Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Welfare-to-Work, Reed in Partnership “inadquate”.

with 15 comments

Private Eye has just published (1st of October) a short piece in the latest issue on companies running the ‘Pathways to Work’ schemes. These (here) are part of ” a national back-to-work programme available to all customers claiming incapacity benefits and the Employment and Support Allowance in Great Britain.”

OFSTED inspects these firms and its report found its way to the magazine.

“The worst scheme was in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, where the government’s leading contractor, ‘Reed In Partnership’ was found to be ‘inadquate in all areas.” It does not provide good value for money. “Participant outcomes are low against contract targets.”

And so it goes.

Reed in South London was un’satifacory’. but “staff turnover is high ” (Note: a common feature of all such companies running these and Flexible New Deal schemes), and there were “too few personal advisers”.

A4E in West Yorkshire, was marked by the fact that “action to resolve staff underperformance had been slow” (Note: Emma was not there to hold their hands).

Import from Australia,  Ingeus , was found to be “inadequate” in Southwark, City and East London and central London. A scheme in central London was found to be the worst, with “often uninspiring” training and “insufficient access to computers”.

A4E the Eye notes (later than us lot here) employs former Annabel’s regular and part-time Minister David Blunkett.  Ingeus was employs Dean James, “former chief operating officer at Blunket’s DWP.

We await reports on the performance of these companies for the Flexible New Deal

Written by Andrew Coates

October 2, 2010 at 3:01 pm

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Labour may back coalition single benefit plan

    A senior Labour source said: “We are in the territory of awaiting with interest and will support them where they help get people back to work or restrict benefits from those who don’t need them. We are optimistic that if IDS wins his battle with the Treasury then the reforms will really be an extension of the Purnell plan which we strongly support.”



    October 2, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    • Why would Labour back plans of the other 2 political parties in UK?(Ok, there is more than 3, but…)

      They are admitting they have no clue! That when they win the next election – as they believe they will (approx 2 years after this will come in) – they have no plans of scrapping it – too much work…

      Flexible New Deal

      October 2, 2010 at 7:52 pm

  2. expectations are to high for programs for the sick/disabled and targets cannot be set and expect to be met overnight,this indicates that plans poorly/hastily drawn up.

    to expect someone with problems to take control of their lives is impossible they cannot this is either an assumption based on ignorance or lack of insight into conditions.

    its no good stating that employers want happy smiling outgoing happy people when the person is racked with disorders’.

    the government has legislated against health questionnaires and peoples health,however this is an attempt to simply once again try and paper over existing health problems,it might help with what they hope is not to be discounted at an interview stage in a few cases and follows previous advice disclose after you get the job,but the reality is mental health problems as such can quickly become apparent when people are placed under stress and this leads to bullying and eventually almost inevitably dismissal.


    sourced from watching A4e


    October 2, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    • Absolute bullshit. It is illegal to ask for age, date of birth, sexual orientation etc.

      However, its perfectly VALID (therefore deemed legal) to request all these “illegal” pieces information by:

      a) A mandatory recruitment monitoring form that isn’t anonymous

      b) Sometimes physically attached to main application form (i.e. overleaf)

      c) That must be sent along with the application form at the same time in the same envelope or email

      So there are always ways around it. Most employers ask discriminating questionally verbally as there is no proof (unless you record). People then don’t get the job.

      Flexible New Deal

      October 2, 2010 at 7:49 pm

  3. Regarding FND reports…

    Am I correct in thinking that they are scrapping Ofsted reports for them?

    Flexible New Deal

    October 2, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    • I wouldn’t be surprised, all that unecessary ‘health and safety’ legislation and red-tape trying to check up on dynamic big society types.

      I bet they’ll abolish the no-touch rule as well.

      Andrew Coates

      October 3, 2010 at 10:03 am

    • I wouldn’t be surprised either, Mr Coates.

      It’s all black boxes now.

      And as for Health & Safety it’s all “common sense”.

      They are already making noises to repeal all the namby-pamby, cotton wool-wrapping ‘elf n safety legislation. Using the same tactics as the anti-welfare brigade… deliberately letting it “get out of control” to a degree in order to give their friends and paymasters in the media some “extreme” examples to highlight in order to manipulate public opinion and gain public support for their agenda to kick the legs from under laws that were put in place to protect workers.

      I am sure that Working Links will be delighted though as after being sent to a docks by Working Links one of their victims was DECAPITATED

      Millie Tant

      October 3, 2010 at 10:22 am

      • Last year becouse of the downturn in the amount of building work going on the British Building industry reported its safest year out fatalities wise but that still meant that your likely hood of being killed working on a British building site was three times greater than serving in the British Army in Iraq.

        I have also worked in Factories where most of the equipment was a death trap, one week before the factory closed to relocate outside the area health and saftery arived and stuck a prohabition of use notice on most the equipment…where were they the at least past 10 years before hand? The fact is that a factory will be visited at best ounce every 15 years by health and saftey on routine inspection.

        To make matters worse accidents art work are not being reported or are being reported at far less severeity, this has come about when lawyers representing the seriously injured parties have found the described injuries in the firms accident book which as it is filled in by the company rarely reports any severe incidents just white washes over severity.

        Health and Safety is ok if you have a pouncey pen pushers job like MP or journalist but at the opposite end of the work spectrum it is non existant in the UK where it actualy matters…..find someone going on about health and safety madness and sure as hell they’ve never worked in any of those dangerous jobs.

        Lowestoft's Finest

        October 3, 2010 at 11:47 am

    • no-touch rule as well…… wots that mean?? handcuffs n restraints 4 workfarers wont go down pit without safety equipment??


      October 3, 2010 at 10:48 am

  4. it is hard to prove discrimination,however not disclosing it can effect disability discrimination act protection,the claim being we were not aware.

    there will be many who suffer anxiety and depression me being one and the reception has not always been favorable,there is a danger someone can become stigmatised in the job for some conditions.

    it may be the government’s idea that once out of the benefits’ system is the main priority,however by this stage this is where the next stop is going to be i have at least experienced.

    its best get these issues out of the way before,i would rather not be offered a job then run into difficulties later in regards to attitudes’,the cycle of job/job centre/job is not a good one and adds to the burden of illnesses.


    October 2, 2010 at 8:10 pm

  5. as regards to the article i think you have to have worked in a company for at least two years before a tribunal case can be heard.

    before this time they don’t have to give a reason.due to the labour market laws here.


    October 2, 2010 at 8:14 pm

  6. It looks like Reed have taken the piss once to often with the DWP as now when they sign on at the jobcentre only FND participants with Reed have to show the staff their Reed Advisors action plan and details of last Reed advisor interview each time they sign. The DWP are also refusing to accept a lot of Reed paperwork relating to clients month job boost as they claim Reed filled it out wrong.

    FND Zlec

    October 8, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: