The Work Programme

I'm reclining in my seat at the end of a busy week. It's been a tough few months but things at long last seem to be on track. From a slow start compounded by a general lack of understanding of what we're supposed to be doing things are slowly starting to come together. I sit back with more than a hint of self satisfactory smugness not entirely unconnected to the 5 job starts I've managed to bag this  month.The phone goes;

" The KPI 3 list is unacceptable " barks the caller. " Why have you not managed to attach these customers ?"

I ask for the customer numbers and go and check the files. Customer 1 is on long term sick, they are not currently looking for work. I read the notes on the screen. " Tried to phone customer, no answer. Text and Letter sent. "

I read this verbatim over the phone. She wants me to check the other 2 customers which I do and the same conclusion is reached , again customer is on long term sick and has not responded to letters, texts or phone calls.

" Right " she continues " Have you filled in the sanction paperwork ?"

" No , not yet " I reply

" Why not ? " She counters

" We've been tying up loose ends , we managed to secure a deal with a local recruiter who agreed to visit the centre and interview some of our clients. If he liked any of them he would then register them and offer them work. Thankfully he was happy to take 5 customers off our hands and they start work Monday. "

There's a brief silence from the other end. It doesn't last long.

" Do we know if they'll last 6 months? We don't get paid till 26 weeks you know  " 


She knows I know this but wants to press me


" The agency said it's temporary to permanent."


" What does that mean ?"  she says  continuing to  press 


" Well if they work well they'll be offered more work and hopefully they'll get to the 26 week mark. " 


"  Hopefully? That's not much of a guarantee is it ?"


" No but there's not much more we can do at the moment other than put people forward for any job that arises. 


" Doesn't sound like you have much of a plan to get people into work?"


I calm myself before saying anything that I might regret


" We have a plan but that plan would work better if we had an employment liaison co-ordinator to go out into the field and approach employers and sell our services. Without creating these opportunities we are left fighting it out with everyone else for every advertised job that comes up."


" Why have you not got an employment liaison co-ordinator ?"


" Because we were told there isn't the budget for one and the only way we can get one is if we get more job starts which kind of contradicts the purpose of having a employment liaison co-ordinator in the first place " 


There's a silence, during which I'm wondering if she's detected the sarcasm in my last comment

" Right , well that's correct,  but I still haven't received an explanation as to why the KPI's were missed ? "


I thought I  had.


" I mean it  doesn't take a whole team to get 5 people into work " she adds


" No but it takes time to sort Birth Certificates out for  those clients who cannot provide I.D, plus each adviser has a 150 customers that they have to manage as well as support those who are in the centre and don't know how to complete an application form ."


" What about Steve ? He's your trainer isn't he ? Why wasn't he running an application awareness workshop "


" Well under normal circumstances he would but there didn't seem much point doing a 90  minute class when the recruiter is here and he wants the applicants to complete an application form in 10 minutes so he can be on the road back to Cardiff" 


I think  I might be starting to get a foothold here.

" So going back to the KPI's you've missed , I note the last date they can be attached to the programme is Monday, you'll need to get them in by Monday "


" Er no can do , Steve is on annual leave and myself and Debbie have no slots in our diaries, we have back to back appointments from 9.00 till 5.00 , we just can't physically get them for Monday" 


" You'll have to do home visits then ." 


" I'm not sure Health and Safety would allow that , we need 2 people to go together and we can't  really leave Susan alone on reception. Besides, I  don't think I'd be too happy banging on the door of someone suffering from long term depression and forcing them into an interview in their home. Especially as their notes suggest they are on long term sick and from the look of it, it appears they aren't looking for work any time soon " 


" Well you'll have to come up with something, have you considered frog marching them from their home into the centre?"


" Err, not really, isn't that a bit unethical ? I mean these people are not criminals."


No answer.

The above transcript is fictional but is based on the kind of approaches that are bring taken by many prime providers on the government's Work Programme. A programme which after all was instigated to support the hardest to reach members of society into long term sustainable employment. However the customers on this programme are not been given the level of support they require or deserve  as this piece will attempt to highlight

When the preferred providers were announced and the sums of money were talked about to make the programme work it didn’t take a professor of economics to work out that providers would struggle to make ends meet. With a basic payment of around £200-300 for attaching the job seeker (i.e getting them on the programme) the provider would have to wait a full 26 weeks before they could get a real return for their labour. On previous welfare to work programmes you got paid from day one of them successfully starting work. The incentive for many providers was  always to get people signed up and into work as soon as possible. On previous contracts, clients currently on another contract (e.g Flexible New Deal) could be signed up by an adviser in the same building onto their contract (e.g  Flexible Routeways ) in order to cash in on their success with finding work. It  wasn't illegal but  you might questions the ethics behind it considering that the company is going to get  another payment simply for the act of the adviser getting the customer to sign some paperwork. But this act would also allow the customer to access funding if they needed clothing,  tools for the job or even to subsidise travel and food until the customer got their first wage packet. And even if the job fell through and they came back on the programme they could still access funding to support a quick return to employment. It gave both the adviser and the customers options, something which is sadly lacking with the current Work Programme.

