The Work Programme Framework
Post Categories: Welfare Reform
Tags: The Work Programme, The Work Programme Framework
As taken from a DWP document:
The Work Programme Framework
Introduction to the Work Programme
The Coalition Agreement, published on 12 May 2010, set out a number of major welfare to work reforms, including a core integrated welfare to work programme and a number of measures designed to support people to find employment. These measures are designed to help in the government’s key aims of fighting poverty, supporting the most vulnerable and helping people break the cycle of benefit dependency.
This paper has been produced as a working document to help interested parties understand our overall approach and in particular the key stages for delivering the core Work Programme. If interested parties have further questions or comments they should contact us at THEWORKPROGRAMME.EXTERNAL@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK
The Work Programme
The Work Programme will provide greater freedom for suppliers to give people the support they need rather than prescribing one-size-fits-all programmes from the centre. It will focus on helping people into sustained jobs and pay delivery partners first and foremost by the results they achieve, not the processes they go through.
We want the Work Programme to be delivered by the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors and, to encourage this, we will give delivery partners longer to work with individuals and greater freedom to decide the appropriate support for them. We will offer contracts over a sufficient period of time to allow our delivery partners to invest and secure a proper return for that investment. We will also offer stronger incentives for delivery partners to work with the harder to help, paying out of the additional benefits they realised as a result of placing people into work.
Until the Work Programme is implemented, we will ensure support is in place. Where necessary, we will ensure that arrangements are in place so that there is no gap in provision and people can receive help and support to get back into work.
Once the Work Programme is implemented it will supersede much of the complicated raft of national programmes currently on offer and these will be phased out. The support currently provided by programmes such as the Flexible New Deal will be folded into the Work Programme as soon as possible.
The Government set out initial plans for the implementation of the Work Programme on 10 June.
Next steps
We are committed to supporting customers regardless of their age, the benefit they receive or their personal circumstances. As we progress on the design and implementation of the Work Programme we will publish further details about the support available to young people, older jobseekers, severely disabled people and those facing other challenges to employment.
We are determined to move quickly and are aiming to have the Work Programme in place nationally by the summer of 2011. We intend to do this via a two stage implementation process:
• putting the Work Programme Framework in place between now and the end of the year; and
• contracting more specifically for the Work Programme so that it is in place nationally by the summer of 2011.The Work Programme Framework
The Work Programme Framework is the commercial vehicle through which the Work Programme will be delivered.
The Work Programme Framework will be an umbrella commercial arrangement which sets out some terms of agreement on future contracts. The framework is not in itself a contract; contracts will only be formed when services are arranged through the framework either directly or, more typically, through competition, thereby driving better value.
The indicative value of contracts to be awarded through this new Framework could be between £0.3 – 3 billion per year, with average individual contract values estimated to be approximately £10 – 50 million per year.
Why use a Framework?
Using a framework offers a number of commercial and operational advantages for the government and for delivery partners compared to the traditional contracting methods.
A framework will be a more efficient and responsive tool for government – with the potential to create administrative savings and allow us to respond to changing economic and policy conditions more swiftly.
It will simplify and significantly reduce the time and cost involved for those delivery partners on the framework in bringing their services to market, for example by cutting out the duplication of effort created by participation in a profusion of separate procurement competitions.
The framework will also help the government drive up performance and value for money – for example by enabling us to quickly move packages of work to the best performing delivery partners. This will form part of an overall package of features – currently under development – that we believe will both incentivise delivery partners to achieve more, and tailor rewards to reflect the value of outcomes.
In addition, the framework may be used by other Government Departments, Local Authorities and other public bodies, as well as DWP, to deliver future employment-related support services.
When?
The Framework competition was formally launched by the invitation of expressions of interest through an advert in the Official Journal of the European Union in the w/c 28 June. The Minister of State made a statement to Parliament on 29 June.
Our intended timeline for implementation is as follows:
Date / Action
By end of June 2010: Start Framework competition
November 2010: Framework let
Nov/Dec 2010: Work Programme competition starts
January 2011: Work Programme contracts awarded
Spring 2011: Work Programme implementation starts
Summer 2011: Work Programme implementation completeThe Work Programme funding model
The aim of the Work Programme is to deliver a more efficient service for the taxpayer and a more tailored service for individuals. We also want to do more – extending employment support to customers who have not traditionally had access to that service.
