Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

A4E’s 3.5% Success Rate.

with 13 comments

It never rains but it pours.

Data obtained exclusively by Channel 4 News shows that the welfare to work company A4e secured sustainable jobs for just 3.5 per cent of its job-seekers under the government’s flagship Work Programme. You can watch this Here.

The Feckless Middle Class’s favourite paper, the Daily Mail, puts the boot in,

Scandal-plagued welfare-to-work provider, A4E has managed to get just 3.5 per cent of its jobseekers into long-term roles.

Fewer than four out of 100 unemployed people who have gone through the firm have secured jobs that last more than 13 weeks.

Almost 115,000 jobseekers were referred to A4e in the ten months to May 2012 under the government’s work programme.

Of those, just 4,020 secured jobs that lasted more than three months, according to a Channel 4 News investigation.

The company has already been hit by damaging allegations of fraud.

Its chairman, Emma Harrison, who paid herself an £8.6million dividend in 2011 despite A4e’s dreadful record, was forced to quit earlier this year.

The figures show that A4e – the second biggest provider of the work programme – is failing to meet its targets in the first year.

It has to get 5.5 per cent of its jobseekers into sustainable roles every year to keep its contract.

The ‘expert’ firm has even struggled to secure real jobs for applicants in the Olympic borough of Newham in East London, trailing behind even the local council. Here.

We note that this failure is unlikely to be confined to A4E.

Information reaching us is that Ipswich ‘Welfare-to-Work’ “experts”, Papworth Trust and SEETEC, are not even bothering to try to help any unemployed person they think ‘hard’ to get  employment.


Mind you, where were these tip-top people when there was full employment?

They weren’t needed then, and their grasping companies aren’t needed now.


13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. And the shrinking economy – worse even than predicted – is not going to help real job creation either!


    June 29, 2012 at 10:27 am

  2. “Information reaching us is that Ipswich ‘Welfare-to-Work’ “experts”, Papworth Trust and SEETEC, are not even bothering to try to help any unemployed person they think ‘hard’ to get employment.”

    If true then that is excellent news for at least some of the coerced ‘participants’. If ‘not even bothering’ means leaving them alone, that is. Perhaps a little respite for some, for a while at least.

    Those left alone might be able to concentrate on looking for a job now and not constantly be having to defend themselves against unfair treatment and have their time wasted.
    And not being constantly threatened with sanctions because they question the actions of the profit making providers. And the lack of accountability.

    We’re pissed off at being treated like shit in order to earn those scammers a buck. That’s what many of us are pissed off at, not the fact that we are required to work. Though is ‘required’ really correct? Politically maybe. Hmmm?

    Most people do want to work, the current state of society is not the fault of the unemployed, it’s the failure of successive governments to do anything properly and fairly and simply seeming to be one bunch of inept idiots after another. It’s all bullshit.
    Whoever you vote for the government still gets in. Even if you don’t.


    Mr No

    June 29, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    • Mr No, you are quite right.

      For the moment I am left alone, though a friend is forced onto some stupid basic computing/literacy course that has no value whatsoever and is accompanied by the usual hectoring.

      Andrew Coates

      June 29, 2012 at 3:23 pm

      • i don’t even have to go any more since last year they parked me in the skip this time round.

        super ted

        June 29, 2012 at 3:43 pm

  3. woooohooo some good news for a change


    June 29, 2012 at 3:34 pm


    It had to happen sometime. Here is the harrowing link:



    June 29, 2012 at 4:59 pm

  5. Desperate jobseeker sets himself alight outside Selly Oak jobcentre

    A desperate job seeker set himself alight outside a Birmingham Jobcentre in an alleged row over his benefit payments.

    Horrified eyewitnesses saw the man douse himself in flammable liquid after tying himself to railings at the Jobcentre Plus in Harborne Lane, Selly Oak, at around 9.20am.

    Cops rushed to the aid of the 48-year-old man and sprayed him with fire extinguishers after he suffered burns to his lower legs.

    The building remained closed throughout the day and claimants were told that payments would be made directly to banks. One eyewitness, who did not want to be named, said: “The guy came into the Jobcentre with petrol and made threats, so they evacuated the whole building.


    I think it was something to do with a payment he had not received.

    “He tied himself to the railings and tore open the bottom of his trousers. You could smell the fumes from the liquid he used, but the police arrived by the time he had set himself alight and they managed to put him out quite quickly.

    “He would have to have been very desperate to have done something like that.

    “It’s shocking that somebody could have been driven to those depths.”

    *** Do you know the man who set himself on fire? Contact our crime reporter nick.mccarthy@trinitymirror.com ***

    A spokeswoman for West Midlands Police said: “Officers were called at around 9.18am to reports that a man had tied himself to railings and was threatening to set himself on fire.

    “The man doused himself in liquid and set himself alight.

    **RELATED: Blogger Guido Fawkes jokes about man who set himself on fire outside Birmingham Jobseeker centre**

    Article here.

    Birmingham Post

    June 29, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    • This is absolutely terrible.

      Andrew Coates

      June 30, 2012 at 11:15 am

    • Cops put the man out with a fire extinguisher?!

      WTF… was it beyond jobcentre security to grab a fire extinguisher? Or jobcentre staff for that matter?

      of course, they called the police… I am sure they didn’t even called the fire brigade. Bastards.

      Work Programme

      July 3, 2012 at 9:40 am

  6. From WP Pricing Proposal Guidance:

    A4.15 Minimum performance expectations and Incentive payments will apply to payment groups 1, 2 and 6.

    A4.16 The minimum performance and trigger level for incentive payments will be based on referrals in the respective years to the Job Outcome ratio calculated by DWP. This le vel has been calculated based on:

    • the expected non-intervention performance on a cohort basis;
    • the profile for the length of time taken for a start to become a Job Outcome; and
    • expected referrals in each year. (see Annex 1 for details on the ratio of referrals to attachments).

    A4.17 Any Provider who does not deliver the expected minimum proportion of jobs to referrals in a given year will be defined as not meeting minimum performance standards. The minimum performance standard is non-intervention level plus 10%. The non-in tervention performance is outlined at A4.20 below.

    Non-intervention Performance
    A4.20 DWP will set a non-intervention perf ormance for payment groups 1, 2 and 6 reflecting the number of Job Outcomes that would be expected to occur in the absence of the WP. This is calculated by DWP based on analysis of historical job entry rates.

    The non-intervention performance profile is:

    Jobs / Referrals Year 1
    JSA 18 to 24 5%
    JSA 25 and over 5%
    ESA Flow 5%

    So they are not even meeting the non-intervention level of 5% let alone the 15% needed to meet minimum performance. In year 2 of the programme the non-intervention levels change to 30%, 25% and 15%. So the question is, what trick will the government use to hide this failure? We’ve seen a massive increase in sanctions – that’s one way to enable them to claim that the programme is ‘working’. Maybe some FOI requests will expose what tactic they will use.


    July 1, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    • Correction: “So they are not even meeting the non-intervention level of 5% let alone the 15% needed to meet minimum performance”

      Should read “So they are not even meeting the non-intervention level of 5% let alone the 5.5% needed to meet minimum performance”

      It’s clear elsewhere that it is 10% of 5% not an extra 10% as implied.


      July 1, 2012 at 4:55 pm

  7. It’s a quirk of the stats that the percentages are so low. They are comparing number of people in jobs for 6 months or more with 10 months worth of referals. At 10 monthe the only people who could possibly be in work for 6 months or more are those who started in the first 4 months. Clearly the last 6 months worth of referals cannot possibly have been in work for 6 months or more. Hence the low percentages. Expect the actual figs to be a bit higher when the 12 month figs are published when they will be measuring the first 6 months worth of people who have now done a 6 month job with 12 months worth of starters.

    Your stats borne out by the original DWP ITT here:
    see para 3.14


    July 2, 2012 at 7:29 am

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: