Rolling out The Work Programme nationally in such a short space of time may pose a variety of challenges for providers, including financial, infrastructure and operational, for example information technology, management information and TUPE.
How can DWP support you to overcome implementation challenges?
Comments on this page are now closed.
Although a short lead in time is far from ideal, there are a couple of actions that DWP could take to support suppliers. Firstly, contracts need to be provided on time. Without a firm contract suppliers are unable to undertake much of the preparation that a complex programme requires with the inevitable consequence that delivery is delayed. Where DWP is responsible for a contract delay, targets should reflect this. Presently, suppliers can find that a three month target must be met only six weeks after a contract is provided.
Secondly, DWP needs to ensure that local statutory agencies are well briefed and well prepared for new work streams. To often Jobcentre Pluses (JCPs) do not have appropriate staff in place to ensure that outside suppliers can hit the ground running. In particular, eligibility criteria need to be applied consistently. Otherwise, significant time that could be spent helping people into employment is wasted determining whether they are eligible to be helped.
DWP would like to thank all users who posted comments on Implementation. 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 implementation 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. Whilst this programme is seen as the solution to getting people into jobs – there are fewer jobs available out there. Could volunteering be counted as part of the pathway?
2. Payment by results needs to be defined – what are the ‘results’;
3. The programme appears to be only for the BIG players – how can this be inclusive for the voluntary sector.
4. It appears that the SPV model is key if the voluntary sector wants to work on this level – how can shared outcomes be achieved without coordination (role for SPV).
5. If shared outcomes are the preferred way of working how can you ensure that if you do your bit well – the organisation you are handing over to will be equally good.
6. Who will take on the risk of getting the job outputs – there are less jobs to be found to move people into – cuts to public sector will impact on this and filter down.
7. The new programme is coming in too quick – the cancellation of previous contracts will mean that staff will be lost before the new Work Programme comes on line, how will continuity of provision be handled.
8. Linear models are not workable, doesn’t reflect what actually happens with clients.
9. Would want to see staged results and payments as a strictly payment by result system will not allow participation by voluntary sector organisations who would otherwise be able to make a major contribution to the programme.
10. Consortia working should be encouraged especially the use of SPVs if they want the voluntary sector to play a part in this programme and support should be paid for by the Primes to build skills of providers – preferably through specific workers.
11. Support to obtain financial backing ,not necessarily funding from the government but signposting to…[truncated by the system]
Whilst the timeframe is very tight, we strongly recommend that any delays created by DWP leads to a corresponding extension in the timeframe for provider responses/go live, as the alternative is that providers may be put on the back foot from the outset.
To limit the potential for this, DWP should not change the goalposts, once the specification has been issued. Instead any major changes should be managed via a robust change control procedure within the contracts.
DWP should satisfy themselves that Primes mirror the change control procedure within their subcontract terms and conditions.
DWP should lead by example on TUPE and make it clear whether in their view TUPE applies or not, as this will ensure Primes adopt a consistent approach to this very important matter. DWP should facilitate the earliest sharing of relevant TUPE related information and factor this in to their assessment of the suitability of every organisation who wishes to become an approved framework provider.
Penalties should be introduced for primes failing to fulfil their obligations to their subcontractors. This could include the threat of being removed from the preferred provider framework in the event of a complaint relating to a breach of the code of conduct being upheld. This issue also relates to the terms that primes received from DWP, as these need to be reasonable to enable primes to offer reasonable terms to their subcontractors
At a Worklessness Providers’ meeting in Kirklees this morning, one of the main concerns was about the time lag between achievement of outcomes and payment. If the idea is that prime contractors sub-contract delivery to smaller organisations, how can they sustain activity with such a long gap between delivery and payment? This is definitely a draw back in engaging with the voluntary and community sector deliverers. We hear all the time that these locally-based organisations, like ours, who work with people who are furthest away from the labour market, are good at engagement and that the larger organisations need us to help them deliver outputs, yet the systems mitigate against us being involved in the process. Until this is addressed, we, as a society, will never tackle the culture of worklessness in deprived sections of the community.
Mary Conroy, Inroads Manager, SHAP
Many of the issues of implementation will be addressed if there is a starting assumption that TUPE will apply in the transition to the Work Programme, which is standard procedure for other state agencies when procuring services. DWP should require existing providers to publish anonymous lists of staff for inclusion in the tender documents to ensure bids can be accurate. This is all the more important given the tight procurement timetable as staff disagreements will put delivery at risk.
Referring to the transition of the various employment programmes to the single Work Programme, the process for clients must be good with the aim of a seamless approach. Our experience of Work Choice has so far been positive with upfront client engagement at the heart of the approach.
For providers, this will mean realistic start up targets and conversion rates. We recognise there will be a lot of learning and data collection in the early stages is essential, the cost of which will need to be recovered within the fee structure. We would encourage DWP to implement a soft start approach.
Providers would also need to clarity on what happens to existing employment programmes and to existing clients? For example, if a provider wins the contract to deliver the Work Programme in a location where they are currently delivering Flexible New Deal, can that provider assume they will continue working with existing clients at that office?
My concern relates to the timescale and opportunities for new contractors/consortia to enter the delivery chain now that the framework agreement opportunities are closed. When is the next opportunity for a newly developed consortia to access bidding opportunities? What arrangements are being made to encourage new consortia to grow and merge into prime contractors? How have these opportunities been publicised – particularly in light of the constant change to commissioning structures and uncertainty around funding streams?
What about areas where delivery is weak or there are gaps in the provision of information / infrastructure to enable opportunities to deliver support to be advertised, and consortia to come together?
As the Work Programme is a new initiative, would DWP consider a rolling programme of procurement, enabling new entrants to the market? This would enable gaps in provision to be filled, competition to be enhanced thus driving up innovation and quality, and the market to be driven by organic growth and change to adapt to constantly changing labour market conditions.
GMCVO hosts / supports consortia of relatively very small voluntary and community organisations. Our “learning consortium” has been working with targeted groups of people furthest from employment through a Learning and Skills Council contract; independent evaluation has demonstrated very high success in bringing closer to training or employment people whom nobody else has been able to reach. Under current rules prime contractors cannot contract with consortia. This will exclude the majority of those groups who are best placed to do the work, as they lack the capacity to enter contracts in their own right, and prime contractors cannot afford to run hundreds of tiny contracts. We need DWP to a) alter the rule to enable contracting with consortia and b) actively to promote consortium working as a way of getting those small groups involved.
Local initiaitves have always worked best and this is mostly overlooked in the prime contracting process where the large organisations are being asked to identify their VCS partners and/or sub-contractors. However many of the small organisations contributing to the process are often left out when the work begins. I think the challenge for the new work programme is to look closely at finding local agencies offering support and particularly those already working with unemployed and disadvantaged groups in other ways. They have structures and staff in place and with an extra expert could easily offer job coaching services with real local knowledge and understanding. We don’t need these huge depots of people looking glumly at computer screens in their supposed ‘job search’ activities. Just pop down to your local community or neighbourhood office or resource centre and there will be someone there to offer targeted and focused supoort based on individual needs and goals. Simple – compare the market.com!
I am very concerned that the current ND Phase 2 areas will have run down before the new Work Programme can be fully implemented. ND Phase 2 area contracts have been extened to December 2010, which means (we assume)that all customers will end their provision by March 11. The provider infrastructure will be practically destroyed by March 11 as staff will have to be made redundant before the introduction of the Work Programme, due to no starts on ND after Dec 10. Therefore there will be very few staff to transfer to the new prime. This is a great concern as the staff are fully qualified and experienced to deliver the new programmes, however the current primes will not be able to afford to retain a whole work force with little income from ND between January – March 11.
My suggestion would be to extend ND phase 2 area contracts to March 11, to include starts and with a run down contract to June 11. This would then hopefully fall in line with the introduction of the new programes from April 11.
We have been informed that our ND contract will be extened to December 10 and there has been no mention of a run down contract, therefore we are still unsure when starts will cease.
I hope that we will be one of the delivery partners for the Work Programme and as such are keen to ensure that staff can be retained in order to implement the Work Programme as soon as possible. Afterall these staff will have the best local knowledge and experience to ensure a smooth transition, won’t they?
I think there are a potential number of contentious areas here but the biggest one is TUPE. A law designed to protect the rights of workers when a business is being transferred but which has been abused both deliberately and through ignorance to the point where the whole spirit of what it was designed to protect is perverted. This is especially prevalent within the welfare to work industry where some Primes have used it as a means to parachute into an area with no intention of investing in an infrastructure and the assumption that they will just take over an existing one. Then time and time again Primes are scrabbling around at the last minute setting up offices that don’t exist until three months after contract started, operating in the meantime in some of the shabbiest locations with a staff learner ratio that should be illegal, whilst only letting DWP see their showhomes and issuing their subcontractors with either silence or procedural changes on a daily basis.
Providers must be able to demonstrate that they have suitable premises and staffing AND procedural control systems in place. They must not be allowed to rely on TUPE alone to fulfil their staffing and accommodation needs and it would also be useful if DWP actively promoted to the supply chain where individual employees affected by TUPE could receive impartial advice. I have been on the receiving end of an employee who was TUPE transferred in to my subcontract by a Prime and she was given inconsistent and illegal advice by her former employee (transfer or we will sack you) and no proper due diligence was conducted by Prime.