Helping a wider group of customers, including those who have significant and complex barriers to employment, would be difficult using traditional funding models given the country’s current financial position. Given this, we are exploring an alternative model where the payments to delivery partners for helping someone into employment will be made from the benefit savings actually realised.
While we are currently developing the specifics of the provider pricing model, the intention of the model is that:
• payment should be exclusively or largely for delivering results and that payment should be made after the results have been delivered;
• we should avoid paying for customers who would have moved off benefits without help;
• the price paid for job outcomes should be set to make it worthwhile for delivery partners to help each group of customers;
• we should not specify what delivery partners can, or should, do; they should have freedom to innovate; and
• the price paid for job outcomes should not exceed the benefit savings that have been generated.We expect that our delivery partners should be able to demonstrate the capital strength to take on the risks inherent in an exclusively or heavily outcome-based approach where we seek to deal with the cases of millions of people on out of work benefits.
We recognise that helping more people into employment will have associated costs. Doing more for our customers, as we hope to do under the Work Programme, means that funding will need to be found from benefit savings.
Transition to the Work Programme
We currently have a wide range of programmes on offer with contracts ending at different times. We are working with our delivery partners to agree how to move from the current support to an integrated programme of support available to customers seeking work.
We have already announced that the support provided through Flexible New Deal and Pathways to Work will be folded into the Work Programme as soon as possible. We will be announcing further details on what will happen to the Jobcentre Plus Support Contract, New Deal for Lone Parents, Work Choice and other programmes in the near future. We have also cancelled some planned programmes, such as Invest to Save and the Personalised Employment Programme.
The Government has started one to one discussions with delivery partners to discuss what this means for them. We believe that the Work Programme will offer significant new opportunities for contractors from the private and voluntary sectors to deliver truly flexible and personalised support, building appropriate partnerships to do so. We recognise the crucial role that the voluntary sector in particular has to play in tackling worklessness, and our plans reflect this.
Source: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-programme-prospectus.pdf
Keywords of interest:
- fold
- vehicle
- competition
- transitions
Analysis
The usual crap. Started talking about how existing schemes such as New Deal and Flexible New Deal will “fold” into the Work Programme – as if it the schemes were paper and the lesson origami. Then something about commercial vehicles. Followed about competition… and then transition. When its annoucned in more depth you will need to be wide awake!
• payment should be exclusively or largely for delivering results and that payment should be made after the results have been delivered;
• we should avoid paying for customers who would have moved off benefits without help;
• the price paid for job outcomes should be set to make it worthwhile for delivery partners to help each group of customers;
• we should not specify what delivery partners can, or should, do; they should have freedom to innovate; and
• the price paid for job outcomes should not exceed the benefit savings that have been generated.
- Not thought through – they will backtrack on this one. Payment must either be for results or on a mix, one or the other. Flexible New Deal used the mix and it doesnt work… will have to be 100% for results yet the welfare to work providers will not like this at all! After results delivered? Waiting 6 months for payment without a service fee (I assume thats what payment by results only means) will not be like by welfare to work providers. In fact they wont be having that at all, its unrealistic. Banks might not lend them the cashflow.
- Concept great. This means for everyone on New Deal and Flexible New Deal who leaves the scheme or the dole afterwards after securing a job where the provider gains an outcome even though they didnt help the person get the job – will be a thing of the past. On The Work Programme providers will have to get someone a job to get any payment. Absolute bullshit. This will change completely.
- I guess so.
- Doesn’t work. Creates a postcode lottery. Maybe thats what they meant by competition?! Why should one person on the dole get a completely different service to that of someone else? This also means providers will take the piss and the unemployed will receive fraudulent and malicious sanctions as an act of revenge for lack of job outcomes. Innovation is good but you cant do this under such a scheme. You can, but cap it with some “rules” – but its a contradiction… there wouldnt be much freedom to innovate. The freedom welfare to work providers get is the right to cherry pick or park clients. Always has been that way.
- I think this conflicts with #3 above (the bulletpoint). Of course it cannot exceed the benefit savings however it is pointless for the taxpayer to pay out 6 months dole money to a provider instead of paying the person that dole money if they were unemployed, if they were to go back and join the dole as many do under these schemes. If the outcome amount was much lower it wouldnt be worthwhile for the providers. I personally think all this taxpayer money draining exercises are bollocks. Solve the labour markets first, once you got that working great the unemployment wouldnt be so bad. There are more unemployed then jobs… so you cant cure this, other than job creation. You cant cure unemployment but you can reduce it 90% or so. You cant do job creation by agreeing with employers to set up job vacancies and pay the wages… (Future Jobs Fund) this costs taxpayer more than if these people were on benefits.
