This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2012/nov/27/work-and-careers-unemployment-work-programme
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 5 | Version 6 |
|---|---|
| The Work Programme, payment by results and the restriction of debate | The Work Programme, payment by results and the restriction of debate |
| (4 months later) | |
| The Coalition Government's Work Programme brings all previous welfare-to-work programmes under the delivery of 18 Prime Contractors, who are commissioned centrally by the Department for Work and Pensions at a potential cost of up to £5 billion. | The Coalition Government's Work Programme brings all previous welfare-to-work programmes under the delivery of 18 Prime Contractors, who are commissioned centrally by the Department for Work and Pensions at a potential cost of up to £5 billion. |
| Initial evidence suggests that large corporations are benefiting the most from these arrangements, whilst smaller specialist providers are left in limbo waiting for referrals. | Initial evidence suggests that large corporations are benefiting the most from these arrangements, whilst smaller specialist providers are left in limbo waiting for referrals. |
| Until today, figures have not been released which show whether the programme has been a success in terms of getting people into work, and keeping them there – on which the Prime Contractors will receive their payment. There will be much discussion on these figures, and rightly so – the central mechanism of the government's employment policy is finally open to a level of scrutiny we have not yet had. | Until today, figures have not been released which show whether the programme has been a success in terms of getting people into work, and keeping them there – on which the Prime Contractors will receive their payment. There will be much discussion on these figures, and rightly so – the central mechanism of the government's employment policy is finally open to a level of scrutiny we have not yet had. |
| You can read the Guardian's main story on today's figures and associated links here. However, there needs to be wider discussion about the very framework that exists for measuring success. At the core of the government's approach to public services and increased focus on outcomes is a model of payment by results. This is a far-reaching programme that is being extended into Welfare to Work, Sure Start centres and offender rehabilitation. Indeed, KPMG contends that it 'should be implemented across the public sector without exception' as a means of reducing bureaucracy, and with the aim of ensuring more responsiveness to the customer due to an incentive structure derived from the seemingly omnipotent market. | You can read the Guardian's main story on today's figures and associated links here. However, there needs to be wider discussion about the very framework that exists for measuring success. At the core of the government's approach to public services and increased focus on outcomes is a model of payment by results. This is a far-reaching programme that is being extended into Welfare to Work, Sure Start centres and offender rehabilitation. Indeed, KPMG contends that it 'should be implemented across the public sector without exception' as a means of reducing bureaucracy, and with the aim of ensuring more responsiveness to the customer due to an incentive structure derived from the seemingly omnipotent market. |
| Much has been made of the move to payment by results as a supposed antidote for the target driven world of New Labour. However, David Boyle argues that payment by results experience the same difficulties as targets – which are about the 'difficulty of measuring precisely what is most important.' These problems include a technocratic approach to defining the terms of success and effectiveness. | Much has been made of the move to payment by results as a supposed antidote for the target driven world of New Labour. However, David Boyle argues that payment by results experience the same difficulties as targets – which are about the 'difficulty of measuring precisely what is most important.' These problems include a technocratic approach to defining the terms of success and effectiveness. |
| This is driven by what appears to be a quite bureaucratic dominance represented by performance measurement. Such an approach to assessment is based disproportionately upon statistical analysis, and neglects inclusive public debate. This focus purely on statistical outcomes means that the most marginalised communities and more difficult-to-place individuals can potentially be neglected, as they could be considered too far away from achieving such results and therefore not financially worth investing resources into supporting - even if there is greater reward. | This is driven by what appears to be a quite bureaucratic dominance represented by performance measurement. Such an approach to assessment is based disproportionately upon statistical analysis, and neglects inclusive public debate. This focus purely on statistical outcomes means that the most marginalised communities and more difficult-to-place individuals can potentially be neglected, as they could be considered too far away from achieving such results and therefore not financially worth investing resources into supporting - even if there is greater reward. |
| This is illustrated by today's figures showing that of over 240,000 young people on the Programme, only 2.5% have so far moved into a sustainable job, a figure even worse for people with disabilities. | This is illustrated by today's figures showing that of over 240,000 young people on the Programme, only 2.5% have so far moved into a sustainable job, a figure even worse for people with disabilities. |
| This is especially problematic as there is no space for deliberation about the social justice issues that this presents, about the efficacy and equity of policy, or the deeper social structures that exist. This contributes to what Jacques Rancière has termed passive equality, in which those outside of the decision-making process are assigned roles as passive objects. | This is especially problematic as there is no space for deliberation about the social justice issues that this presents, about the efficacy and equity of policy, or the deeper social structures that exist. This contributes to what Jacques Rancière has termed passive equality, in which those outside of the decision-making process are assigned roles as passive objects. |
| So, the questions we must be asking are not just a case of whether the Work Programme has been successful in placing people in jobs (important as that is). But also, in the knowledge of the fact that the majority of people in poverty are in work, whether or not the current labour market is appropriate for a more just social economy. Such questions need debating beyond the issue of what the government deems to be a result. | So, the questions we must be asking are not just a case of whether the Work Programme has been successful in placing people in jobs (important as that is). But also, in the knowledge of the fact that the majority of people in poverty are in work, whether or not the current labour market is appropriate for a more just social economy. Such questions need debating beyond the issue of what the government deems to be a result. |
| Dan Silver is director of the Social Action and Research Foundation based in Salford. He Tweets on @DanSilverSARF. | Dan Silver is director of the Social Action and Research Foundation based in Salford. He Tweets on @DanSilverSARF. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |