paying someone 50-70 k a year on benefits is not right.

Nourredine, the figures are AFTER tax. I can even show you how the figures are made up if you like. I deal with it every single day.

I ask again, why is it ok to pay that amount to people on benefits when they have no hope of ever getting it in work?

Thu, 2012-01-05 16:03 — Fraziel1

@PJ Wall, you are a moron. Your posts would be laughable if your fascist bigoted idiotic ranting were not so real. READ MY POSTS and stop making up utter idiotic childish rubbish about what i do and do not believe. You are the classic example of why the far left are so despised now by almost everyone and why people with your beliefs are unelectable. It is impossible to argue with idiots like you as you never listen and abuse everyone with a different opinion no matter how sensible or logical. Please shut up as you are mistaking me for someone who gives a fuck about your opinion.You do not have the knowledge to be worth listening to you fascist bullying clown.

Wed, 2012-01-04 22:03 — representingthemambo (not verified)

I find the whole debate about welfare reform so depressing. Cliched, Daily Mail style substance-free grandstanding like the third comment down here are commonplace.

Labour should be rejecting that discourse. Labour should be defending the welfare state. Labour should do nothing where they try and blame or punish the victims of capitalism. Being tough on benefit "scroungers" is the height of political cowardice.

Some interesting links though in the article, Mr Behr.

http://representingthemambo.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/byrne-and-beveridge/

Wed, 2012-01-04 23:00 — Matt Thompson (not verified)

The welfare state is NOT what it originally intended to be. It did not intend freeloaders to take the **** and it certainly did not intend a free for all giveaway for anyone who decided to turn up on our soil just by jumping on a plane or a train.

Housing benefit should not be any more than the average rent for a 2 bedroom flat. Child benefit should be for the first two only. My point being is that human rights is there for a reason - human beings are capable of higher thought, with that comes RESPONSIBILITY.

The welfare state was nobly intended as a safety net not as a lifestyle choice and a divine entitlement for doing nothing. Now thanks to globalisation (itself embraced by both the left AND the right) I regret to admit it simply is not fit for purpose anymore.

I beg you lefties to show a bit of pragmatism. If you want a bloated public sector and entitlements then move to Greece. They have a great life at the moment.

Thu, 2012-01-05 02:09 — Fraziel1

@Sir michael, in my job I see the figures and encounter the families who receive them. I hate to say it but perhaps the daily express is right for once.

If not please tell me in your own words why it is ok for families on benefits to receive such huge sums that they could never get in work?

Also tell me why its ok that they get more and more money for every child when those in work are limited by their income. Simple questions and all i ask is simple answers. Why is it ok? For me its just basic common sense that its unfair and has to stop> Not to mention the 1000% increse in those on sickness benfits compared to 20 yrs ago, and i say that as someone who has voted labour many times and has even campaigned for them.

Thu, 2012-01-05 02:12 — Fraziel1

@matt Thompson, well said mate. We need common send by the left are blinded by ideology and they will remain unelectable until they realise that the benefits system is grossly unfair and many many families are receiving enormous sums over and above a level they have any right to receive.

Thu, 2012-01-05 02:18 — Fraziel1

@sir Michael, sorry to disappoint you but the 8 times figure is correct.I work for jobcentreplus and I saw the fugures recently. 8 times more people are claiming IB than 20 yrs ago compared to income support or JSA. FACTS. Don't you lefties just HATE them. Please do not argue on this subject as my knowledge on it is bordering on encyclopaedic and you will only look stupid.

Oh, and going by my income I AM A POOR PERSON.

Suicide rates up during conservative governments? Do me a afavour. What utter pathetic sentimental clap trap.Is this really the best you can do?

Thu, 2012-01-05 10:16 — frances smith (not verified)

it seems to me that a strong case can be made that ways should be found to avoid long term unemployment. the problem is that reasons for long term unemployment are probably as varied as the number of long term unemployed.

quite a lot of them will be isolated people who find human interaction stressful, possibly because they are suffering from complex ptsd, which is caused by emotional abuse in childhood, and pushing these people into unpaid work will cause them enormous stress.

many of these problems can be solved by proper diagnosis and therapy, whereas the right wing populist approach will just make the situation worse.

there will always be people who find keeping a job difficult, and it will, inevitably, often be those people who will be most likely to find themselves long term unemployed.

the likely effect of pushing people into forced work situations is that some will be unable to comply, and then will lose their benefits, and become homeless.

what this reveals, to me, is that the type of people who become mps are hyperactive and emotionally shallow, and lack the intellectual depth to properly understand complex problems like this, and clearly they consult with people like themselves for solutions.

and yes, there is the problem of lack of jobs, but i want to focus on this problem as i feel it is an important issue that is completely ignored.

Thu, 2012-01-05 11:33 — p j wall (not verified)

Fraziel1
You really do need to calm down!, your obsession with families on benefits is PARANOID and HYSTERICAL?, answer this question, are you, or have you ever, claimed some sort of benefit?, and if you did, did you consider yourself as Lazy, Idle, Scrounger, Layabout, workshy, etc, etc, because by your reasoning EVERYONE who claims benefits should be melted down and used for glue!!, Thousands of people who claim some sort of benefit are in work!, is it just your Hatred for unemployed people?, by the way i trust that if you lost your job, and ended up on the scrap heap, you wouldn`t claim ANY benefit?, or is it just others apart from yourself, who shouldn`t get benefit?, You claim to Personally know about all of these Thousands of families getting benefits to the equivalent of 50k, 60k, 70k salaries???, these must be the ones who live in mansions, and drive Porsche`s to sign on!!!, you really do believe what you read in the Daily Heil, Express, Torygraph!!, don`t you?, you are a very troubled person who hates Immigrants, and benefit claiments!, your over simplistic Hysterical generalisations, about certain groups in our society clearly show the type of person you are?, your Paranoia will now show itself, with a rant about left wing bullies picking on you!!, You`d have workhouses and workCamps brought back for families on benefits, and their children would be enslaved into Victorian workhouses if you had your Deluded, Paranoid way!!, Seek help!.

Thu, 2012-01-05 18:49 — p j wall (not verified)

Fraziel1
Dear, oh dear,You really are a very sensitive, delicate, and very PARANOID person!!, judging from your last couple of posts!, So, if someone doesn`t, or won`t agree with you, they`re called Fascist Bullies?, very curious!, also, i take it as a compliment by the use of insults and abuse against me!, in fact, i find it very amusing knowing that i really get to you so much!, very funny!!, You really do need to seek medical advice about your PARANOIA!, also, seek help with your Hatred of immigrants!, You need to calm down and relax!, and stop getting so Irate, and Agitated!, CALM DOWN!!!.

Thu, 2012-01-19 16:49 — Obi Wan Kenobi (not verified)

Quote:

Iain Duncan Smith's popular promise to reform the system to "make work pay"

Response:

Well Ian Duncan Smith - how can you seriously make work pay if all your doing is putting the unemployed on the useless 'Work Programme', then the private providers put you on a placement at a firm or charity for 30 hours a week and don't pay you, they expect you to do this for your dole money, but say's nothing about the profits you'll earn for that firm while your working there for free, THAT'S SLAVE LABOUR - PURE AND SIMPLE - AND IT IS ILLEGAL. I hope the unions and high courts are reading this and put a stop to the 'Work Programme' immediately.

The law states the national minimum wage is £6 odd an hour.

Thu, 2012-01-05 12:26 — nourredine (not verified)

FrazielI,
If as you write people on benefits claim £50,60,70k a year, these people should pay taxes on their earnings.
All the parties agree that people on benefits do not pay taxe because their benefits do not allow them.
That is a fact.
I was working for a long time, before being on I.B. not of my fault, and being done by my employer and union so no compensation, ending on benefits not by choice but forced to rely on it, also i do not pay taxe as i do not get enough to be taxed.
I hope my blog will help you to rebalance your judgement.

Wed, 2012-01-04 16:32 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Can we please stop calling this the "work program" and start calling it what it really is - "The reintroduction of slavery"?

Asking people to work for nothing more than sustinence, food, and threatening them with starvation if they do not comply is quite simply slavery. Even in the Soviet Union gulags they offered wages from 1950 onwards.

They've demonized and dehumanized the poorest and most vulnerable, now they are going to humiliate and subject them to forced labor. If the media actually started calling it what it is instead of pussyfooting around with words like "work program" and "back to work" and "making work pay" (ironic as this is specifically work that doesn't pay) then perhaps public opinion wouldn't be so utterly bloodthirsty when it comes to how we treat our most destitute fellow human beings.

Thu, 2012-01-19 17:13 — Obi Wan Kenobi (not verified)

I'm on the Work Programme and if they make me do unpaid work on a placement I will stand outside that firm with a placard stating that: THIS FIRM (INCLUDE NAME OF FIRM)GETS THE UNEMPLOYED (ME) TO WORK FOR THEM FOR FREE AND PAYS THEM (ME) NO WAGES, WITH FULL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL!

I encourage anyone sent to work at a firm or charity for free to do this.

Thu, 2012-01-05 12:32 — Robert Taggart

The 'work' programme, hm, work for those imbeciles who work for it !
One fears our political 'masters' (whatever their party allegiance) will never 'get it'... the cost of trying to force some of us scroungers into work be greater than the money saved on the benefits bill and the money 'earned' through our paying of taxes !
Put it to 'rest' and give us a rest !

Wed, 2012-01-04 17:15 — mike cobley (not verified)

Sir M has it right - we need to go back to the root reasons for the existence of benefit/income support/whatever you want to call it. Is the purpose of benefit for the unemployed that of keeping them and their dependents from starving and ending up on the street - or is it an excuse for behavioural engineering or re-education? The latter is of course authoritarian; we've seen numerous examples of this conducted under the aegis of dictatorships and tyrannies of various hues. Is this what we have come to, that anyone seeking to claim some meagre amount ends up losing right to self-determination and plain, basic dignity?

Wed, 2012-01-18 18:08 — Rob (not verified)

Well I'm on benefit and when I total up all the benefits I receive, jobseekers allowance, housing benefit and council tax it all adds up to less than 8k a year. I'm on the work programme and it clearly isn't prepared to cater for individuals and is a rough version of the new deal we had years ago.

Wed, 2012-01-04 17:26 — Fraziel1

Sir Michael, what utter melodramatic nonsense you write.

Families with children can receive ENORMOUS sums in benefits, far more than they could ever hope to get in work.That is a fact and i know the figures which prove it, unlike many of the left who are blinkered with ideology and detest facts.They also keep getting more and more for every extra child, unlike those in work who have to cut their cloth accordingly.It is grossly unfair and outrageous.the benfits cap will introduce fairness and will address this problem thankfully.

Cue more hysterics from the left as they try to defend families receiving the equivalent salary of someone earning 50, 60 and 70k a year.

Why is it 8 TIMES more people are on incapacity benefit than 20 yrs ago? Are we getting sicker as a nation? No, its just that many many people realise they can EASILY get these benefits and you do not have to work. If it's not that please give me an explanation why so many people claim as sick now rather than as fit for work.

No one is being starved, no one is being left with nothing, no one is a slave, no one is being beaten or whipped. What you just posted really is the worst nonsense.

Wed, 2012-01-04 17:45 — Sir Michael (not verified)

Fraziel you sound like a Daily Express opinion piece.

1. If someone refuses to do the work demanded by the state they get sanctions and their benefits removed - fact.

2. The work they do is unpaid - fact.

3. Without those benefits they starve - fact.

This is slavery. No ifs, no buts. So what part of this can't you get through your tabloid addled mind?

Secondly, don't talk about "hysterics" from the left then in the very same sentence pull out examples of people getting 50, 60, and 70k a year in benefits. We all know that is not the normal level of benefit and to try to imply that life on benefits is a life of luxury is at odds with reality. You defined irony with that sentence.

"Are we getting sicker as a nation?" - Yes. Depression and mental health are up massively, thanks in no small part to the enormous pressures applied to people at the lower end of societies cruel pyramid. Ohh and I just love the "8 TIMES" crap you pulled out of nowhere at all. Here is some fact for you...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/28/suicide-rate-on-rise

Suicide rates are up and are steadily rising. This is not a suprise as it tends to happen during Conservative governments...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2263690.stm

...the scale of the problem is much higher now though. It's no problem, jobcentre staff are on the case!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/08/jobcentre-staff-guidelines...

How many deaths will it take to sate your hatred of poor people? Just how important is it that "the taxpayers" don't have to give up something of their wealth to enable others to live with a measure of dignity?

Very simply, there are people alive today, vulnerable people, who are going to be subjected to this degrading treatment and will not be able to handle it. They will take their own lives. This will happen. That we are, as a society, allowing the sociopathic Conservatives to embark on this inhumane course of action speaks volumes about why so many people find living in this society so depressing in the first place.