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions James Purnell MP
- New Deal ends in half of Great Britain
- New Deal should be subjected to a Serious Fraud Office inquiry
- Abolish the Jobseekers Agreement
- Welfare Reform Bill: There is more to come...
- Work for Your Benefit: providers to sell workfare victims to private businesses?
12 Responses to “The Work Programme Framework”
Trackbacks:
Leave a Reply
Please Note: We are an independent website NOT an official Government website or a business or affiliate operating on behalf of. Please consider this before posting any personal information or if for whatever reason thinking this is connected to Jobcentre Plus. (Always look for .gov.uk at the end of the URL which specifys a Government website)
By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your comment(s) and name/web site in attribution. Only comment if you agree with the below rules.
(1) All comments on Flexible New Deal Scandal are moderated for purposes of filtering out SPAMThank you for your attribution to Flexible New Deal Scandal!
(2) I reserve the right not to publish any comment for any reason such as being racist or offensive
(3) I aim to accept comments within 3 hours (but could be up to 24 hours)
(4) I will post any comments not in favour of any article for balance of discussion
(5) I do not edit comments so if the comment is partially offensive it is unlikely to be approved at all
(6) I reserve the right to append line breaks to comments so they are easier to read or remove any link
I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing gets quietly shelved or drastically reduced in size.
With a worsening economy the chances are there will be fewer job vacancies in 2011 than there are this year. And if unemployment continues to rise between now and 2011 there will be more people claiming benefits from a smaller tax take!
Given the above scenario, no provider will touch the Work Programme with a 12ft barge pole.
Hi Funny You are wrong on so many levels. Sorry to sound cruel. As I am aware a number of charities still carpet baggers in my opinion are biddng it is now more importantto them that they get something.
1 The scrapping of the local quangos advantage west Midlands is one example provided a lot of funding for these harities to help unemployed and in my case the disabled. This means they are more eager to chase money
2 The government has still got to be seen to be kicking at someone and doing something so they will go moreso for the easiest targets
3 The governmeant work programme. Lets look at this logically like i did in my sppof post on spendingchallenge for more information click on my name and follow the two different links for two posts.
4 Unemployed civil servants with reduced redundancy will be fast tracked back into their existing posts. so they will work for the dole whilst being on the dole.
I agree – many wont be interested until the Government backs down and gives them a too-good deal.
The Work Programme is likely to be 6 months “Flexible New Deal” type support and 6 months “Work for Your Benefit”.
This is then likely to loop.
The problem is they are reducing taxation to “encourage” employers to take people on, however, in addition to solve unemployment they are giving people away to employers for free and to fuck over everyone increasing VAT. The increase in VAT is to combat the reduced corporation tax… VAT gets in more money than corporation tax if I recall correctly. Reducing corporation tax but increasing VAT is getting more money in and not balancing it.
Nov/Dec 2010: Work Programme competition starts
January 2011: Work Programme contracts awarded
4-8 weeks’ for “competition” is risible,you would wonder if this isnt a “competition at all,the timescale to set up this program is another complete rush and bodge,all this will feed down to “customers”,poorly planned and implemented and another incompetence exercise in the making.
while reading the above sounding in a positive light,the reality is the work situation in the uk is not going to improve,these schemes do nothing to create employment at a suitable wage at today’s levels’ the dwps response is “we dont always get what we want” however tell this to the wider world in today’s prices,it would be more appropriate term for the dwp’s bungling efforts in attempting to be seen to be doing something to tackle the economic mess its hierarchies created.
while supermarkets may be quick to tap into this labour its only a tiny percentage of places’ the truth being that the uk has an excess of unwanted labour,the workplace is being demolished and replaced by flats’ and jobs lost for good.there is no training/recognised for what vacancies’ there are available leaving those without the skills’ training takes often a period of years’ this is simply not going to happen on these programs and those linked to them.no one wants to pay and is expected on tap often companies expectations are to high and the wages to low.
this will all end up back at square one,packed rooms’ people twiddling their fingers,everything included old newspapers,vintage equipment and not forgetting the filthy kitchen area.and someone making a killing.
Very good point raised. 4-8 weeks for a contract to be awarded. What worries me is how they are unsure how long it will take. Probably 4 weeks perfect case scenario or 8 weeks if the providers kick up a stink about the particulars such as payment – the answer is simple, if you really do not think you can run the programme than dont bid for it! Obviously DWP doesn’t understand this – they just see an organisation (for each) that they have had a past history of working with and are willing to negotiate terms to keep them. After all the Government have a stake in all this, first with Organisations such as Remploy which I believe the Government wholly owns and with organisations they partly own such as Working Links. It raises the question, to the tune of the phrase “if you want a job done properly do it yourself”. Although even these have limited success.
Couldn’t put it better myself…. a “complete rush”. There should be 3-4 months for this stage at least. This said, to my best knowledge, Work Programme is an closed doors affair. Renegotiation between New Deal and Flexible New Deal providers. It isn’t even a proper tender. This is just procedure, ConDem didn’t want the contracts automatically awarded to those who have already got them for previous schemes. They just wanted to burn some more taxpayers money to tick all the boxes. This said, its likely there is some EU rule which require them to do such process even though they obviously intend to give it to the previous contractors.
The Government likes a “bolt-on” system – my terminology. This applies to all different elements of Governance. For example, in child protection instead of rewriting the laws (although will take time, granted, not an overnight solution) they just publish new “guidelines”. If there is a serious flaw at the core, you need to fix it. You cannot just patch it up. If your new house didn’t have the proper foundations and support beams etc. you would get the builders to knock it down and build it properly, you do not stick up scaffolding hoping it will keep the structure sound.
To a similar concept there is the same with unemployment/welfare:
PROBLEM: UNEMPLOYMENT
CAUSE: A LAME LABOUR MARKET, RED TAPE, HIGH TAXES, GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN THE MARKETS, DISCRIMINATION, INADEQUATE LEGISLATION
SOLUTION: make the unemployed seek for jobs to get welfare (1), add a bolt on system of sanctions which prevents payment although doesn’t make them unentitled to claim (2), pay companies via spoof “training” courses (i.e. New Deal) to encourage claimants to sign off and call it an “employment” course where the provider is known as the participants “employer” thus under Social Security legislation it is treated as losing a job if they leave or get kicked off (3), change to “Flexible New Deal” so instead of 3 months it is a YEAR thing, persuade more people to sign off (4), researched US workfare, noted it didnt work but saw it as the ideal opportunity to get people to do council jobs for nothing and to persuade them to sign off to avoid it (5), realise none of this works, so set up a Future Jobs Fund and negotiate with employers to create jobs while the Government pays the wages, known here as Job Creation (6) new Government comes in, realises none of this works (as with their previous schemes and ideas such as the JS Act), wants to rename FND to the Work Programme, solely because they think it sounds better, and to smuggle in workfare through the backdoor (stick it as one scheme instead of a seperate one) (7)
(1) Jobseekers Act 1995: I do not agree with it in its entirety although the underlining concept is great: a) there are conditions to be met and b) people have to look for work to be able to claim. Sounds fair enough to me.
(2) Sanctions are unlawful. A major BOLT ON… that doesn’t affect the other provisions as they work side-by-side. You can perfectly comply to the Jobseekers Act 1995 but still be awarded a 6 month sanction. Social Security legislation has been allowed to let this in through the backdoor. Sanctions are determined outside a court. The key to this all is, a sanction doesn’t end your entitlement, if it did it would be wrong, but simply as they keep your claim open and get you to keep signing on… all the sanction legislation clauses has done is prevented your payment. I think this is a crucial element after all, thats the reason you sign on for – but the powers that be dont think so.
(3) Setting up a training course named an “employment” course and treating participants as “employees” and the provider as “employer”, is all wrong, you cannot claim JSA if you are employed. Which is it to be? Yes… you are a “participant” up until you get exited and a sanction doubt raised. I have done research that showed many people signed off to dodge New Deal.
(4) As most people on New Deal had done it 3 times, people got used to “the loop” as its called. To stamp this out, or more to the point get rid of the numbers that reclaim, they decided to replace New Deal with Flexible New Deal which never got time to succeed nationally – or even locally with TNG, they couldnt spell the word success. This replaced New Deal 13 week which was fulltime where you werent required to sign on (Approx 6 times lost), to Flexible New Deal where you had to sign on every 2 weeks still (so over 6 trips gained) and most people having to attend twice a week to the provider.
(5) Workfare… they know it didnt work. The report they tried to fix came as a disappointment, however, its best to forget about a report… and push ahead with it including with the legislation to make it happen.
(6) Job Creation means to create sustainable jobs at little cost. Setting up numerous (thousands) of 6 month temporary jobs where the Government pays all the wages, doesn’t create a job as such, as once the funding is stopped (6 months after the start) no job is left. Cost taxpayer more than for the person to be on benefits and the person goes back to join the dole afterwards. What a weak pathetic attempt of a solution!
(7) Creating a new scheme to merge Flexible New Deal like activity with workfare, isn’t going to work.
SORRY IF YOU ARE READING ALL THIS TO DISCOVER THAT THIS ISN’T A SOLUTION! ITS NOT…
In some ways I feel sorry for the Government. Job Creation is difficult because they keep dictating where jobs should be – a government has no right to do this – they should encourage new industries and let competition and innovation in business remain. This means when a million or so “high tech” jobs are created they are also deciding that some industry with 1.5 million jobs needs to close. Not only are we left with more unemployed – all the people need to be retrained and qualified to do the new jobs… this then strains courses through welfare budgets and of course the education budget.
Controversial as it may seem, the other problem we have is immigration. This goes hand in hand with the mothers without money who decided to have many many kids. By that I do not mean by race/nationality discrimination or that mothers are solely to blame for this although its their body so have the ultimate last say in the matter… the problem with immigration here is (and for future generation when families dont have their own money to raise the kids – excluding welfare strain) we DO NOT have the infrastructure in our labour markets to deal with so many people (please please nobody disagree, its impossible to have 3 million plus unemployed if that wasn’t the case).
Who to blame? Government’s lack of Job Creation (not immigration). We never have had a steady surge of jobs, never been that way. Its the case if while one business booms, another hits the wall. This is part of life in business, however, a system needs to allow more resilience and depth. You can almost call it the Tesco effect. Traders doing well, new Tesco superstore opens, bang they have displaced the trade. Small independent traders close. When a new industry opens and job opportunities arise, another dies. Some will call it “moving on with the times” but when the industries do not clash (i.e. direct or indirect competition) there is absolutely no reason why efforts shouldnt be made to safeguard the previous industry. The Government has already determined that 100% of employers should be the service sector industry, and well.. all other sectors (mining, farming; construction, manufacturing; research, design, development) should die.
No wondwer the DWP can afford to duplicate paperwork by endless amounts. the DWP’s administrative budget is 2.7bn
The DWP have a HUGE task although by my calculations, if they employed me to overlook the budget etc. by axing the unnecessary paperwork regarding these sanctions, Jobseeker Directions (JSD) and malicious accusations etc. I am confident the budget could be reduced to £1.5bn
It’s okay, Kyron. We all have our own opinion.
some points raised here are of interest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10680062
if there is a plan to “volunteering” many paid jobs would be lost,the government would be only to aware that there would be no shortage of free labour under the “volunteer” unemployed system it proposes.
this volunteering is nothing new and all courses for the unemployed tend to focus heavily on this as an outcome,however what is overlooked is the organisations that depend on it are completely full.
if not careful the fold from new deal could well result into collapsed into the same hole as it.
So nothing is changing. The unemployed person will be required to work unpaid, for their benefits.
This is ok for someone who gets £1000 per week benefits.
What about the poor sod who only qualifies for £10 per week jsa?
All of this ‘placement’ trickery just creates an underclass of slave labour who are paid a small fraction of the minimum wage. When they complain they get nothing at all.
Spot on. its always promoted how the people on benefits get thousands and thousands of pounds. I am on the standard rate JSA and claim no other benefits. Approx every 2 months I lose 2 weeks money due to a sanction.
Well yesterday, I was told by a so called charity beaconcentre4theblind that basically i should stop whining other people are much worse off than me and they don’t complain as much as you. You shouldn’t be on jsa your on it voluntary nobody is making you take the money.
I pointed out to them about depression and that th new esa effectively means i wont get any help. their attitude was if you dont like it get out of the f’ing kitchen