Reed in Partnership: The final nail?

Posted on April 7th, 2010.

Post Categories: DWP • Welfare Reform • ofsted • reed in partnership • uk government • unemployment

Reed in Partnership has recently been inspected by Ofsted under their ”Provider Led Pathways to Work” contract. Oh dear, Grade 4 (lowest) stamped everywhere. Job Outcome rates? On the compulsory “training” course only 7% found employment. Of that 7% of people, only 15% found sustainable jobs making approx a sustainable job rate of 1.127% (that is 1% not 11%). Staff not CRB checked (the participants are more vulnerable than unemployed people on non-disability schemes such as Flexible New Deal). The list goes on..

Intro

Before this inspection report Reed in Partnership were criticised for:

• Reed in Partnership and the multi-million pound New Deal Fraud
• The £3 million illegal immigrant fraud
• Reed in Partnership and the Carers scam
• Reed in Partnership and the dodgy Data Protection Act 1998 agreements
• Reed in Partnership are accused of harrassing past participants impersonating the DWP Fraud team
• Reed in Partnership staff have to have atleast 6 months experience in high pressured sales environment (for Flexible New Deal advisers)
• Reed in Partnership have an ongoing legal dispute with Yell (Yellow Pages)
• Not bothering to turn up for the Backing Young Britain — Careers Fair
• Reed in Partnership’s The Journey course

(WiP – to be updated with any more information gathered)

Inspection Report

Information about the provider

1. Reed in Partnership (R in P) was established in 1998 to deliver New Deal
welfare to work programmes. R in P delivers the DWP funded Cambridgeshire &
Suffolk Pathways to Work contract in conjunction with Jobcentre Plus.

2. PLP is a training programme designed specifically to deal with the high number
of adults who have long term and/or complex physical/mental health conditions
who are receiving Employment Support Allowance (ESA) or the Incapacity
Benefit (IB) and not actively seeking work. Participants are expected to take
steps to find work or prepare for work unless they have a health condition or
disability that severely affects their ability to do so. Many participants may not
have worked for many years.

3. The programme is delivered from seven sites across the sub-region, from REED
offices in Ipswich, Peterborough, Lowestoft and Wisbech and offices of The
Papworth Trust in Bury St Edmunds, Cambridge and Huntingdon. Both REED
and Papworth Trust also deliver the programme from a number of rural
outreach centres.

4. The proportion of the population registered as claiming Job Seekers Allowance
(JSA) in December 2009 varies from 2.5% in Cambridgeshire to 3.1% in
Suffolk, which is close to the rate for the whole of the East of England. The rate
claiming ESA or IB is below the East of England region average of 5.2% ranging
from 4.2% in Cambridgeshire to 5% in Suffolk.

5. Historically Cambridgeshire & Suffolk have not had a high population of
residents from minority ethnic groups. The census in 2001 shows variation
across the sub-region, from the city of Cambridge where around 21% of the
population come from minority ethnic backgrounds to rural Mid Suffolk where it
is less than 3%.

6. The following organisation provides training on behalf of the provider:
* The Papworth Trust

Grades: 1 is outstanding; 2 is good; 3 is satisfactory; 4 is inadequate

Overall effectiveness of provision      Grade 4

(Capacity to improve   Grade 4)

Outcomes for participants Grade 4

Quality of provision Grade 4

Leadership and management Grade 4

- Safeguarding  Grade 4
- Equality and diversity  Grade 4

Preparation for life and work   Grade 4

Overall effectiveness

7. The overall effectiveness of the PLP (Cambridgeshire & Suffolk) is inadequate.
REED provides inadequate training for participants, The number of participants
who enter employment is low and remains well below contractual targets. The
job entry rate has increased within REED centres in the five months prior to this
inspection but remains considerably below the contract target. Job entry rates
vary across the sub-region. Job outcomes have fallen at Papworth Trust centres
over the same period.

8. Participants improve their levels of confidence and self-esteem and motivation
to find work. Personal Advisers (PAs) are skilled in identifying many barriers to
employment. Good links are being made with employers and other agencies,
but it is too early to measure their impact on the experiences of participants.
Target setting and the recording of progress by individual participants is
insufficient to challenge them to develop quickly and record their progress.
Insufficient challenge is offered to participants to steadily increase their
development and employment related activities over the duration of the
programme.

9. Equality of opportunity is not promoted adequately. Variations in job outcome
rates for different groups of participants have not been sufficiently analysed
and investigated. Participants’ access to all parts of the programme is limited in
the subcontracted provision; The Papworth Trust is unable to deliver the
“Journey” personal development training programme in all centres due to staff
shortages. Management of the subcontracted provision is ineffective in
increasing outcomes. Quality improvement arrangements are incomplete and
formal safeguarding arrangements are inadequate for this programme which
includes vulnerable adults.

Main findings

Confidence, self-esteem and motivation are developed well. PAs and other staff
establish good relationships with participants and encourage them to be
optimistic. Mutual respect is established quickly and interviews and discussions
are friendly. Many participants report an enhanced quality of personal life
because of this programme.

Job outcome rates for participants are low. Since the start of the contract more
than 6,700 participants have started the programme, of these, 7% of
mandatory participants have gained jobs against a contractual target of 35%.
On the voluntary programme, 21% gained jobs against a contractual target of
50%.

Promotion and use of the Condition Management Programme (CMP) is
insufficient to improve employability. Referrals to the CMP are low and there is
little collection or use of data to measure its impact on individual participants.
Staff do not place sufficient emphasis on the contribution a healthy life style
can make on employability.

Staff have a good knowledge of local labour markets and employers. Staff
induction is good and includes specific local market information. Personal
advisers are aware of benefits and welfare issues. Information support and
guidance is effective in most cases.

Participants’ barriers to employability are not accurately identified and recorded.
Too much use is made of closed questions in interviews. The recording of
information is insufficiently clear and detailed. The use of providers’
classification system for recording client status is insufficiently thorough and
consistent. Discussions too often are not focussed on the most significant
barrier for the participant.

Targets to monitor and record participants’ progress are not used effectively.
Targets are not routinely used to inform subsequent interviews, measure
progress and ensure that all agreed actions have been completed. Not all
participants receive a copy of their action plan. Too often participants’
unrealistic ambitions are not sufficiently well challenged.

Additional development opportunities are not used sufficiently frequently to
meet individual participants’ needs. Insufficient flexible use is made of the
available training modules. Some centres do not offer all the planned training
programmes. Few participants attend centres between mandatory interviews to
carry out job search and development activities.

Good links have been made with a range of organisations and employers.
Recent initiatives to develop partnerships with a range of employers are
effective. However, it is too early to judge the impact of these links on job
outcomes and benefits for individual participants.

Performance management has been enhanced and has led to improved
outcomes within REED direct provision. The improvements by REED managers,
including a heightened focus on the performance management of PAs, are
starting to show improvements in job outcomes. The sharing of good practice
between business managers is increasingly effective in promoting
improvements and providing support for new managers.

The management of the subcontracted provision is ineffective in ensuring
access for all participants and bringing about improvements. The Papworth
Trust is not delivering all expected parts of the programme. Feedback from
participants about the subcontractor shows a declining trend in overall
satisfaction. Issues affecting performance correctly identified during an internal
audit in May 2009 are still affecting provision.

Formal arrangements to safeguard participants are inadequate. A significant
number of REED staff delivering the programme have not undergone Criminal
Records Bureau (CRB) checks. Not all Papaworth Trust staff have completed
appropriate safeguarding training and have an inadequate understanding of
relevant topics and their responsibilities. Managers have given insufficient
priority on monitoring these arrangements.

Data are not used effectively to analyse and reduce the variations in
performance between groups of participants. Insufficient investigation has been
made relating to the referral rates and take up of the key aspects of the
programme, including the CMP, training opportunities and attendance. Equality
and diversity action plans are inadequate to address the variations in outcomes
for males and equity in access to training across all centres.

Quality arrangements to promote improvements do not cover all activities that
involve participants. Most reports on quality and audit issues are acted upon at
a local operational level. Outcomes are used by business managers to effect
improvements. However, there is no cohesive system to quality assure the
entire experience of participants including the quality of interviews and formal
training.

What does REED in Partnership need to do to improve further?

Implement effective formal arrangements to safeguard participants, ensuring
that all appropriate checks are carried out on staff working with vulnerable
adults.

Develop the focus on improving performance at a local level, including the
subcontracted provision, and develop stronger strategic monitoring of
performance and quality.

Implement effective performance management of the subcontracted provision
to drive up outcomes for participants.

Develop procedures to collect and use data on all aspects of equality and
diversity to ensure greater equity of access and outcomes for all groups of
participants.

Ensure that quality improvement arrangements are cohesive, have a strong
strategic lead, and that outcomes from the processes are analysed for trends
across the organisation.

Improve the promotion and explanations of the benefits of the CMP to
participants and monitor their progress.

Summary of the views of participants as confirmed by inspectors

What participants like:

helpful tutors and personal advisers
improving their self-esteem
being treated like an individual
achieving more than they thought possible
updating their employability related skills and knowledge
the option to find out what employers need
the confidence to change career aspiration.

What participants would like to see improved:

ventilation in the classrooms
Information about how well they are progressing
car parking at the Ipswich centre for participants with mobility difficulties
ensure all personal advisers telephone participants on the agreed date.

What employers like:

good working relationships with REED and the Papworth Trust.

What employers would like to see improved:

none received.

Main inspection report

Capacity to make and sustain improvement: Grade 4

10. The provider has demonstrated that it does not have the capacity to make
further improvements. The provision has not been previously inspected.

11. The current self-assessment report and quality improvement plan for the
Cambridgeshire & Suffolk PLP was written in December 2009 and has not been
used as the basis for making improvements. REED and Papworth Trust collect
adequate feedback from participants to evaluate and improve the provision;
this is not always used effectively to bring about improvements. The quality of
training and learning is satisfactory. The range of quality improvement
arrangements, particularly systems to observe interviews with participants and
training sessions have not been fully developed.

12. Some improvements have been made to the programme over the life of the
contract. REED has improved its focus on performance management in its own
centres. Job outcome rates in REED centres have almost doubled since April
2009, although they remain well below contract targets. The job entry rates
vary across the contract region. Participants’ progress and achievement of
additional qualifications are insufficiently monitored to celebrate their
successes. Analysis and use of equality and diversity data is inadequate to
ensure that all participants have access to all the support and training that they
need to be successful.

Outcomes for participants: Grade 4

13. Participants make good progress in developing their motivation, confidence and
self-esteem. This was identified in the self-assessment report. PAs and other
staff establish good relationships with participants and encourage them to be
optimistic. Participants are able to apply these improvements to the effective
identification of barriers to employment. Mutual respect is established quickly;
interviews and discussions are friendly. Many report an enhanced quality of
personal life because of programme participation. Participants are treated as
potential successes rather than persistent failures.

14. Job outcome rates for participants over the life of the contract are low. They
have begun to improve in REED centres but remain well below contract targets.
Since the start of the contract 7% of mandatory participants have gained jobs
against a contractual target of 35%. On the voluntary programme, 21% gained
jobs against a contractual target of 50%. Sustainability of jobs is also low at
15% for mandatory and 34% for voluntary participants.

The quality of provision: Grade 4

15. Participants have a satisfactory appreciation of their rights and responsibilities;
PAs appropriately reinforce participant’s understanding. All venues offer a safe
learning environment. However, participants are not always aware of the need
to take appropriate breaks when using computers. Arrangements for providing
privacy for interviews are inadequate. All centres are open plan and busy
environments; participants are not routinely offered the opportunity to be
interviewed in private.

16. Participants on the CMP develop satisfactory skills and knowledge to help them
deal more effectively with their condition. However, promotion of the CMP is
inadequate. Referrals to the CMP are low and there is little collection or use of
data to measure its impact on individual participants. Most staff do not place
sufficient emphasis on the contribution a healthy life style can make on
employability.

17. Staff have a good knowledge of the local job markets. Staff induction is good
and includes specific local market information. Personal advisers are aware of
benefits and welfare issues. Information support and guidance are effective in
most cases, however, too few staff hold relevant qualifications.

18. Teaching and learning are satisfactory. Participants receive coaching to develop
their skills of curriculum vitae writing, interview skills and job search activities. A
few examples of good teaching were seen; opportunities to share good practice
are limited.

19. Resources are satisfactory with a good number of computers available for job
search. However, these are under-used and participants are not sufficiently
encouraged to make use of them outside their scheduled interview times.
Some centres do not provide local or national newspapers for job search
activities. Some centres have inappropriate chairs for use with computers. All
centres have suitable access for those with reduced mobility. Some individual
interview rooms are not sufficiently soundproofed.

20. The identification and recording of participants’ barriers to employment are not
sufficiently well identified and recorded during interviews. This was not
identified in the self assessment report. Too much use is made of closed
questions. The recording of information is insufficiently clear and detailed. The
use of providers’ classification system for recording client status is insufficiently
thorough and consistent. The recording of learning outcomes from training
courses is rarely completed. Participants are too often distracted by the noise of
other conversations or office equipment during interviews.

21. The use of targets to monitor and record participant’s progress is ineffective.
Targets are not always challenging and realistic in relation to career aspirations.
Targets are not routinely used to inform subsequent interviews, measure
progress and ensure that all agreed actions have been completed. Not all
participants receive a copy of their action plan. Discussions too often focus on a
single topic identified at the initial interview rather than discussing the most
significant barrier for the participant. Too often participants’ unrealistic
ambitions are not sufficiently well challenged.

22. Additional development opportunities to meet individual participants’ needs are
not sufficiently well used. This was not identified in the self-assessment report.
Few participants’ programmes are individualised. Insufficient flexible use is
made of the available training modules. Some centres do not offer all planned
training programmes. Few participants attend centres between mandatory
interviews to carry out job search and development activities.

23. Recent initiatives to develop partnerships with a range of employers are
effective. Clear development of these contacts is part of a well-thought out
strategy. However, it is too early to judge the impact of these links on job
outcomes and welfare benefits for individual participants. Participants benefit
from good links with support agencies, one of whom provides additional
support and guidance for offenders. Employers report good support from REED
staff.

Leadership and management: Grade 4

24. The improved focus on performance management has led to improved
outcomes within REED centres. The recent introduction of “Operation Grow” is
intended to standardise operational procedures across the Reed Partnership; all
the elements are not yet embedded into standard practice. Improvements by
REED managers, including a heightened focus on the performance
management of PAs are starting to show improvements in job outcomes. The
sharing of good practice between business managers is increasingly effective in
promoting improvements and providing support for new managers. However,
there is little sharing of good practice across the wider organisation. Managers
do not use data effectively to identify trends and manage the provision. Data
are not readily available to measure the impact of each of the key aspects of
the programme.

25. Subcontracted provision is not managed effectively. Contract compliance is the
key focus and responsibility for performance improvement is unclear. Despite
regular reporting and communication, key performance indicators continue to
fall and The Papworth Trust are not delivering all expected parts of the
programme. Feedback from participants about the subcontractor shows a
declining trend in overall satisfaction. Issues affecting performance correctly
identified during an internal audit in May 2009 are still affecting provision.

26. Formal arrangements to safeguard participants are inadequate. This was not
identified in the self assessment report. Safeguarding arrangements do not
meet current government requirements. A significant number of REED staff
delivering the programme have not undergone Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)
checks. Not all Papworth Trust staff have completed appropriate safeguarding
training and have an inadequate understanding of relevant topics and their
responsibilities. Managers have given insufficient priority on monitoring these
arrangements.
27. REED has inadequate arrangements for promoting equality and diversity. REED
has appropriate policies and procedures that cover many aspects of equal
opportunities. Both REED and the Papworth Trust have developed appropriate
strategies to widen participation by providing services in rural communities.
However, no indicators have been agreed to measure the effectiveness of these
strategies.

28. Equalities issues are covered well during induction for staff. All staff have
received training on relevant topics. Participants have a satisfactory
understanding of equality issues and their impact on employment. All premises
are fully accessible. The promotion of equal opportunities through training
materials is unsatisfactory. Most materials used in the “Journey” programme
contain images which reinforce job-related gender stereotypes.

29. Data are not used effectively to analyse and reduce the variations in
performance between groups of participants. Analysis of data regarding the
performance of different groups of participants across the sub-region has been
completed. However, monitoring by managers of referral rates and take up of
key aspects of the programme, including the CMP, training opportunities and
attendance is insufficient. Equality and diversity action plans are insufficiently
detailed and prioritised to drive improvement. Managers and staff discuss some
equality issues at meetings but these discussions and agreed action points are
poorly recorded.

30. Participants’ views are used satisfactorily in the analysis of performance.
Informal feedback from participants is quickly responded to by local managers.
REED and Papworth Trust regularly collect the views of active participants
through a number of measures but do not routinely share all the results or act
upon them. There is little evidence of efforts to collect views from those
participants not actively participating in the programme. Reed makes significant
efforts to collect employer views but few returns are received.

31. Quality arrangements to promote improvements do not cover the whole of the
participants’ experience. Reed operates a range of quality processes, all of
which produce very useful reports. Most are acted upon at a local operational
level to promote improvement. For example, Quality Advisers audit participant
records to support improved compliance with operating procedures. Outcomes
are used by business managers to effect improvements. However, there is no
cohesive system to quality assure the entire experience of participants including
the quality of interviews and the quality of the training. The analysis, at a senior
strategic level, of the different quality processes to drive improvement across
Reed in Partnership is inadequate. The self assessment report, although selfcritical,
does not sufficiently focus on the impact of strengths and weaknesses
on participants. There is insufficient focus on improving outcomes. The quality
improvement plan does not reflect the self assessment report.

32. The contract does not provide good value for money. Participant outcomes are
low against contract targets. Many resources are under-used. Attendance rates
at interviews, training sessions and additional job search activities are too low.
A number of key posts to support participants are vacant or held by very recent
appointees.

Information about the inspection

33. Four of Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMI) and one additional inspector, assisted by
the provider’s operations manager, as nominee, carried out the inspection.
Inspectors also took account of the provider’s most recent self-assessment
report and development plans, comments from the Department for Work and
Pensions (DWP), and data on participants and their achievement.

34. Inspectors used group and individual interviews, telephone calls and emails.
They looked at questionnaires participants and employers had recently
completed on behalf of the provider. They also observed learning sessions,
assessments and progress reviews. Inspectors collected evidence from
programmes in each of the subject areas the provider offers.

(Crown Copyright)

Outro

Reed in partnership have recently had an inspection for Flexible New Deal contracts. We will be picking up the findings soon.

Make a Comment

5 Responses to “Reed in Partnership: The final nail?”

1. 1

   

   Andrew Coates says:
   

   April 9th 2010 at 1:25 pm  

   I hope this information is as widely circulated as possible.

   I pass Reed International’s Offices in Ipswich often. I wodner if the inmates know about this.

   

   Reply to this comment
   • 2

     

     Flexible New Deal says:
     

     April 9th 2010 at 1:40 pm  

     Thanks for the reply Andy. I am not sure many people know. I found it on the off chance. I was wondering whether Reeds latest Ofsted report on FND has been published but might be a couple of months yet.

     Reply to this comment
   • 3

     

     fred says:
     

     April 29th 2010 at 1:33 pm  

     oh yea we know. sanctions for any and every default. checked upon when writing job letters etc. they arrange job interviews and tell you afterwards most jobs are at below 16 hrs a week

     Reply to this comment
2. 4

   

   ken says:
   

   April 11th 2010 at 1:22 am  

   the sad truth is the only opportunities created are for those who “run” these programs,the reality is the country has gone to the dogs’,genuine sustainable employment in quality jobs is non existent,backbone economic industries destroyed for good,leaving the uk at the mercy of foreign companies who are quick to exploit the situation while the same would not be tolerated in home markets’.

   they claim (dwp)in statements to protect the system from abuse while the people they contract to abuse all they like with tax payers money,this is met with silence and underlines the self interest policies of governments’ with all its undertones.

   a clear message arises from all this you made the bed you lye in it

   then try and blame everyone but yourself.

   don’t blame the unemployed who have been dumped on the scrapheap and try and move the blame of the true causes.

   Reply to this comment
3. 5

   

   Funny A4e Photos says:
   

   April 29th 2010 at 3:42 pm  

   I’ve seen Ofted reports for several A4e offices, but I don’t think any of there’s got as many 4s as Reed.

   I don’t know why the government bother wasting taxpayers money on these reports. Providers never get penalised no matter how useless they are, in fact it probably puts them in pole position for bidding on the next welfare to workfare contract.

   Once you get on the merry-go-round of government contracts, your laughing all the way to the bank. And ingrating yourself with a few government ministers and MPs can greatly improve your business prospects.

   Reply to this comment

Trackbacks: