APPENDIX 2
Memorandum by Tomorrow's People
Private/voluntary sector model
Summary
This response is about the private/voluntary sector
model only.
- Ineligibility of organisations relying heavily
on public funding cuts out worthy lead bodies.
- Rationale for this decision needs to be made
clear.
- Single access point may have the important side-effects
of reducing the frustration of customers and subsequently the
anger, violence, resentment and unco-operativeness they sometimes
display; and improving the poor image customers have of the disparate
and often geographically far-flung agencies which are often seen
as "just another hoop to jump through".
- First Interview and the Registration and Orientation
timing needs to be more flexible to allow both to be done together
if appropriate.
- Continuity of the relationship between adviser
and customer may be lost if private/voluntary sector staff are
only looking after the Registration & Orientation and First
Interview stages.
- Evidence given in the Jobs For the Future study
in the United States shows that partnerships play a critical role
in work-based training and post-placement support. A partnership
approach should keep the initiative on track from the employer
as well as the customer point of view.
- Difficult to see how a lead private/voluntary
sector organisation can have control of outputs if they are not
given the brief of managing as well as organising and implementing
the initiative.
- Supplier Appraisal Questionnaire likely to prejudice
the chances of private organisations which may never have held
"key relevant Employment Service, Benefits Agency and other
Government Contracts" yet be highly effective and innovative
operators in the private sector.
- Hiving off just one section of customer help
and care is inappropriate. The same member of staff should be
able to follow a customer right through the process.
- Simply "getting people into work" does
not address the issue of sustainability.
- The objective: "to change the culture of
the benefits system and the general public towards independence
and work rather than payments and dependence" is, in our
view, a forward thinking and positive step in welfare reform.
- Well selected geographical coverage which will
allow evaluation of the effectiveness of the model in different
contexts.
- No indications in the Information Pack about
the quality standards the partnerships are expected to achieve
or whether quality will be externally monitored.
- No question relating to quality in the Supplier
Appraisal Questionnaire.
- Not enough operating time to be able to gain
any real insight into the effectiveness of the private/voluntary
sector models before planned national roll out.
- We believe that it is relevant to evaluate the
private/voluntary sector pilots to measure how much added value
this model gives over the basic model.
The following looks at the Single Work-Focused Gateway
pilots from the perspective of the private/voluntary sector model
only.
1. Criteria
1.1 By making voluntary sector organisations ineligible
to lead on a bid if they are, for the most part, underpinned by
public money, it removes from the competition many worthy organisations
with good track records in organising and implementing large employment
initiatives.
1.2 Voluntary organisations which know the business
enough to be able to complete a satisfactory SAQ are very likely
to earn the majority of their money via Government contracts.
1.3 The rationale for the decision to make them ineligible
to bid does not appear to have been explained. We believe the
reasons should be clearly given.
2. Design
2.1 It makes sense to have a single access point
for the whole range of benefits available to the unemployed person.
It is the intention that this will lead to better exchange of
information between the relevant agencies and a reduction in form
filling for the customers. We believe that this may have the important
side-effects of (a) reducing the frustration of customers and
subsequently the anger, violence, resentment and unco-operativeness
they sometimes display and b) improving the poor image customers
have of the disparate and often geographically far-flung agencies
which are often seen as "just another hoop to jump through".
2.2 It is not clear why it is not possible for the
First Interview and the Registration and Orientation to be done
together. For some people, it might be more appropriate for them
to spend the extra time doing the two things together, rather
than having to return for a second session.
2.3 While we understand that the Agency staff are
often dealing with large numbers of people and are therefore tightly
time bound, we believe that the needs of the customer would be
better satisfied, and motivation less likely to be lost, if there
were more flexibility at this stage.
2.4 Because the private/voluntary sector are only
to be involved at the Registration & Orientation and First
Interview stage, it would appear that continuity of the relationship
to be built between the customer and adviser will be lost—in
that the customer will be handed over to another adviser for any
subsequent care. We believe that continuity of adviser is a very
important aspect of good relationship building.
2.5 These two points (timing of sessions which are
based on the Agency's need to fit the caseloads into time slots
and the discontinuity of adviser) could lead customers to feel
that they are just one of a large number of people being "processed",
rather than a person with individual needs who is being helped
in the best way for them.
2.6 We believe that the partnership approach in the
design which seeks to build a wide partnership base, regardless
of which agencies are the main delivery partners, is a good one.
The evidence given in the Jobs For the Future study in the United
States shows that partnerships play a critical role in work-based
training and post-placement support. A partnership approach should
keep the initiative on track from the employer as well as the
customer point of view.
2.7 It is difficult to see how a lead private/voluntary
sector organisation can expect to have total control of outputs
if they are not given the brief of managing as well as organising
and implementing the initiative. As the funding is to be output
related, with penalties for under-performance, there are bound
to be issues around having to accept responsibility without control.
3. Selection
3.1 The selection process is relevant and thorough.
However, the Supplier Appraisal Questionnaire which filters organisations
at the front end of the selection process, is likely to prejudice
the chances of private organisations which may never have held
"key relevant Employment Service, Benefits Agency and other
Government Contracts" yet be highly effective and innovative
operators in the private sector.
3.2 This selection criterion presupposes, that it
is only those organisations which have dealt with Government employment
contracts before, that will be able to organise and implement
a Single Work-Focused Gateway contract. From an expediency point
of view, this may be the case, in that those who have held Government
employment contracts before will not need to learn the ropes.
But in the longer term, the pilots may be missing the management
input of "fresh blood" from dynamic and innovatory organisations.
4. Scope
4.1 We believe that to hive off just one section
of customer help and care is inappropriate and that the same member
of staff should be able to follow a customer right through the
process.
5. Objectives
5.1 The first bullet point on the list of objectives—"to
increase the sustainable level of employment by getting more benefit
recipients into work"—does not take into account the
fact that many employment Initiatives have managed to get people
into work but the customer has not stayed in the job. Simply "getting
people into work" does not address the issue of sustainability.
5.2 The last bullet point on the list of objectives—"to
change the culture of the benefits system and the general public
towards independence and work rather than payments and dependence'
is, in our view, a forward thinking and positive step in welfare
reform.
5.3 The spirit of the objective and the sensitivities
surrounding it are clearly shown in the highlighted through the
maxim: "Work for those who can, security for those who can't."
6. Coverage
6.1 The geographical coverage for the pilots appears
to have been well selected giving variety in terms of the demographic
profiles of the different areas and their relative unemployment
levels against the national average. This will allow evaluation
of the effectiveness of the model in different contexts.
7. Quality
7.1 There do not appear to be any indications in
the information Pack about the quality standards the partnerships
are expected to achieve or whether quality will be externally
monitored. Nor is there a question relating to quality in the
Supplier Appraisal Questionnaire so presumably private/voluntary
sector bidders are to be judged without reference to how they
will ensure quality of organisation and implementation.
8. Evaluation
8.1 Pilots targeting the private and voluntary sectors
do not commence until the end of November 1999, with a plan, if
successful, to roll out the Single Work-Focused Gateway model
across the country in April 2000.
8.2 Realistically, the evaluation of the November
1999 pilots will need to be completed by February 2000, at the
latest, in order to give enough time for the April 2000 roll-out
bidding and selection process to take place.
8.3 At the front end of the November pilots, it would
be unrealistic to expect them to be operating at full efficiency
from day one, especially given that they will be commencing just
three weeks before the Christmas break. Assuming that it will
be the beginning of the New Year—January 2000—before
they reach an optimum efficiency level, and assuming that evaluation
needs to be completed by the end of February 2000, that leaves
only an effective operating period of two months before evaluation
needs to be completed.
8.4 Two months is not enough operating time to be
able to gain any real insight into the effectiveness of the private/voluntary
sector models.
8.5 We believe that it is relevant to evaluate the
private/voluntary sector pilots to measure how much added value
this model gives over the basic model.
9. Timescale
9.1 The timescale for bidding appears to be appropriate,
with enough time to gather the necessary information and establish
the necessary partnerships.
9.2 However, the above (evaluation) needs to be taken
on board in terms of the intended third tranche—national
roll out in April 2000.
April 1999
| 
