In the Guardian, Patrick Butler explains why some welfare-to-work charities are less than enthusiastic about the new Work Programme:
We are just two weeks into the scheme, and already specialist charities involved in welfare to work have reported either big cuts in contracted work (and are laying off staff) or declaring that they won’t get involved, because the deals on offer don’t stack up financially.
Ministers described the Work Programme as a “massive boost” for the “big society”. But it’s increasingly looking anything but: not only did private sector corporates win 90% of the prime contracts, but it appears the much-trumpeted sub-contractor market is not looking too healthy for the voluntary sector either. Charities complain they are mere “bid candy”: used as window dressing by big corporates keen to buff their bid credentials, then quietly ignored or squeezed out once the contract is in the bag.
You can read more here.
Also in the Guardian, you can read about Lady Stedman-Scott’s (who is herself a Tory) critique of the program:
Lady Stedman-Scott, the founder of Tomorrow’s People, an award-wining employment charity that works with jobless youngsters, said commercial firms would not be prepared to take on the financial risk of helping difficult clients such as ex-offenders, homeless people and the long-term jobless, especially in areas where there are few jobs.
Ministers could not rely on the work programme to support hard to help benefit claimants, but must set up a separate fund to invest in specialist charities which carry out the expensive long-term work necessary to get them ready for work, she said.
Read more here.
The plight of ex-offenders in this country is very serious. I answer questions for ex-offenders and felons looking for jobs at my blogs: http://jailtojob.com/wordpress and http://howfelonscangetjobs.blogspot.com
Work Program Meeting 03/08/11, Martin Langley, – Client
Date and Time originally problematic due to poor staff command of English.
Meeting conducted by Ahmad, – tried usual trick of bombarding with intrusive questions in order to interrupt the answers. Eventually I explained my continued unemployment due to combination of external and internal factors, – viz:
External, – a) Recession plus state of DWP services
b) Recruitment racket crime
c) Employer discrimination (age, unemployed)
d) IIlegal Immigration
e) Barriers to entry, e.g. Medicine, Law, Financial
services
Internal, – a) Age
b) Overqualified
c) Former director/contractor
Ahmad’s accent made communication difficult. Required above to be repeated several times. I explained I complied with all DWP required efforts to seek work, could do nothing more. Gave Ahmad CV plus sight of passport.
Further meeting arranged 09/03/11 with “employment advisor”. Ahmad stated they were in contact with real employers but declined to advise which.
Ahmad saw fit to correct me twice after misunderstanding what I had told him.
No expenses paid, meeting lasted around 20 minutes.
Martin Langley
03/08/11
Work Program Meeting 09/08/11, Martin Langley, – Client
Meeting scheduled for 14.00 (see note), preparation interrupted by telephone call from”Naomi” around 11.00 am querying my non-arrival for 10.30 am meeting. I explained my diary entry showed scheduled at 14.00. Naomi required several repetitions of my question as to whether the 14.00 original arrangement would be honoured.
Arrived at the CDG office at 13.55, meeting delayed by absence of lift service requiring all clients to reach fourth floor by stairs regardless of age or physical ability/disability.
Naomi began meeting at 14.05 by asking for details of my work experience, I referred to CV provided at previous meeting. Naomi obtained copy, misunderstood a date entry, and took the opportunity to level an accusation of deliberate falsehood. When I queried this she suggested I might like to leave.
I gave Naomi a copy of previous meeting notes. She explained I would be meeting “Chetan” an “Employment Engagement Consultant”. I asked whether there would be any real employers in the loop. Naomi said there would but declined to say which.
Naomi made reference to an “action plan” but was unable to provide this due to her inability to use her computer and the absence of the document. She attempted to conceal these failures with perfuctory and high handed dismissal of my request.
I asked for the attendance of their senior manager “Fred” to whom I gave a copy of the above meeting notes and described the problems I had had so far today. Fred and Naomi consulted privately for several minutes. Naomi continued the meeting under Fred’s supervision. Eventually an “action plan” was discovered and provided (see attached).
I queried whether the meeting with “Chetan” would be proceeding, Naomi again required repetition of the question several times before giving a coherent answer. Chetan was asked to attend.
Chetan’s manner was generally helpful and pleasant but he became vague when queried about contact with real employers. He explained most of their clients needed “entry level” employment with (e.g.) Tesco or other retail/admin
employers. Nontheless we discussed my IT support experience and he remarked that he had some IT contacts and would see if they were interested.
Fred kindly arranged my expenses for this and the previous meeting.
Departed around 14.55 after arranging review meeting for 06/09/11.
Martin Langley 09/08/11