The Choice of Pilot Areas
13. The twenty-four Benefits Agency areas involved
in the ONE pilot are shown in Table 1. Twelve are action areas
where the ONE Service will be piloted and twelve are control areas.
Table 1: ONE pilot areas
BASIC MODEL
|
ACTION AREAS
|
CONTROL AREAS
|
Essex South East |
Surrey |
Warwickshire |
Wiltshire
|
Clyde Coast and Renfrew
|
Tayside |
Lea Roding |
Greater Manchester Pennine
|
PRIVATE AND VOLUNTARY SECTOR VARIANT
|
ACTION AREAS
|
CONTROL AREAS
|
Suffolk |
Dorset
|
North Nottinghamshire
|
North Staffordshire
|
Leeds |
Northumbria
|
North Cheshire |
Wolverhampton
|
CALL CENTRE VARIANT
|
ACTION AREAS
|
CONTROL AREAS
|
Somerset |
West Sussex
|
Buckinghamshire |
Cambridgeshire |
Gwent Borders |
Norwich
|
Calderdale and Kirklees
|
Hull |
Source: Ev. p. 13.
These areas were chosen to meet a number of criteria.
They have a sufficient number and range of clients to allow for
meaningful evaluation, a range of labour market types and good
joint working arrangements between local authorities, the Employment
Service and the Benefits Agency. Areas which were operating "competing"
pilot schemes which might influence the local labour flows were
excluded from the scheme. Because the pilot areas are based on
Benefits Agency boundaries, most of the pilot areas include all
or part of several ES districts and local authority areas. For
example, the Suffolk area contains nine local authorities and
the Somerset area contains three ES districts.[17]
14. Benefits Agency Districts are categorised into
six geographical types: London Areas, Northern City, Medium Sized
City Area I, Medium Sized City Area II, Older Home Owning Areas
and Rural Areas. This classification is based on the percentage
of the population aged 18-24, the percentage of households with
dependent children, the percentage of residents from the New Commonwealth,
the percentage of owner occupied dwellings and the percentage
of the population aged over pension age. Neither of the first
two categories, London Areas and Northern City, are represented
in the pilot or control areas.[18]
Of the 50 local authorities covered by the pilot areas, only nine
feature in the list of the 100 most deprived local authority areas
and only three (Waltham Forest, Barking and Dagenham and Leeds)
contain areas of severe deprivation.[19]
15. Mr Lee Brown of the ONE Project Team told us
that although none of the pilot areas were classified as London
Areas, some of them shared some characteristics with London Areas,
such as high staff turnover in the agencies involved and large
ethnic minority populations.[20]
He also suggested that areas of high deprivation tended to attract
Government pilot schemes and many of them had been excluded on
the ground that other schemes might interfere with the evaluation
of ONE.[21]
The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities
thought that the pilot areas chosen were "pretty representative"
of the varying conditions that could be seen in different parts
of the country.[22]
16. While we recognise the need to eliminate confounding
factors in the choice of pilot areas, this must be balanced against
the need to provide a sample of areas which are representative
of the different conditions prevailing in different parts of the
country. Although there are pockets of deprivation in some of
the pilot areas, we are concerned that areas such as the inner
cities of Birmingham, London and Manchester have not been included
in the pilots. These areas display high levels of unemployment,
economic inactivity and deprivation, as well as the challenges
associated with a diverse ethnic population, high levels of homelessness
and high refugee populations. We were told by officials that,
when the selection criteria were considered together, a number
of areas were chosen where relationships between the various partners
were "not fully formed", but we have reservations about
the use of good working relationships between the different agencies
as a selection criterion.[23]
The danger is that the areas selected will be the ones in which
there are prima facie reasons for supposing that ONE
is likely to be a success. We understand the reasons why the
present pilot areas were chosen, but the Government will need
to bear in mind during the evaluation the fact that the pilot
areas are not fully representative of the country as a whole.
In particular, when ONE is implemented nationally, it will need
to work in areas of high deprivation, areas where working relationships
between the ES, BA and local authorities are not as well-developed
as they might be, and areas where competing Government projects
are operating. We recommend that, even at this late stage,
the Government should give consideration to adding a pilot area
which covers a predominantly London Area or Northern City geographical
type.
Impact on Core Services
17. The Government is to conduct an impact analysis
of ONE on Employment Service core business in the basic model
pilot areas. Assessing any impact (especially any negative impact)
is obviously important, but it is also essential to recognise
that the interaction of ONE with the core business of the ES will
be a key determinant of the success of the Service. The objectives
for ONE at a local level are:
(a) to increase access
to the labour market for benefit recipients;
(b) to improve the service
to people of working age entering the benefits system;
(c) to develop a culture
based on supporting independence and work;
(d) to maintain the security
and integrity of the benefits system; and
(e) to provide value
for money for the taxpayer.[24]
Of these objectives, two are concerned with improving
the employment opportunities of clients and the other three are
concerned with improving the administration of the claim procedure.
Ministers told us that speed and accuracy in the payment of benefits,
the rate of movement into jobs, client satisfaction and cost effectiveness
would be the key measures which would determine the success or
failure of ONE.[25] Improving
the quality of the administration of the claims process is an
objective which is largely dependent on internal factors. However,
moving people into sustainable employment is dependent on factors
which are external to the ONE service and more difficult to control.
Under these circumstances it is important to ensure that administrative
reform does not take precedence over the need to enhance individuals'
employability.
18. Developing an understanding of the strengths
of clients and the barriers they face in obtaining employment
is only one of many factors involved in improving their rate of
movement into sustainable employment. Focusing on the needs of
clients in isolation will only have a limited impact, as placing
clients into sustainable employment will also depend on the ability
of the ES to develop and maintain better relationships with employers,
by increasing the quality of the service provided and instituting
more effective marketing. Keith Faulkner of Manpower plc told
the Employment Sub-committee during its recent inquiry into the
performance and future role of the Employment Service that the
ES had been largely reactive in its approach to marketing its
services to employers.[26]
Furthermore, there remains a perception among employers that the
ES only deals with vacancies at the lower end of the market, which
has the effect of "ghettoising" its clients.[27]
Services to clients and employers need to develop in tandem if
the objective of increasing the rate of movement into sustainable
employment is to be met. We recommend that the Government should
publish its strategy for developing relationships with employers
and improving the range and quality of vacancies, particularly
in the context of the new client groups being targeted by ONE.
1 Ev. p. 1. Back
2 A
New Contract for Welfare: The Gateway to Work,
Cm 4102, DfEE & DSS, October 1998. Back
3 Cm
4102, p. 7. Back
4 Ev.
p. 1. Back
5 Ibid. Back
6 For
details of the pilots, see paragraphs 6 to 16. Back
7 Angela
Eagle, Q. 256. Back
8 First
Report of the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1998-99,
HC163, Active Labour Market Policies and their Delivery, Lessons
from Australia. Back
9 Published
as HC412-i to HC412-v, and reprinted in this Volume. Back
10 Presentations
in the seminar were given by Mr John Atkinson of the Institute
for Employment Studies, University of Sussex; Mr Lee Brown, Head
of the ES Single Work-focused Gateway Working Group; Mr Michael
O'Higgins, Director of PA Consulting and Professor Robert Walker,
Director of the Social Security Unit and the Centre for Research
in Social Policy, Loughborough University. In Sheffield, we also
met Professor Steve Fothergill of Sheffield Hallam University
and Dr Roy Sainsbury of the Social Policy Research Unit, York
University. Back
11 The
working title for this stage, as it was mostly referred to in
the evidence, was "registration and orientation", or
"R&O". Back
12 For
a more detailed description of the start-up meeting and the adviser
meeting, see Ev. pp. 3-4. Back
13 Welfare
Reform and Pensions Bill [HL Bill 62], clause 52. Back
14 Both
variants are described in more detail in Ev. pp. 5-7. Back
15 A
New Contract for Welfare: The Gateway to Work,
Cm 4102, DfEE & DSS, October 1998, p. 1. Back
16 Q.
229: "The cost is something like £60,000 a month. We
anticipate the equivalent of up to four months' work". Back
17 Ev.
pp. 17-18. Back
18
Ev. pp. 13-14. Back
19
Index of Deprivation, Regeneration Research Summaries No. 15,
1998. Back
20
QQ. 63-64. Back
21
Ibid. Back
22
Q. 248. Back
23
Q. 64. Back
24
Ev. p. 2. Back
25
Q. 241. Back
26
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Employment Sub-committee,
4th February 1999, Q. 152. Back
27
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Employment Sub-committee,
4th March 1999, QQ. 324 & Q333. Back