LESPN Work Programme presentation 12 Dec 2012 Steve Kerr
Fair Chance to Work 2Impact of Work Programme on disadvantaged clients and VCS organisations in London
This presentation:• Work Programme performance in London• Results of survey of VCS subcontractors• Impact of Work Programme on wider VCS• Work Programme customer experience• Recommendations and next steps– your feedback
Work Programme performance in LondonKey points:• Performance equally low in London and UK (3.5% of referrals achieved job outcomes)• West London: fewer referrals and higher performance than East• London outcome rates lower than rest of UK for all payment groups except JSA 25+• Zero job outcomes in London for ex-Incapacity Benefit payment groupsEARLY DAYS!!
Work Programme performance in London Referrals Outcomes PerformanceIngeus (West London) 19,160 910 4.7%Maximus (West London) 18,830 760 4.0%Reed in Partnership (West London) 18,870 690 3.7%Careers Development Group (East London) 26,630 910 3.4%A4E (East London) 26,690 860 3.2%Seetec (East London) 26,550 680 2.6%West London Contract Package Area 56,860 2,360 4.2%East London Contract Package Area 79,870 2,450 3.1%London Total 136,730 4,810 3.5%
Experience of VCS subcontractorsKey points:• Most subs have had lower referrals than expected• 18 months in, many tier 2s have had zero referrals• Common problems: • Quality of communication with primes • Quality of needs assessment from JCP/primes • Customers on JSA with serious health problems • Financial constraints – including attachment fees• However – some good practice in prime/sub relationships to build on
Impact on non-Work Programme orgsKey points:• Reduction in other (non-WP) funding from local authorities, LDA, etc• Rules around alternative funding (JCP, trusts) precludes working with WP customers• Dilemma of working with WP customers – to support or not to support?• Unpaid referralsWork Programme is negatively impacting on widerVCS employment and skills services.
Experience of disadvantaged jobseekersKey points (anecdotal):• General quality of support seems low, lack of contact from advisors• Lack of appropriate support for customers with specialist needs – e.g. learning disabilities• Pressure to place customers in jobs paying poverty wages (cleaning at £1.40/room); or self- employment non-jobs
Draft recommendations – your feedback?• Review differential payments model – based on needs not benefits• Recognise milestones as payment outcomes for disadvantaged clients• Share and promote good practice in prime/sub relationships• Increase supply chain transparency• Consider impact of WP on other projects/services• London weighting• Lobby for living wage jobs
WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD US SO FAR Preference for place based programmes with flexible geographies Any approach must be responsive to local need and national priorities Simplification of fund management Integrated programming, in particular in relation to the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) Better co-ordination of match-funding & co-financing across the public sector
GROWTH PROGRAMME THEMESTop priorities Research, technological development and innovation – esp. commercialisation Raising SME competitiveness – esp re exports Shift to low-carbon economy – esp energy efficiency & renewable technologies Employment & skills (inc. social inclusion)Other objectives Climate change adaptation, risk prevention & management Environmental protection & resource efficiency Sustainable transport and removing network bottlenecks Access to & use of ICT
PROPOSED DELIVERY ARRANGEMENTS Maritime and Rural FisheriesGrowth Programme Development Programme(ERDF, ESF & EAFRD) Programme (EMFF) (EAFRD) Co-financing CSF Growth Organisations Teams LEPs / ITIs Community Led Local Development, including Leader and FLAGsProjects
London: EU Funding 2014-2020Next steps:• LVSC to circulate discussion paper around network for comment/feedback: • lessons from 2007-14 programme; • policy priorities for London; • feedback on commissioning; etc• LVSC to host targeted event in early 2013• BIS consultation paper in Spring 2013