The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Is the DWP preparing to bury bad news on the Work Programme?

A leaked letter from Mark Hoban to Coalition MPs tries to move the goalposts ahead of performance data being published.

By Rafael Behr Published 26 November 2012 13:17

Employment Minister Mark Hoban. Photograph: Getty Images

Headline unemployment numbers have been falling in recent months, giving the coalition cause for cautious cheer. Tory MPs are still wary of formally declaring the economy redeemed from disaster but they have at least some evidence to suggest it is on the right track.

The Labour rebuttal is that the pace of job creation is slowing and that long-term unemployment remains stubbornly high. (This is a tricky area for the opposition, which is always in danger of looking disappointed by good news and, in the quest for political vindication, celebrating misery.)

A big policy question in this area is the performance of the Work Programme, the government’s vast welfare-to-work scheme that pays private and voluntary sector organisations to place people in work. The scheme has been advertised by ministers as a miracle cure to the problem of long-term joblessness and an antidote to Labour’s failure to tackle the issue. Those who work with the Department for Work and Pensions as part of the Programme or in the welfare-to-work sector are less optimistic. They warn that the labour market conditions are not good enough to make the experiment work and that the cash premium for the "hard to place" benefit claimants – those deemed to face the highest barriers to finding work – are not high enough to make the ‘payment by results’ system work. (I wrote a longer analysis of problems with the Work Programme a few months ago here.)

It has been hard to judge the effectiveness of the policy because the DWP has prevented providers from publishing their data on how many people have actually been placed in work. We have had data on the number of people referred to the Work Programme which suggest that not enough of the long-term unemployed are even getting help through the scheme. What he haven’t seen – because ministers have continually delayed publication – is how many people have actually been found jobs and how many are staying in work long enough to trigger the payments on which the providers depend if they are not to go bust. In other words, we have yet to get a clear sense of whether the Work Programme is actually working.

That wait comes to an end tomorrow, when, at last, the DWP will publish the numbers. There are hints already that they won’t be encouraging. I have a copy of a letter (see scan below) from Employment Minister Mark Hoban notifying coalition MPs of the forthcoming data publication. He appears to hose down expectations, writing:

“As the Work Programme supports people for two years or more, it is too early to judge Work Programme performance by Job Outcome and Sustainment Payment data alone.”

That sounds like a pre-emptive admission of failure. Job Outcome data are the proof that people are being placed in work and Sustainment Payment data are evidence of sustainable income for providers. So if “payment by results” is working those are the measures that matter and it is pretty disingenuous for a minister to suggest they aren’t the real story.

Hoban goes on:

“To better explain Work Programme preferences so far, I will also be releasing a number of ad hoc statistics which show how the programme is moving people off benefits and compare what we have spent on the programme with the cost of the previous employment programme, Flexible new Deal. ERSA, the providers’ trade organisation, will also publish information on how the programme is helping people move into jobs.”

The simultaneous publication of “ad hoc statistics” relating to Labour’s Flexible New Deal (FND) – a primitive version of the Work Programme introduced by the last government - looks like a device to muddy the waters by trying to frame the success of the Work Programme in terms of its cost-effectiveness rather than its impact on long-term unemployment . The FND cost analysis has already been published by DWP here (pdf) so the only new element would be some spin of the numbers to show that coalition policy is doing something similar but cheaper. Even if that is the case it still doesn’t prove that the Work Programme is sustainable or doing what it was advertised to do.

A big data dump is also a classic technique to bury bad news. The letter concludes:

“The Work Programme is designed to be a major improvement to welfare to work support, my goal is to drive forward its effective implementation. I hope you will join me in supporting the programme on the day.”

A major improvement in welfare to work support? When it was launched it was “a revolution in back to work support” helping "millions of people".

It sounds as if expectations are being managed aggressively downward. Maybe I am wrong about this. Perhaps tomorrow’s numbers will show tremendous success in the placement of long-term unemployed people in jobs and a healthy cash flow to Work Programme providers proving that this flagship policy is running like a well-oiled machine. But the tone of Mark Hoban’s letter and the clear intention to camouflage the story suggest otherwise.

Update: Someone with a better knowledge of the Work Programme than me has pointed out another little bit of potential subterfuge. The letter refers to performance data from June 2011 to July 2012, whereas the DWP's own standards for minimum performance are supposed to be measured according to results achieved in a calendar year - so the period that counts for judging whether the programme is working would be June 2011 - May 2012. Of course, if you count a year as 13 or 14 months you can squeeze in a few more job placements and claim the system is closer to meeting the required targets ...

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

Tags: Work Programme Welfare

More from Rafael Behr

View the discussion thread.

21 comments

Tue, 2012-11-27 12:54 — Robert Taggart

Fortunately one has thus far been able to 'dodge' this nonsense - another 'work' scheme which only makes 'work' for the Muppets who run it !

After three WCA (Work Capability Assessments) each scoring us with a big fat 0 / ZERO - the DWP still insist their be nothing wrong with us - health wise.

After three unsuccessful appeals - each taking c. six months from inception to conclusion - it be back to putting in a claim - for ESA (Employment Support Allowance) - for the fourth time !

Hey-ho, anything but JSA (Job Seekers Allowance) - who wants to work when there be other benefits for the 'taking' ?!

Tue, 2012-11-27 09:34 — Obi Wan Kenobi (not verified)

On Sky News this morning in the newspsaper review, Eamon Holmes and Michelle Dewbury highlighted the fact that the Work Programme Private Providers are only getting one person in seven into work, Michelle who went to one of these Providers to see what they acually do asked them in a meeting:

What is your ultimate goal?

Their Answer was: To make profit.

So there you have it, proof that their not in it to get anybody jobs, just to make profit - are you reading this Iain Duncan Smith?

Tue, 2012-11-27 01:07 — Paul J (not verified)

I know people who've been on this bollocks, and it's one part vindictive bullying, and another part massive racketeering by big crappy "trainng" firms, who sub-contract out to smaller crappy "trainng" firms.

The amount of taxpayers money wasted on this sh*t is astronomical.

Mon, 2012-11-26 20:06 — Kevin Stuart (not verified)

sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. Thats all IDS knows. They are not enough jobs for people to apply for. They have moved loads of people off disability as they can now sanction them for failing to find work. IDS said moving people back into the work system was to get them off benefit and into work as they had become stuck in the benefits system. This is a cynical attempt to kick them off benefits. They couldn't do it whilst they were on disability. Most of the people on disabilty are on it as they cant work due to illness. They are not there through choice. IDS I have nothing but contempt for this multi millionaire who cares about no one but himself.

Mon, 2012-11-26 20:00 — Obi Wan Kenobi (not verified)

IAIN DUNCAN SMITH - YOU ARE NOW IN ARREARS TO THE TUNE OF £5 BILLION FOR WASTING THIS MONEY ON THE ILL CONCIEVED WORK PROGRAMME.

YOU MAY PAY THIS AMOUNT THATS NOW DUE BY: CHEQUE,POSTAL ORDER OR DIRECT DEBIT.

PLEASE MAKE PAYABLE TO: THE TAXPAYERS OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Mon, 2012-11-26 18:37 — Obi Wan Kenobi (not verified)

Iain Duncan Smith needs removing from office immediatley:

The Work Programme needs closing down:

The new Universal Jobmatch system is massivley flawed and needs dismanteling:

The Jobcentre need to be put back in overall control of finding people jobs:

The entire Welfare system needs to be reset to the year 1996.

This will save the taxpayer £5 billion OVERNIGHT.

Mon, 2012-11-26 18:13 — Stokebloke1972 (not verified)

I have been on the Work programme since it started, and now on my third "provider". All the Work Programme is, is a vindictive sanctioning machine complete with bullying advisers and constant threats of sanctions.
IDS is a vile bully, who thinks the only way to do things is with the sanctions route. He has nothing else to offer apart from hatred and punitive measures.
People hate IDS and want him kicked out of office. He is not fit to be in charge of the welfare system. He is an utter disgrace.
Hardly anyone I know on the work programme ever found work, and just got forced to apply for endless jobs they were not able to do for fear of being sanctioned.
Sanctions are not the way to do things or to get people's co-operation, all they do is make people hate the system and rebel.

Mon, 2012-11-26 18:06 — Hugh C Markey (not verified)

We know that IDS is shovel-ready but that aside the ConLibDem government has only one fear: that the queue of claimants is so long that it cannot be accommodated within the JC.
There are emergency procedures, of course. "Just sign on, mate! Forget jobsearch!"

Hard Graft

Mon, 2012-11-26 17:49 — Obi Wan Kenobi (not verified)

There are more people being sanctioned than getting jobs through the Work Programme - and by the way I do fully understand the Work Programme - I'm on it and have been for 1.5 years now.

You tell me how an adviser there can help you find a job when they only see you once a month for 20 mins if your lucky - I know people who have only been seen once in 4 months or longer. - IT REALLY NEEDS SHUTTING DOWN AS IT'S NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.

Mon, 2012-11-26 17:25 — understand it (not verified)

You need to understand the WP a little more. Your assumptions in counting the periods are incorrect.
Go on to the DWP website. Look under work programme and in the terms and conditions of the contract it will indicate how to measure the perfromance.

By the way, the work programme is working. I have seen no evidence to say that it isn't. Anecdotal , individual examples don't count- There are 100's of thousands of people on the programme already.

Mon, 2012-11-26 18:59 — Baroni (not verified)

Iain, is that you?

Mon, 2012-11-26 17:17 — Obi Wan Kenobi (not verified)

The Work Programme isn't designed to get you a job and neither is the DWP's new Jobmatch service that's been rolled out in all the Jobcentres.

They are both designed to sanction the unemployed and save the government money anyway they can, it's disgusting.

Mon, 2012-11-26 17:08 — Obi Wan Kenobi (not verified)

The Work Programme Private Providers and DWP are dreading the release of the figures that prove's the Work Programme is an abismal failure. (Figures are released on 27/11/12) Time for Iain Duncan Smith to get roasted by the media and explain this failure, which he will try to do and in the process lose his temper - this is gonna be sweet.

However he will have to stand behind his promises, the main one being:

If Private Providers are missing their minimum targets for getting the unemployed into work, then we WILL terminate their contracts with the DWP.

1.5 years is enough time to evaluate any programme, so don't try to draw the public's attention away from the fact that the Work Programme is now a £5 billion pound failure at the taxpayers expense.

Mon, 2012-11-26 17:07 — Ben@StMungos (not verified)

How is the Work Programme doing for people who are unemployed and homeless? St Mungo’s, Crisis and Homeless Link today published a report, The Programme’s Not Working, based on interviews with people who are in this position. Take a look at the results - bit.ly/TfI275.

Mon, 2012-11-26 16:45 — Gissajob (not verified)

Of course they are working overtime to disguise the true extent of the Work Programme's failure - we would expect nothing less! As pointed out above the figures have already been manipulated by taking them at a date other than the anniversary of the start. This may seem trivial - but isn't since for the main group (JSA 25 and over) the non intervention performance is supposed to rise from 5% to 25% in the second year of operation so just "tweaking" the date for comparison As mentioned in the article has a significant distorting effect.
Anyone interested can view the "non intervention" figures in the original ITT document which can be found online. Para 3.14 tells us the %ages for 3 groups, the most numerous being the JSA 25 and over, The figures are:

Jobs / Referrals
Year 1 - 5%
Year 2 - 25%
Year 3 - 30%
Year 4 - 30%
Year 5 - 30%
Year 6 - 25%
Year 7 -5%

Paras 3.17 and 3.18 are also interesting:
Minimum Performance Standard
3.17 Minimum performance standard will apply to payment groups 1, 2 and 6. It will be defined as non-intervention performance level plus 10%. See Annex 4 for further details.
3.18 DWP expects that Providers will significantly exceed these minimum levels. However, should Providers fail to reach minimum levels for any of the customer groups; it will lead to contractual action up to and including contract termination if improvements to performance are not made.

I wonder what happens if no provider attains the Minimum Performance Standard?

Mon, 2012-11-26 16:08 — Paul Treloar (not verified)

The current administration's use of ad hoc statistics to back up their ever more outlandish claims about the success of their approach to welfare reform was criticised earlier on this year by the UK Statistics Authority.

Clearly, they're happy to continue with taking such a misleading approach despite that criticism. One would have thought that, with so many bad headlines already about the performance and the probity of Work Progamme providers, they may have striven to improve their oversight, rather than colluding to make pre-emptive excuses about outcomes and payments.

Mon, 2012-11-26 15:38 — JRW (not verified)

The Work Programme doesn't reduce unemployment by even 1 person, as it's just a job matching scheme, and the job vacancy would be filled by someone whether on the Work Programme or not, it does however cost the tax payer £5 billion, to not lower the unemployment figures.

It could be argued that the Work Programme through it's Workfare off-shoot, actually raises the unemployment figures, as many dodgy firms are replacing their waged staff with government Forced Unwaged Labour conscripts.

At the very least overtime and temp-work are being reduced by the use of Forced Unwaged Labour.

Mon, 2012-11-26 15:37 — molotov cocktail (not verified)

So much of this misses the point. The above claims that we will see the success, or otherwise, of the programme based on job outcome and sustainability figures. In my experience alomost everybody who gets a job whilst on the Work Programme would have got a job whether they had been placed on the scheme or not. All the Work Programme providers do ( I work for one) is claim the outcome. Claiming the job outcome, or sustainability payments does not depend on whether a provider has found work for a client, or whether the client has found work without the work programme providers help. Probably about 90% of all those who find work, whilst attached to the scheme, would have found the same jobs anyway. Whatever figures the government release, claiming x amount of people have been placed in work by the scheme should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. The only figures released will show those who have found work whilst attached to a Work Programme Provider. The real success rate of this programme will be about a misearble 10% of the official
figure claimed, if that!

Mon, 2012-11-26 15:34 — Andy Birss (not verified)

All this programme does is give taxpayer money to the private sector. Some sources even seem to suggest that more people would find work if they were not forced into these schemes.