The Work Programme differs greatly from previous welfare-to-work schemes in that the payments under the scheme are by results. In order for Careers Development Group, as a charity, to break even on our contract to deliver the Work Programme in London, and for the private providers to make a profit on their contracts, jobseekers need to be helped, not just into any job, but into sustainable long-term work.
Mr McCaul worries that for the unemployed, ‘…being pushed to hold down a job before they’ve dealt with other issues like a mental health problem … could lead to further breakdown or mental health relapse and further costly interventions if parents struggle to cope.’
We agree that is not in the interests of people in these situations to be pushed into work too early and the Work Programme, in its pricing structure, explicitly guards against this. It is not in providers’ financial interest to push people into work which may not last.
Unlike previous programmes under which much of the payment was simply for delivering services, the onus under the Work Programme is on sustainable long-term employment.
Other than a small fee for each new jobseeker we work with, we receive no payment until someone has been in work for at least three months and in many cases six months. Even then, this is in effect a down payment on future success, with further payments made for every additional month that the individual stays in work and off benefits, to a maximum of two years and three months.
This being the case, we will be working closely with jobseekers to offer help and support to deal with the underlying problems and barriers to work they face, before we even think about encouraging them to move into employment.
We believe that the best route out of poverty and deprivation for adults and their children is through work. Research has shown that many of the children suffering severe and persistent poverty are not in workless households but in families where work is intermittent, seasonal or unstable.
Also, for the long-term unemployed, an unsuccessful attempt at re-entering employment can crush confidence, disrupt benefits and put back further the day when they are able to return to work fully. Two more reasons why pushing people into just any job is bad for the jobseeker.
Similar research also shows that once someone has been in steady work for more than six months, the work ethic and work habits become normal and the chances of them later returning to benefits for more than a short time are drastically reduced.
As a charity, we are not party political. We helped to deliver the last government’s New Deal and Flexible New Deal and are now providing services for the coalition government’s Work Programme. Our sole interest is helping those who are unemployed find and sustain meaningful employment. Regardless of the political make-up of the government implementing the Work Programme, we believe that it can and will work and, in time, will help large numbers of the long-term unemployed back into work.
Careers Development Group has been named as one of the three prime contractors for London East under the Work Programme and is one of two such contractors from the charity sector across the UK and the only one in the capital.
In London East, CDG will be working with 60,000 people, often with multiple barriers to work, to help them find work and to stay in work for the long term, benefitting them and their families.
what jobs,sorry ,meaningful employment ? give us a couple of examples.
I am really looking forward to licking lavs clean for £67.50 a week (for 2 years) and being abused and belittled by weasel-faced charity worker kiddy-fidlers.
“ere mate” “wot” “wot do Clownfish and Cameron have in common”? “wot” ? “bofe gone deaf mate” .
boo hoo hoo hoo “we didn’ t pay for the new kitchen with taxpayers money” no, Sam bought it out of petty cash?
“how many Camerons does it take to fix a lightbulb ? ” “a what ? “
Really glad my piece provked a bit of debate. I am clear about how the Work Programme works and that’s why I’m concerned about vulnerable families and children. This is an interesting response but the writer doesn’t say how providers deliver when there is a range of need as well as worklessness. What is their strategy when families quite obviously have mental health issues parenting problems and the household is not functioning in any way that will support work. These are key issues which will impact negatively on families and children if they’re not thought through. For some providers who are trying to make a quick buck these families will be at the bottom of their list although it seems like this provider is interested in working with hard to reach groups which is laudible. It is reassuring that the writer agrees that pepole won’t be pushed into work before they’re ready but that’s not really at the heart of what Cameron, Harrison and indeed my article was saying – but reassuring non the less. It would be interesting to look at a joint approach around who is ready for work and priorities and security for those who can’t work.
for people to find employment there has to be jobs!! There arent any jobs, i know i am a job seeker thanks to one of these prime contracters!!! thanks guys the problem with the work programme is hard to work with clients will probably be left whilst providers cherry pick clients for better results. very soon we will have to open workhouses again thanks to this government which it totally out of touch with the working and the unworking man
My dad cleaned lavs, and he was a public sector worker. Clearly he would have been one of George Orwell’s unpersons to some NL people here. He was also a WC Tory while mum was Blue Labour… ‘Tilll Death Do Us Part’ indeed. Probably that’s why am Real Labour! Next there are jobs and I reckon that around 200,000 change from non employed to employed every month ( I am talking about flows not stock) There are also people who leave old jobs and get new ones without being non employed. But the chances of getting a job depend on how good you look to employers and being long term out of the labour market doesn’t make you look good If you are long term unemployed you are probably not got a job because because you have other ‘unattractive’ features to employers. I agree with Antony…. any Work Programme has to address this issue. Further if it is to be profitable, as tj says you have got to ‘choose’ good prospects (or get rid of poor ones or both). You are also in a competitive market to ‘hire employers’ One competitor is the Criminal Justice System. David talks about helping the client. But the employer also has to help the client which makes them even more unattractive. He says nothing about that. I currently have by me one of four ‘plans’ for people and employers concerned with long term sick but still contracted. (Fit Note cases) They are challenging even for motivated employers. (The Plans come from NHS and Social Care with an employer input.) Finally the WP programme I think assumes full time employment , and continuous employment. But if as in the case I am dealing with that may not be the best way then such people will not ‘fit’ I’m pleased to say however we have managed three weeks so far, but then my pay would be much more I expect than David’s advisors.