25 Apr 2007 : Column 1152W—continued
New Deal
Mr. Philip Hammond:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average cost per person moving into unsubsidised employment was of each New Deal programme in each year since 1997-98. [118799]
Mr. Jim Murphy:
The available information is in the following table.
| New Deal costs per person into unsubsidised employment |
| £ |
| | New Deal for Young People | New Deal 25 Plus | New Deal 50 Plus | New Deal for Lone Parents | New Deal for Disabled People | New Deal for Partners |
|
1997-98
|
7,742
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
1998-99
|
1,663
|
1,259
|
—
|
118
|
—
|
—
|
|
1999-00
|
2,240
|
2,316
|
—
|
285
|
—
|
—
|
|
2000-01
|
3,029
|
1,251
|
1,363
|
267
|
—
|
2,041
|
|
2001-02
|
2,822
|
4,006
|
2,415
|
152
|
1,990
|
3,030
|
|
2002-03
|
3,003
|
4,017
|
2,638
|
254
|
1,561
|
1,256
|
|
2003-04
|
3,449
|
4,510
|
1,780
|
260
|
1,485
|
1,494
|
|
2004-05
|
3,663
|
4,578
|
131
|
292
|
1,934
|
633
|
|
2005-06
|
2,852
|
4,197
|
53
|
367
|
1,557
|
467
|
25 Apr 2007 : Column 1153W
25 Apr 2007 : Column 1154W
Notes:
1. Employer subsidies are only paid through New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus. Costs for these programmes are calculated excluding employer subsidies and excluding those who have only gained subsidised employment through these New Deals.
2. Cost figures are calculated on latest confirmed spend figures to March 2006
and figures for people into unsubsidised employment through each New Deal
to March 2006.
3. The New Deal 50 plus cost figures up to 2002-03 include the DWP-funded ND50 plus employment credit. In 2003-04 this was replaced by the 50 plus element of the working tax credit, which is the responsibility of HMRC, so New Deal 50 plus costs reduced very significantly between 2002-03 and 2003-04.
4. Following agreement with HM Treasury in 2002/03, ringfences for New Deal were removed from New Deal. Administrative costs are excluded as it is no longer possible to identify the costs of administering the costs of each New Deal separately from the costs of other labour market activities.
5. Cost data includes start-up costs.
6. Following changes to the New Deal 25 plus programme in April 2001 when a mandatory intensive activity period was introduced, programme costs rose significantly resulting in an increase in the costs of helping people into work through the programme.
7. The costs of helping someone into work through New Deal for Lone Parents are lower as support provided to participants is primarily Adviser support and administrative costs are excluded from cost calculations.
8. Costs for voluntary programmes are also lower than the mandatory New Deals as a higher proportion of participants on voluntary programmes will be job ready without additional intervention.
9. Programme start dates are: New Deal for Young People: January 1998; New Deal 25 plus: July 1998; New Deal for Lone Parents: October 1998; New Deal for Partners: April 1999; New Deal 50 plus: April 2000; New Deal for Disabled People: July 2001.
10. Although New Deal for Young People started in January 1998, it only operated in pilot locations between January-March 1998, rolling out nationally from April 1998.
11. Average cost figures are rounded to the nearest pound.
Source:
DWP Departmental Reports 2004-2006, Jobcentre Plus Accounts 2005-06.
DWP Information Directorate.
|
New Deal for Disabled People: Copeland
Mr. Jamie Reed:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Copeland have participated in the new deal for disabled people since its launch. [133491]
Mr. Jim Murphy:
Information on the number of participants on new deal for disabled people is not available at constituency level.
Social Fund
John McDonnell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the latest performance statistics are for each office where Social Fund applications are processed. [130176]
Mr. Plaskitt:
The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, Lesley Strathie. I have asked her to provide my hon. Friend with the information requested.
Letter from Lesley Strathie, dated 24 April 2007:
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking what the latest performance statistics are for each office where Social Fund applications are processed. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.
The time it takes to process Social Fund applications is measured by counting the average length of time taken to clear all claims processed within a set period (usually monthly). The measure is referred to as the Average Actual Clearance Time.
The clearance time for an individual application is measured in whole working days from the date the application is received to the date the decision is taken (on whether to make an award or a loan offer), plus, if a loan offer is made, the number of whole working days between receiving the applicant's reply to the offer and the recording of that reply. The minimum clearance time recorded for an individual application is one day, even if the application is cleared immediately.
Applications are made for five elements of the Social Fund: Community Care Grants, Crisis Loans, Budgeting Loans, Sure Start Maternity Grants and Funeral Payments.
Community Care Grants—9 days,
Sure Start Maternity Grants—5 days,
However, applications for Crisis Loan living expenses must be cleared on the same day as the application is made.
The attached table shows the performance of each of the 42 operating units that are currently responsible for Social Fund applications. The data covers February 2007.
| Average actual clearance time for February 2007 |
| Social Fund operating unit | Community Care Grants | Crisis Loans | Budgeting Loans | Sure Start Maternity Grants | Funeral Payments |
|
Ayrshire, Dumfries, Galloway and Inverclyde
|
6.6
|
1.3
|
9.0
|
4.3
|
3.6
|
|
Bolton and Bury
|
3.2
|
1.2
|
1.5
|
1.6
|
7.3
|
|
Bradford
|
9.7
|
1.4
|
3.2
|
2.9
|
12.8
|
|
Bridgend, Rhondda, Cynon and Taff
|
4.4
|
1.1
|
1.7
|
6.0
|
13.3
|
|
Calderdale and Kirklees
|
10.1
|
1.3
|
3.4
|
7.8
|
17.4
|
|
Central London
|
5.5
|
1.7
|
3.3
|
5.7
|
16.5
|
|
Cheshire
|
5.0
|
1.1
|
2.0
|
4.3
|
11.7
|
|
City and East London
|
4.3
|
1.2
|
2.9
|
3.0
|
9.5
|
|
Cumbria
|
7.3
|
2.6
|
2.7
|
2.4
|
17.4
|
|
Dorset
|
4.3
|
1.1
|
4.5
|
3.2
|
14.3
|
25 Apr 2007 : Column 1155W
25 Apr 2007 : Column 1156W
|
Dudley and Sandwell
|
11.4
|
2.6
|
2.7
|
3.2
|
23.2
|
|
East Midlands North
|
6.4
|
1.2
|
8.1
|
9.0
|
14.9
|
|
Edinburgh, Lothian and Borders
|
5.4
|
1.8
|
1.5
|
4.1
|
8.5
|
|
Essex
|
13.7
|
1.7
|
4.2
|
2.9
|
12.8
|
|
Greater Liverpool
|
6.4
|
1.3
|
1.9
|
2.2
|
11.9
|
|
Greater Manchester and Lanes
|
15.6
|
2.7
|
4.5
|
4.7
|
14.8
|
|
Highland, Islands, Clyde Coast and Grampian
|
6.1
|
1.2
|
6.2
|
3.2
|
5.8
|
|
Lancashire West
|
5.6
|
1.3
|
2.9
|
2.8
|
14.4
|
|
Leeds
|
8.7
|
1.2
|
1.6
|
2.3
|
12.5
|
|
Llanelli Benefit Delivery Centre
|
6.0
|
1.5
|
1.9
|
2.9
|
10.7
|
|
London South
|
4.1
|
1.3
|
2.3
|
2.4
|
12.0
|
|
North East London
|
5.6
|
1.5
|
2.4
|
2.6
|
8.3
|
|
North London
|
6.6
|
1.9
|
3.0
|
2.9
|
7.3
|
|
Northumbria
|
3.1
|
1.1
|
1.8
|
2.2
|
6.4
|
|
Norwich Benefit Delivery Centre
|
18.2
|
1.7
|
4.1
|
6.6
|
12.0
|
|
Somerset
|
2.5
|
1.1
|
2.2
|
1.8
|
8.7
|
|
SE BOBS (Bucks, Oxfordshire, Berks and Surrey)
|
8.5
|
2.5
|
3.1
|
3.2
|
12.1
|
|
SE HIKYS (Hants, Kent and Sussex)
|
8.9
|
1.9
|
3.3
|
3.4
|
11.8
|
|
South East Midlands
|
12.8
|
2.2
|
8.8
|
6.5
|
22.6
|
|
South East Wales
|
10.5
|
1.3
|
3.0
|
6.4
|
15.0
|
|
South Tyne and Wear Valley
|
7.8
|
1.3
|
2.9
|
4.9
|
11.4
|
|
South West Central
|
7.4
|
1.4
|
1.6
|
1.6
|
8.0
|
|
Springburn Benefit Delivery Centre
|
7.6
|
1.2
|
3.4
|
2.6
|
8.4
|
|
Tees Valley
|
6.1
|
1.2
|
4.6
|
1.9
|
11.4
|
|
Wakefield
|
5.0
|
1.3
|
3.3
|
1.6
|
7.1
|
|
West London
|
4.4
|
1.3
|
2.5
|
2.3
|
6.4
|
|
West Midlands Social Fund
|
7.8
|
1.6
|
3.4
|
3.9
|
10.0
|
|
Wigan
|
3.8
|
1.2
|
1.6
|
1.4
|
7.9
|
|
Wiltshire
|
8.8
|
1.3
|
1.4
|
2.3
|
7.8
|
|
Wirral
|
7.0
|
1.1
|
2.3
|
3.1
|
9.5
|
|
Wolverhampton and Walsall
|
11.1
|
2.5
|
2.4
|
3.8
|
25.3
|
|
Yorkshire and the Humber Sheffield
|
5.7
|
1.4
|
2.1
|
3.3
|
11.6
|
Source:
DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System
|
