Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Suffolk Work Programme “utter failure”.

with 21 comments

The Work Programme has been an “utter failure” in Suffolk, and that’s official.

Figures released and published in the East Anglian Daily Times (28.11.12)  show that of 2,360 people referred to the scheme in Ipswich just 60 found and kept jobs for 6 months- 2,5%.

Elsewhere in the country it’s the same picture. In Babergh (570) people), Forest Heath (480) and in Mid Suffolk (490) just twenty people in each district had employment for more than 6 months.

In St Edmundsbury 730 went on the scheme and 30 got a job, and in Suffolk Coastal out of 590 went on the Work Programme and only 20 kept in work long enough for the ‘providers’ to get their full bonus.

In Essex the figures were: Braintree, 1,360 and 80, Chelmsford, 1440 and 60, Colchester 1,900 and 60. Pride of Place goes to tendering where 2,300 were referred and just 10 kept a job.

 

People on the Work Programme comment that the scheme is “crazy”. They have harsh words for the providers, such as Pelcombe and SEETEC, who are not just incompetent and unpleasant but quick to “sanction” people. That is, deprive them of the right to the basic income needed to live and eat.

It looks as if these companies’ failure will mean they  face a serious financial crisis.

The price of the government’s ambitions and their own greed.

Advertisements

Written by Andrew Coates

November 29, 2012 at 9:26 am

21 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I am so happy proof has come out This does not work I have had a sanction because of this I was without food gas power for 4 weeks May not seem long to people who have money I would ask you to try live in a house with the worry is my rent being paid also have no hot water and nothing to eat It was hard I was tricked into a sanction I stand by this It was horrible It even made me start to think i was in the wrong I am so glad this proves i am not maddy RIP WP This is a funeral i look forward to

    DAVID

    November 29, 2012 at 9:47 am

    • I was just talking to a woman who was sanctioned in Ipswich.

      It’s a disgrace that these little ‘itlers have the power to do things like this.

      Andrew Coates

      November 29, 2012 at 9:49 am

      • The problem is these people are decent people… (the victims!) not the rough scum as stereotyped… I mean how many of the 150,000 sanctions resulted in the person raising the doubt having the shit kicked out of them? probably 3 or 4… (solely disclaimer, I haven’t heard of this happening at all)

        Universal Jobmatch

        November 29, 2012 at 10:24 am

      • Dare one suggest that sanctioning people actually reduces their ability to carry out an effective jobsearch…?

        anothergrumpybrit

        November 29, 2012 at 7:58 pm

  2. I haven’t heard of it happening either, but it needs to.

    Dan

    November 29, 2012 at 2:28 pm

  3. Just been to sign on at my local Jobcentre (first time since UJM started nearly two weeks ago) and no mention of Universal Jobmatch, no leaflets or posters or literature of any kind, just signed on as usual, no problems at all.

    Also the jobpoints are using the same set up to look for jobs as they always did, just one thing, the wages say £0 on every job listed.

    Obi Wan Kenobi

    November 29, 2012 at 2:34 pm

  4. Hi Obi, Pretty much the samw when I signed on this morning. However this is the last “WP voucher/accelerated” signing on and all WP victims at my JCP will now revert to a full fixed time appointment and interview. I anticipate delays and UJ propaganda in 2 weeks time.

    Gissajob

    November 29, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    • One point that nobody seems to make is that people get jobs on the Work Programme through their own efforts.

      Shouting at people and telling them what they have to do, and letting them on a few computers, is not of any use.

      It could be counter-productive as the figures show people do better at getting jobs without the Work Programme.

      Anybopdy getting a job does so by their own job search and application.

      If they stay for 6 months it’s their own labour that’s done it.

      Why these companies should be paid for our work is one of those mysteries the whole thing is wrapped up in.

      Andrew Coates

      November 29, 2012 at 4:55 pm

  5. They tried doing (if you remember) when New Deal was going. People were double booked, you got a different adviser everytime, they got your details wrong, they didn’t even realise you had turned up for an appointment even though the assistants had given the adviser your signing on booklet, – it should be fun!

    Obi Wan Kenobi

    November 29, 2012 at 5:01 pm

  6. I’ve done a bit more work on the official figures, they now show how much money each Private Provider received based on a referral fee of £400 per person referred.

    Work Programme Private Provider Referrals & Fees Received.

    1st Figure: Contract Total Referrals
    2nd Figure: Start Up Fee £400
    3rd Figure: Start up Fee Total Received

    Notes: June 2011 until July 2012

    Overall Total: 877.880 x £400 = £351,152,000

    East of England: Ingeus UK LTD 30.930 x £400 = £12,372,000
    East of England: Seetec 30.250 x £400 = £12,100,000
    East Midlands: A4E Ltd 29.260 x £400 = £11,704,000
    East Midlands: Ingeus UK Ltd 29.510 x £400 = £11,804,000
    West London: Ingeus UK Ltd 19.160 x £400 = £7,664,000
    West London: Maximus Emp UK Ltd 18.830 x £400 = £7,532,000
    West London: Reed in Partnership 18.870 x £400 = £7,548,000
    East London: A4E Ltd 26.690 x £400 = £10,676,000
    East London: Careers Development Group 26.630 x £400 = £10,652,000
    East London: Seetec 26.550 x £400 = £10,620,000
    North East: Avanta Enterprise Ltd 27.860 x £400 = £11,144,000
    North East: Ingeus UK Ltd 27.600 x £400 = £11,040,000
    Merseyside, Halton, Cumbria, Lancs: A4E Ltd 28.090 x £400 = £11,236,000
    Merseyside, Halton, Cumbria, Lancs: Ingeus UK LTD 28.110 x £400 = £11,244,000
    Manchester, Cheshire, Warrington: Avanta Enterprise Ltd 19.460 x £400 = £7,840,000
    Manchester, Cheshire, Warrington: G4S 19.330 x £400 = £7,732,000
    Manchester, Cheshire, Warrington: Seetec 19.220 x £400 = £7,776,000
    Scotland: Ingeus UK LTD 43.730 x £400 = £17,492,000
    Scotland: Working Links 43.480 = £17,392,000
    Thames Valley, Hamps, Isle of Wight: A4E Ltd 17.650 x £400 = £7,060,000
    Thames Valley, Hamps, Isle of Wight: Maximus Emp UK Ltd 17.740 x £400 = £7,096,000
    Surrey, Sussex, Kent: Avanta Enterprise Ltd 21.440 x £400 = £8,576,000
    Surrey, Sussex, Kent: G4S 21.500 x £400 = £8,600,000
    Devon, Cornwall, Dorset, Somerset: Prospects Serv Ltd 11.890 x £400 = £4,756,000
    Devon, Cornwall, Dorset, Somerset: Working Links 12.020 x £400 = £4,808,000
    Glouc, Wilts, Swindon, West of England: JHP Group Ltd 11.820 x £400 = £4,728,000
    Glouc, Wilts, Swindon, West of England: Rehab jobfit 11.700 x £400 = £4,680,000
    Wales: Rehab jobfit 22.350 x £400 = £8,940,000
    Wales: Working Links 22.410 x £400 = £8,964,000
    Birmingham, Solihull, Black Country: EOS-Works Ltd 21.800 x £400 = £8,720,000
    Birmingham, Solihull, Black Country: Newc College Group 21.840 x £400 = £8,736,000
    Birmingham, Solihull, Black Country: Pertemps 21.780 x £400 = £8,712,000
    Coventry, Warwicks, Staffs, Manchester: ESG 16.290 x £400 = £6,516,000
    Coventry, Warwicks, Staffs, Manchester: Serco Ltd 16.480 x £400 = £6,592,000
    West Yorkshire: Business Employment Services 21.040 x £400 = £8,416,000
    West Yorkshire: Ingeus UK LTD 21.140 x £400 = £8,456,000
    South Yorkshire: A4E Ltd 13.520 x £400 = £5,408,000
    South Yorkshire: Serco Ltd 13.450 x £400 = £5,380,000
    NE Yorks, The Humber: G4S 13.250 x £400 = £5,300,000
    NE Yorks, The Humber: Newc College Group 13.200 x £400 = £5,280,000

    Obi Wan Kenobi

    November 29, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    • Thanks for the brilliant research.

      They’re raking it in, aren’t they?

      What a bunch of chancers.

      Andrew Coates

      November 30, 2012 at 10:32 am

      • Why do you think the charities got involved?

        A nice gravy train.. its a lot less effort than traditional fund-raising and grant making; and more guaranteed to bring results.

        Universal Jobmatch

        November 30, 2012 at 10:46 am

      • haha results.

        I mean income, obviously… results.. what results?! 😀

        Universal Jobmatch

        November 30, 2012 at 10:47 am

      • Universal Check E-Mail for messages from Channel 4 etc.

        Andrew Coates

        November 30, 2012 at 11:54 am

    • Hi Obi,just the figures I was looking for,my provider has refused to pay the full amount for travel,when they have not issued a ticket(unscheduled appointments) I have pointed this out and they have refunded me after a bit of a hassle(DWP guidelines) but as they wanted to play silly buggers, I feel I have a duty to my fellow inmates and through the JCP they have now requested refunds for all participants…reaction? how can we possibly sort through all these receipts and track down over XXXX people? XXXX=22350 claims x £=a shit load of refunds,let alone the admin costs…..Thanks,you have made my X-mas

      mkmky

      December 19, 2012 at 9:28 pm

  7. looks like there plan is to go for the Referrals fee and job outcomes are a bonus lol.

    and its worse than doing nothing and they think it will get better wtf? r they on crack!!

    .

    super ted

    November 29, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    • No, its payments-by-results… “providers don’t get paid unless they get people into work” … didn’t you hear?

      HAHA, couldn’t say that with a straight face…

      You are right… they made a mint without needing to find anyone work… everything else is just a bonus.

      Universal Jobmatch

      November 29, 2012 at 11:30 pm

  8. It would really be interesting to see the results for each individual office.

    Obi Wan Kenobi

    November 30, 2012 at 12:03 pm

  9. My mate has just signed on, he told me everyone is presenting the advisers at our local Jobcentre with the printout’s of the 10.7 – 10.9 statements from the DWP TLMS Schedule 2.1 Authority (Universal Jobmatch) Requirements, and this has totally stumped them, they haven’t got a clue what to do now.

    Obi Wan Kenobi

    November 30, 2012 at 12:45 pm

  10. The Work Programme is, so far, worse than nothing at ensuring “job outcomes” – that is, people in unsubsidised work six months after they leave the programme. In the first fourteen months, 3.5 per cent of participants achieved job outcomes, but for people not on the programme, 5 per cent were expected to get jobs, according to Labour’s shadow minister Liam Byrne.

    (The news shouldn’t be hugely surprising – one very effective way to get a job is to spend all day every day applying for jobs. Any training programme has to overcome that hurdle.)

    Some quick back of the envelope maths, here. The full data is simply not available, but if ministers are saying that the Work Programme cost £2000 per job, and we know that there have been 32,310 job outcomes, then presumably they are claiming a budget to date of £65m.

    Given that 5 per cent background rate, we can expect that if the Work Programme had never been instituted, there would have been 46,000 jobs in the normal process: 14,000 more.

    In other words, the Work Programme did not cost £2000 per job. Instead, for every £4,600 it spent, it destroyed one participant’s chance of employment.

    Updated: The effect of the work programme was on the 14,000 job difference, and so the effect is one job destroyed for every £4,600, not for every £1,400. 3.5 per cent is the result for the first fourteen months, not the first year. Clarified the source of the 5 per cent figure.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2012/11/work-programme-destroyed-job-every-1400-it-spent

    New Statesman

    December 2, 2012 at 11:50 am

  11. SEETEC has sanctioned me for 4 weeks, they told the job center that I never turned up to one of my appointments, when I did.

    When ever I speak to the job center about Seetec, they tell me to talk to them, and vice versa.

    I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!

    Dave Augood

    April 13, 2013 at 11:17 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 )

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: