Efficiencies
The Government has announced its intention to reduce costs and DWP is keen to streamline its processes to support this.
Using previous experience are there any lessons learned on how DWP can do things differently / more efficiently?
Comments on this page are now closed.
DWP would like to thank all users who posted comments on Efficiencies. This discussion is now closed.
We will consider your comments and publish a brief online summary.
North West Network is a charity based in the North West of England which helps Voluntary and Community organisations to access funds. We are particularly active in securing ESF funds for organisations working with the unemployed and those distanced from the labour market. We have therefore a keen interest in the way that the Work Programme will impact on organisations in the North West delivering training, employment opportunities and learning. With respect to the particular issue of efficiencies being addressed here what follows is a short summary of some of the common concerns conveyed to us on this subject by Voluntary and Community organisations accross the North West.Hope this is helpful. john@nwnetwork.org.uk
1. In previous work programmes there was significant competition between the Prime contractors and their sub-contractors for the same clients ,which was very messy .
2. Unsure about the fairness of the payments ie.e will there be a flat fee or will payments to subcontractors, or sub-sub contractors, be based in any way on the nature of the target group being engaged with?
3. What will happen to ESF funding – will this be swallowed in the Work Programme or targeted at specific areas of work such as skills development?
4. Although work with the clients is taking place within a black box approach, in order for subs to get a piece of the action they are given very specific stringent contracts with lots of pre-conditions they need to meet resulting in organisations focusing most of their already limited resources on reporting and forecasting activities. All this bureaucracy, though understandable, in the need to make sure subs deliver within quality standards and track and monitor progress of their clients needs simplifying as in practice primes have problems following through clients and tailoring payments, especially if they swap provision half way through an intervention.
My understanding is that the Work Programme budgets, administered via Framework Holders (Primes) will be able to attract ESF funding as match.
Good point (4) about the desirability of reducing bureaucracy..
DWP must ensure a consistent standard for the consideration of tenders, which has not always been achieved in previous tendering rounds.
We suggest that any slippage in DWP’s timetable should result in a proportionate amount of additional time being passed on to providers (e.g. if the stated Invitation To Tender release date is delayed by one month, the tender return date and the contract go live date should also be delayed by one month).
We also suggest that generic questions should be standardised (in question wording and page/word limitations) to reduce duplication of effort between tenders.
Scoring should be 100% on quality with DWP setting prices and performance levels.
DWP should allow sufficient time in tender process to allow Prime Contractors to engage with potential subcontractors, especially during any clarification stage, as failure to do so could lead to Primes failing to achieve the highest quality of supply chain management/ Merlin standard. Additionally they may have insufficient time to access the knowledge held by subcontractors, which will be invaluable when considering realistic performance offers, especially with those client groups which are furthest away from the labour market.
We are concerned that the price sensitive element whilst on the surface may seem to offer efficiencies, could lead to unrealistic performance and price offers being made, which could in turn perpetuate “creaming and parking” which the Government has stated it wishes to stop.
Simplification of the benefits system will bring efficiencies across the board in both the delivery of the Work Programme, but also within DWP/Benefits Departments.
We believe that benefits need to be much easier to claim, with safety nets in place, to reduce fear of accepting temporary jobs.
The 16 hour rule should be terminated.
The government could consider changing the system so that all benefits (JSA, housing, child benefits etc) are paid by the same agency. This would improve efficiency and increase client confidence in being able to regain all the benefits to which they are entitled quickly in the event of a job ending abruptly.
Experience has shown that assessments carried out by JobCentre Plus are often inaccurate due to the customer’s unwillingness to share their full circumstances with officials, for fear of having their benefits cut. Therefore we recommend that the initial assessment of the Work Readiness be carried out in a simple objective way…[truncated by the system]
• Papworth Trust has concerns around the flexibility of the black box and provider guidance. In the past this has created a burden; limiting innovation and increasing administrative costs for providers. Our trade body, the Employer’s Related Services Association (ERSA) recently estimated that providers currently spend 10% of their contract value on administering and evidencing claims. We believe the work programme provides a unique opportunity for reform with a shorter framework and greater flexibility. If provider guidance is set too rigidly, it does not allow the provider to create a personalised programme. There is a danger you simply increase delivery costs without necessarily increasing outcomes.
• Papworth Trust believes the DWP needs to be more consistent in its requirements on Prime providers. For example, we sub contract for four prime providers, all of whom have different requirements of reporting back to DWP. As sub contractors, having different processes makes it inefficient and costly. We urge the DWP to ensure that future requirements are consistent, regardless of the prime provider. In addition, if DWP has certain requirements for the delivery (for example, security compliance with ISO 27001) these need to be clearly articulated early on to avoid costly adjustments during the contract period.
• Providers face frustration with the time lag incurred through Departmental systems. DWP management information is consistently out of date compared with our own, even when the source is the DWP system. This is extremely unhelpful and distorts the focus of what should be discussed at the meetings. It would be helpful if this situation was reviewed and any time lag was kept to a minimum.
• Communications from the Department need to be more consistent with clear signposting of who to contact in the event of a query. By example, Papworth Trust recently received a letter from DWP about which we needed to raise a small query. We had to speak to four different people before our query could be addressed, which is frustrating and costly both for Papworth Trust and DWP. In future, DWP needs to be clearer in its communications about who it assigns as the point of contact for the various issues. We believe this will help to ensure a smooth relationship between the department and its delivery partners.
• We also experience difficulties with the changing priorities of Jobcentre Plus. Past experience has shown that when Jobcentre Plus’s…[truncated by the system]
I find it difficult to understand how letting the programme on the basis of a small number of regional contracts which then rely on sub contracting is efficent. Surely it would be more sensible to develop contracts at sub regional/City region level where the actual delivery partners operate and remove the ineffiency of complicated supply chains, each level of which withdraws cash for adminsitration and management. Elsewhere Government is collapsing regional structures.
I agree with Mark C about giving people ownership to design and choose their own pathway to employment. In most cases people know what they need in order to get into work and can identify the barriers preventing them from moving forward. I have been working with a steering group of long term unemployed/incapacity claimants in Norfolk and they have designed a programme which highlights needs in health and wellbeing, independent living skills including money management, preparing for work, soft skills and vocational skills. Adults not in education, employment or training require a combination of support which could bring initiatives like community health trainers, advice services and pre-employment support workers closer together in their approach and delivery. For some people this is a more viable route and existing provision like work experience placements has not met their needs previously and is unlikely to do so if repeated. Work experience placements have excellent value when they are delivered at the right time and are actually in line with employment goals. There needs to be more on offer at the first rung delivery end where people are taught skills which prepare people for the world of stability and work more effectively and the new work propgramme should give consideration to this. Timescales for work programme participants should be more flexible. If people don’t achieve at the end of 13 weeks then further training should be identified to meet their needs. Might bear higher costs in the initial stages but will avoid wasted spend when the client re-presents at front of house. In the group I have worked with, 2 peope are now permanently employed, one is volunteering and training and the other is tackling a long term health issue and sustaining living independently after previous homelssness and hostel living. Chrissy Chalmers, Worklessness Development Officer, Norfolk Supporting People.
We should also be looking for ways to maximise the impact of programmes. In many areas the Welfare to Work contracts will be the largest investment in deprived communities. We should look for opportunities to maximise the impact of this investment and value providers who offer this approach. For example the Community Allowance approach creates “stepping stones” jobs as part of a training and support package. All these jobs are created within community organisations, providing valuable work expereince and income for the individual but also maximising the benefit to the local community – creating new services and improving the local environment – making an important contribution to the Big Society. We estimate that for every £1 invested in this approach over £10 worth of social capital is produced. This approach is simple but very cost effective.
We need a decently funded adult careers service or better still an integrated one as soon as possible so that young people and adults are given impartial, objective and independent advice and guidance about their options and choices and support towards enduring and sustainable employment. Leaving it all to the private sector as the first poster says is a total mistake, when has the private sector ever replaced hundreds of thousands of jobs to replace the ones being lost in the state sector from local authorities and statutory organisations. Also the jobcentreplus.gov.uk website was a far more effective tool for job seeking than the current dwp one; the parameters for searching for jobs are too vague and confusing and not specific enough – let’s go back to how it was as Advisers I have spoken to don’t think the dwp site is at all useful in this respect.
Please don’t go down the privatisation route blindly thinking it will be cheaper. The NHS did this with its cleaning contract, and how much has it ended up costing with the huge rise in MRSA and C-diff infections? False economy is no economy at all. Short term gains almost always cause long-term pains! If DWP did away with focus groups, LEAN academies, most Projects and every consultant they could make huge savings. It’s all very well promising to protect the most vulnerable in our society, but a private company that needs to make a profit to stay in business will not be able to do this. Have a look at how many Providers for ESA customers went broke last year if you want a true picture of how the private sector copes with ‘vulnerable’ people.
There are some promising, ‘big ideas’ around welfare to work and skills services that have 3 main, common themes, namely; simplification, empowerment and personalization. In active harmony with aspirations to work towards a universal benefit (credit) and simplification of the benefits system, individual ’skills accounts’ might work well in correspondence with individual ‘employability’ accounts. Together, these would offer individuals (and potentially families), both pre and post employment, to choose their mainstream Work Programme provision and any particular specialist or local support. Choice tends to offer better motivation through a sense of ‘ownership’. Framework holders could offer the ‘menu’ to customers directly or via their subs. The challenge would be to pull so many govt. departments and systems/mechanisms together (navigating both politics and logistics) but it really would be a dream come true if, with JCP advisor and/or case worker support, individuals could universally develop their own route ways towards sustainable employment and select the elements of their own training, skills development, addressing barriers etc. This happens already on a smaller scale, in localised scenarios, within some existing programmes e.g. i2i Coaching Academy.
Under a scaled-up Work Programme, can we create frameworks, that are allowed to cut through the miasma of processes and vested interests, which so often confuse JCP advisors, deliverers and individuals, to turn these ‘big ideas’ of simplification, empowerment and personalization into reality?
We don’t want less of the quality specialised and localised support available (incl. 3rd sector), but we do want a simplified process for individuals (and families) to be able to clearly identify their options and access them (and in real time). Maybe then we’ll get better co ordination of provision within Work Programme frameworks and stronger tendencies to options involving integrated employment and skills services.
1) Programmes for seriously disabled people are currently administered by Office for Disability Issues (Project Search), DWP (Work Choice and possibly some elements of the proposed Work Programme) and Department for Health (Valuing Emplloyment Now). Why are there 3 different government agencies involved? Given the proposals for Right To Control, Individual Budgets etc would they not be better administered under one controlling body, also the expertise required to deliver these programmes would be better utilised if it was all sited in one umbrella organisation. Why do Cabinet Office also seem to interfere to the level they do – in recent years they seem to have taken the lead on developing initiatives because they don’t trust departments to deliver, in reality they add another tier of beurocracy. If a department doesn’t deliver they shouldn’t they be held to account?