Welfare to work has always trod the fine line between attempting to find the best possible job for the individual and the need to get people into work (any work) as soon as possible. I’d love to sit with clients and work with them to nurture their burgeoning talent but the reality is if they’re offered work (and more importantly are financially better off compared to benefits)  they have to take it. And under the terms of the Work Programme, partly due to the 26 week rule, sustainability is even more in focus.  Sustainability is always going to be difficult particularly when the type of work the typical client base is looking for (i.e warehouse/driving/labouring) is controlled by recruitment agencies who are in almost all cases not prepared to offer anything other than temporary work. And the type of jobs that carry sustainability – welding, HGV driving, gas fitting – the training for which cannot be bought for £50- £100 (generally the maximum of training allowance allowed per customer on the WP). Case in point is a client I see regularly who lives in small town with very little industry  and makes the 20 mile train journey each week to see me because he dosen’t drive. His background is scaffolding, however as is common with a large amount of people who learnt their trade on the job he dosen’t have the certified training which is now required to work in that sector. With no real transferable skills suitable for retail, care or admin he is left to apply for manual work working in production or warehousing. And as previously stated, with recruitment agencies only offering one or two months work maximum and no means to travel to work outside of his town (plus the hugely restricted bus and train services ) he is going to struggle to find work. And this man is only 46 years old, considerably too young for retirement or pension credits. 

Some might argue if there is very little industry on  your door step and public transport is unreliable and too expensive then doesn't it seem logical to move to a bigger town. Indeed it is a logical solution were it not for the fact that the average JSA claimant doesn't have the required deposit to rent privately and if they do go the route of the housing association, with very few new social housing projects nationwide  and a waiting list as long as your arm comprising higher priority clients , a solution is not exactly within reach. Plus moving to a bigger town, which in itself has  a larger  pool of Job Seekers claimants and skill sets , may not even improve your chances of finding work. 

In  cases such as these  training is hugely vital. For £500 that individual could have an SIA licence which opens up security work opportunities in pubs, retail, business premises and sporting/ musical events. Even if there is nothing on his door step he can travel to neighbouring towns and as much of the work is at night he is not curtailed by the train and bus times which is the norm if he takes shift work starting at 6.00 in the morning. It’s not a prefect result but it‘s a hell of  a lot better than his previous situation. Unfortunately £500 is ten times too much what providers are prepared to invest even though it may achieve sustainability and maybe just maybe make that individual feel like he has a stake in society again. 

Sustainability for both the customer and the provider is an incredibly tough ask in the current circumstances but it’s not the only reason why the Work Programme is un-workable. Because the Work Programme operates on a shoe string the average provincial town welfare to work centre probably has only about 2-3 advisers. The Department of  Work and Pensions has recommended that each adviser has a caseload of between 40-60 customers. Myself , I am approaching 150 and I know of advisers with other W2W providers who have case loads of 150. I asked an ex- colleague who still works in W2W for another provider  how they can justify such a high caseload in light of the fact that a condition of the programme is that you see a customer for one “face to face” appointment within a 14 day period.

 “ It’s basically done in groups. They come in and job search and show the adviser what they ‘ve applied for and go home. “  

I then asked if at any time does the adviser sit with them and manage the quality and quantity of these applications

" There really isn't time to do that, to be honest a lot of job searching is based on trust"


Trust is one thing but allowing dozens of clients to submit sub-standard job applications is something else. You can have 30 years experience of managing a company under your belt but if you don't know how to structure an application or know where and when to use key words that employers are looking for you're going to continue to struggle.

Under the Work Programme a large proportion of those referred will be on sickness benefit (either Employment Support Allowance or formerly Incapacity Benefit).  Most of them will have had their Work Capability Assessment and been told that although , in the eyes of the DWP they are genuinely sick, they should still attend a programme which is designed to help people find work even though they are not currently looking for work because they are ill. I’m very much in favour of programmes like Pathways to Work which supported those with long term health conditions into employment when they are ready but this isn’t it. For one reason alone and that is that advisers are not trained in advising clients as to their rights if they are looking for work. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had someone in front of me shake their head and say – “ No one told me about Permitted Work. “ But this is only things I have picked up through observing contracts like Pathways to Work. As ESA clients are not the main focus of the Work Programme then it naturally follows that advisers are not given guidance on how to deal with the long term sick. As far as I can see if you accept ESA claimants then you should make sure advisers know how to help them.  The worst indictment of this is that in benefit terms ESA are the lowest of the low , whereas before they were given centre stage now it’s an admission by the government  that we don’t know what to do with you and don't have the means to support your needs.

One thing I've learnt observing those on Employment Support Allowance is that the prospect of managing their condition within the context of a 40 hour, 9-5 working week is terrifying. The fear that they may be able to struggle to get through one day  at work and then have to do it day after day is a real issue for many. For those with a long term varying conditions such as Fibromyalgia, M.E or even depression there is a real intent to work but they are concerned at the responsibility and obligation that comes with it. Self-employment offers the long term sick the option of real work, of being able to partially come  off benefits and more importantly being  able to work around their condition. Typical self employment ideas include massage, reflexology or offering gardening services going door to door. Naturally,  not everyone has the required skills in these areas and self employment is not without risk, but at least it offers light at the end of the tunnel and gives those on ESA something to ponder whilst they recover. Indeed the Department of Work Pensions offers the chance for people to secure  funding and get support from trained business advisers to get their idea off the ground and whilst they are getting their idea off the ground the DWP will pay a self-employment credit for the first few months, similar in value to JSA. However, when you read the small print you find out this scheme is not for those on the Work Programme. So anyone , whether you are on JSA or ESA, who is on the Work Programme will not be allowed any support with going self-employed. This is bad news for those on JSA, particularly lone parents who have to work within school hours and struggle to find jobs to fit, but even worse for the long term sick who like everyone else have to scour the local papers hoping for an opening that they can realistically cope with. 

For many established charities and welfare to work providers  who have built up a reputation on empowerment and supporting the hardest to reach job seekers this new approach must stick in their claw. One charity acting as a sub- contractor has on their “intranet” the latest news which highlights the company’s recent achievements in getting people into work and further down the page has a link to a newspaper article criticising the Work Programme. No one could ever accuse them of having a jaundiced view.

This I believe is an example of how companies feel  let down by a contract  which in all honesty  they had to take on if they want to continue their philosophy of helping people and remain competitive. It’s incredible that in nearly 12 months on the Work Programme I’ve not had one sit down meeting with the prime contractor as to how we can better establish links with the local council, employers and recruitment agencies to seamlessly move some of our customers into employment. When you do go off on your own bat and get a foot in with a recruiter who will come into the  centre and interview anyone interested in cleaning work, the response is usually – “ that’s great but we still have 5 people we really need to get on the programme by Friday.”  Whereas on other contracts the emphasis was always on getting jobs the emphasis is now completely on getting people attached (i.e started on  the programme). It's staggering how much emphasis is placed on getting customers through the doors, if only they had the means and I have to say desire to get them out the door.  I read a recent newspaper article on the Work Programme where an advisor at a W2W centre was asked what they did if they continually failed to get a customer engaged on the programme. “ We send letters, texts and phone calls but if they fail to turn up to an induction on 3 occasions we refer the case back to the prime. “  Where I work , you, the office , retain responsibility and on top of trying to arrange inductions for new referrals you have to continue to chase serial non –attenders.

The record currently at my centre is 19 induction/welcome sessions  booked for one customer which they have failed to attend. And still it is expected that you take the time to phone, text and send letters booking yet another induction session. I’d go round to their house to do the paperwork but you need a companion with you and there isn’t the budget for that. Because everything is centred around getting a client attached to the programme if the customer arrives at 4.30 in the evening someone has to make time to see them. This often means having to cut short an appointment with another customer to accommodate. With continually booked up diaries you only need this to happen a few times a day for the whole diary system of 30 minute face to face appointments to be made a mockery of. In the end the other customers suffer. I wholeheartedly endorse the right of job seekers to get help with finding work but a longer view by the DWP and government should be taken. If an individual continues to fail to attend, even after several sanctions, it’s questionable if that person is suitable for this programme. The time and effort spent chasing these people could be better spent assisting those who do wish to engage and do want to work. If providers are that desperate to get every single person attached to the programme then that raises huge questions about the way this contract is funded.

 Before long there will be a two tear system involving the cream of the crop having all the attention and the “non -job readies” or “reds (as they are known in W2W circles )” being dumped on a computer terminal for 30 minutes every 2 weeks and left to see out the two year contract. This of course assumes that they can actually use a computer, a high proportion of which over 50 years old cannot. There’s always going to be unemployable people, some  people have too many barriers to overcome but what worries me is those who have barriers that could be overcome will be left behind simply because one look at their notes will read ex-offender, lone parent or non driver in a remote, rural  area and they’ll be placed in the one meeting every 2 weeks pile. " Parked" I believe is the expression.

