Report of the Work and Pensions Select Committee.
Today’s report (21st May) “Can the Work Programme
work for all customer groups?” will make interesting reading for people in the
drug and alcohol sector and beyond. The report reflects many aspects of the submission DrugScope made jointly with Homeless Link in December 2012, and makes some of
the same recommendations we called for. It also gives a degree of prominence to
people with histories of drug and / or alcohol use, which has not always been
the case when the Work Programme is discussed in Parliament.
Whilst the report addresses a number of issues concerning
the Work Programme that are likely to be of general interest, such as
performance levels and other aspects of Programme design, there are other parts
of the report that speak directly to the concerns of service providers from our
sector (particularly those with one of the 35 Work Programme subcontracts the
sector holds) and – crucially – clients too.
Having spoken to several providers prior to submitting
DrugScope’s written evidence to the Select Committee, several things soon
became clear: the commitment of the sector to supporting people towards
employment along with disappointment about the ability of the Work Programme to
support their efforts in doing this. Whether Work Programme sub-contractors or
not, there was a widespread sense that, despite the clear intent to provide a
tailored and personalised service, it just wasn’t working for people with
histories of drug / alcohol use.
Perhaps of most interest to the sector is the recommendation
that the Department for Work and Pensions should use the underspend in the Work
Programme to date – caused by lower than expected payments for job outcomes and
sustainment – to fund specialist,
pre-Work Programme support to those furthest from the job market, with
claimants with severe drug and alcohol issues mentioned. Although the Work
Programme funding model may mean that any underspend has to be returned to the
Treasury, Mark Hoban, the Minister for Employment, told the Committee that the
DWP was negotiating about keeping the current underspend, to use in future
years. This is a useful and constructive suggestion that should be given full
consideration – many treatment providers from both the voluntary and public
sectors offer cost-effective employment services that deliver strong results
but constantly struggle for funding. Making use of that experience and drive
would a sensible step.
Of similar interest is the recommendation that ‘milestone’ payments
should be introduced for those with the most significant barriers to employment.
DrugScope’s evidence highlighted the need to balance high aspirations for
clients with a realistic appreciation that the journey back into work for our
service users can take time and may be indirect. If those furthest from the job
market are to receive genuinely tailored, specialist support, the funding needs
to be in place to deliver it.
The report also draws attention to the deficiencies of the
use of benefit type as a proxy for need, and the contribution to this problem
made by a Work Capability Assessment that is still not fit for purpose in
determining access to sickness related benefits– many claimants referred in
“mainstream” JSA customer groups have significant self-reported disabilities or
health problems, which is something the Work Programme payment model can’t
reflect. As the Committee finds, the differential payments model is a step in
the right direction, but an insufficiently bold one: it recommends a shift to
needs-based assessments and more specialist provision, which may make progress
in tackling the problem of creaming and parking.
Employer engagement is covered at some length, including the
reluctance of firms to hire people who have been long-term unemployed, a factor
compounded by the stigma often experienced by jobseekers with histories of drug
or alcohol use. Whilst the Committee makes a number of recommendations about
this, DrugScope would welcome renewed investment in the intermediate labour
market (ILM), for example, social enterprises – something that could help to
bridge the gap to employment give people the chance to demonstrate the ability
to hold down a job.
Vulnerability is also considered. DrugScope’s own research
before submitting evidence suggested that a large number of people using
treatment services had had their benefits suspended, or sanctioned. The
Committee draws attention to the poor communications received and lack of
understanding and awareness of the Programme that may be behind many
non-attendances at initial appointments. The Committee recommends that DWP
carries out a review of sanctions as a matter of urgency, a call which we would
echo. Regulations brought in in October 2012 introduced a much tougher regime,
so it is crucial that there is transparency around this and reassurance that
sanctions are not being used disproportionately to the detriment of vulnerable
claimants.
A further recommendation from DrugScope that the Committee
agreed with was the need for stronger minimum service standards. The
combination of the “black box” model, an ineffective differential payment
system and vague minimum standards means that it’s often difficult to pin
providers down to a specific offer. DrugScope welcomes the Committee’s
recommendation that a simple, clear minimum entitlement that all providers
would have to observe should be developed.
Of interest to any organisation working with people with
significant barriers to employment, the first cohort of Work Programme
customers are soon to come to the end of their 2 years on the Programme, the
Committee rightly expresses concern about post-Work Programme support for
claimants. For the reasons outlined above, this may well be where many clients
of treatment providers end up, having failed to get or keep a job through the
Work Programme. DWP has piloted
two different approaches, but it is not yet clear what their plans are – we
too would welcome more clarity.
Finally, the report recommends more detailed information
about the use of supply chains, expressing concern that specialist
organisations are not playing a role (one large provider from the drug and
alcohol sector received 5 out of an anticipated 1,000 referrals in its first
year), and observes that many charities are effectively subsidising their Work
Programme activities from other sources. Providing detailed job outcome and
sustainment figures may be a mixed blessing for specialist providers working
with those furthest from the job market as almost inevitably, their performance
may look unimpressive compared to mainstream organisations working with clients
without unusually significant barriers. It could, however, serve to demonstrate
the inadequacy of current provision and serve as an incentive to make better
use of specialists. This would, over the medium term, be a positive move, but
DWP’s recent delaying of prime contractor level performance figures doesn’t
bode well for its implementation.
To conclude, the Committee’s report is welcome. It
identifies many of the problems for which DrugScope, with the support of our
members, has found evidence, and proposes sensible, workable solutions – and
hopefully ones that can be implemented before the successor to the Work
Programme starts, presumably in mid-2016 or thereabouts. Whilst the elephant in
the room is the lack of job opportunities and the intense competition for them,
we have to strive continually for improvements in active labour market
programmes, and this report makes a welcome contribution to the debate.
If you would like to keep in touch about the Work Programme,
or share experiences and comments, please contact paul.anders@drugscope.org.uk
Paul Anders,
No comments:
Post a Comment