You cannot place a higher value on local employer knowledge. It can take months to even get an employer to talk to you. It takes one employee to walk out of a job to dirty the name of your company and it takes even longer to regain a foothold with them. With respected, established W2W providers in the local community it makes perfect sense to refer clients to them, to make use of their local labour market knowledge. Un fortunately this is not the case. The town of Ludlow in Shropshire is equi-distant between the two larger cities/towns of Hereford south on the A49 and Shrewsbury to the north. One of the largest providers in Shropshire, County Training already has an office in Ludlow and naturally has a strong grasp on local employment in that area. However, depending on luck you can either end up attending a W2W provider on your doorstep in Ludlow or travelling 30 minutes on a train to a completely different town and county to get support (i.e Hereford). Although this dosen’t sound like much, in employment knowledge terms this is huge. The average advisor in Hereford is not going to know the industrial lay out of a town 30 miles away. Would a Recruitment Consultant  in Stoke know which employers are hiring in Birmingham? Doubtful.

Of course the level of support varies from adviser to adviser and whereas some will not there’s always one adviser who will go the extra yard and phone employers in Ludlow or drive round the town looking for companies with potential for recruitment . But most will not and with 90% of your caseload looking for jobs on your door step why should they. It wouldn’t be as bad if there was an abundance of industry in Ludlow but there isn’t so it makes even more sense to refer customers to providers in their local area who can impart the local knowledge they need.

Paying travel expenses has always been part and parcel of welfare to work contracts even if the odd customer changes the 8 to 80 pounds on the petty cash slip on the way to pick up their money from reception. But to expect those on Job Seekers Allowance to pay 10-15 quid every week to get a train to me is at the limit of acceptability. I have to state though that some providers operate an outreach policy whereby the adviser comes to them rather than the other way round. But again the level of support given is wildly different if you compare the experience of being in a busy, vibrant centre in the heart of the town compared to an advisor in a cold, dank church hall with a dongle that dosen’t always work and no printer. And one company in particular operates an outreach centre out of a small office with no job search computers for the customers to use so each 2 week mandatory  appointment is purely a tick box exercise to confirm who has or hasn't turned up. Which begs the question,  isn't this what the Job Centre is for?

I knew from the very outset, pretty much from day one when I was told the maximum spend on each customer was around the £50 mark that it was going to be a very tough, very challenging contract but this is something you anticipate. It goes with the territory. You can have all the training budget in the world but if that person refuses to get out of bed for less than 30 pounds an hour you’re always going to be in a battle of wits to get them into work. But what shocked me is the disintegration of the very soul of what this industry is about which is support and assistance. I’ve never fancied working for the Job Centre simply because I didn’t fancy the job of bollocking single parents because they missed a signing appointment because they had to rush to the school because their son with ADHD had been bullied and they had forgotten to phone the Job Centre before hand. The role of the advisor is to challenge, argue, debate even to throw people out of appointments if they single handedly refuse to play ball. But at least with W2W you get a fuller picture of the customer than the Job Centre who just see numbers on a page. 

One week  a customer may well kick off because they have been denied access to their kids but the next week they might come in and put in 6 quality applications for jobs. You take the rough with the smooth and unfortunately the Job Centre has never seen that and now it seems W2W dosen’t.  As an advisor you need to know your clients, you need to know those who are genuinely making an effort, those who aren’t quite there yet because there’s barriers to overcome and those who are making no effort at all. And like wise when it comes to sanctioning (i.e stopping a customer’s benefits) the same rule should apply. Although sadly not under the Work Programme.

The rule is, and this may well vary from provider to provider, that if an appointment is missed and no prior reason for failure to attend is given a doubt is raised and paperwork confirming why they were being sanctioned is sent to the decision maker. The customer is then informed that a sanction has been raised for a specific appointment and they have a time frame with which to justify the reasons why they missed the appointment. Based on their information a decision is made on whether or not to carry out the sanction. Whereas I accept that there should be a system to monitor people’s attendance and penalise if they are not adhering to the programme this is not the answer. For instance, take the example of a customer who always normally attends and fulfils their commitment to apply for jobs. If they miss an appointment simply because they forgot , by the letter of the law a sanction should be raised. Even though you know they’re good for it, paperwork, which I might add requires a certain amount of time and thought process to accurately complete, has to be completed by advisers who are already stretched with managing their caseloads. Thankfully (although I can guarantee 90% of customers on the Work Programme are blissfully unaware of ) the customer has 4 incidents where they are given benefit of the doubt for failing to attend.  If they have never missed a Job Centre or W2W appointment previously the likelihood is the decision to sanction will be over turned. However if they had missed 4 previous appointments with either  Job Centre Plus or W2W then this sanction would  be applied irrespective of the reason why they missed the appointment in the first place . To give someone 4 chances seems fair but over the course of 2 years it's hardly anything, simply missing an "add on" appointment like a Confidence and Motivation Workshop would illicit a sanction doubt being raised even though the customer had attended their  mandatory 2 week one to one appointment several days before. If I was to raise a doubt against everyone that missed an appointment without giving a prior reason, I'd be asking for two thirds of my customers to have their money stopped. I know for a fact that isn't a  true or fair barometer by which to measure their commitment to find work.

The biggest problem is that it can potentially undo all the good work you may be doing with that individual. As a colleague of mine says “ a good advisor shouldn’t need to sanction.” Whether that is right or not I don't know but I do understand what he means. A good adviser chastises but also shows empathy and restraint and most of all exercises judgement. 

Not only is the system of sanctioning too rigid but it also has far reaching social implications. If you work in London or any other major city  as an employment adviser the chances are you will probably  live some distance from your place of work. As I work in a small provincial city I don’t, in fact you can see my chimney from the front door way of the office. So if you’re going to sanction so frequently it invariably increases the chances of the sanctionee bumping into you outside of work hours. They may not be willing to conduct a conversation with the same level of professionalism and constraint they would show if the conversation took place in a busy W2W centre. In fact such an incident occurred recently to a colleague of mine who had a customer who repeatedly failed to attend appointments. And when he did attend appointments his tone of voice was aggressive and his overall manner was one of “ no one tells me what to do”. The customer was duly sanctioned. Unfortunately the advisor in all of this lives in the same small  town as the customer and as soon as the customer was sanctioned it was only a matter of time before they met in the street. Unfortunately words were exchanged and threats made by the customer. Although the customer apologised and was moved to another provider (not as a result of this incident) it still made the advisor question  their current role and for a while after this incident the advisor began to dread completing any future paperwork that may lead to a sanction. Whereas volatile flash points can occur in any job, because of the heavy handed policy of raising a doubt against anyone who fails to attend without a prior excuse it’s only going to create more volatile appointments when those doubts are turned into sanctions. Not necessarily to the extent of physical  threats but how is enthusiasm for the job of adviser going to be maintained when everyday you’re going into work knowing that you’re going to have a show down with a customer whose money was stopped simply because they didn't feel comfortable telling you they'd failed to attend because their partner had just had a miscarriage. Everyone, no matter how busy they are can forget an appointment (or 4 over the course of 2 years)  and by the letter of the current law that means raising a doubt against the customer  irrespective of whether they'd had an impeccable attendance record up till that point.  It's one thing to sit in a news studio advising the country how you're going to crack down on those not looking for work but it's quite another when your job is now essentially a series of stand up arguments with the emphasis on saving the treasury a few quid. It's arguable that you wouldn't need to sanction if you created jobs in the first place, but that's a debate for another time.

What worries me is that the system of "doubt" takes all the decision making out of your hands, whereas it should be you as their personal adviser calling the shots as to whether they should be sanctioned , unfortunately all you are instructed to do is raise the doubt , forward the paperwork and let some faceless administrator make a decision concerning someone they've never met. Maybe I’m laying it on a bit thick but the fact remains that you might be engaging with these customers  for up to 2 years. That’s an awful long time if you’re sanctioning a customer every time they turn up late or fail to phone in. I don’t raise a doubt unless I feel it is necessary and by necessary I mean someone who  continually fails to apply for jobs or misses appointments and generally sticks  two fingers up at the system.  For most part I don’t sanction simply because I don’t feel comfortable instigating a punishment without being party to all the facts. Particularly if someone is genuinely making an effort to find work but has problems remembering when their appointments are. A number of my clients have learning difficulties and often need their support worker or parents  to remind them of their next appointment. 

Some will argue that sanctioning is the only way for people to buck their ideas up and only by hitting them in their pocket will they turn over a new leaf. My argument is that my role has and always will be one of getting people into work. That should always be the focus. By forcing advisers to be involved in the sanctioning process you're asking them to get involved in areas of work normally reserved for doctors, drug counsellors, bereavement counsellors, social workers, police, child protection officers. Not only are advisers not experienced or trained to comment on these issues affecting their clients  but it diverts their  attention away from the chief aim of finding work and this cannot be a smart move.