House of Commons - Management and Administration of Contracted Employment Programmes

Management and Administration of Contracted Employment Programmes - Work and Pensions Committee Contents

3 Customer Service

56. Much of the evidence we received during this inquiry stressed the importance of good customer service. Many submissions stressed that delivering good customer service made good business sense for providers, and that monitoring customer feedback would help them improve their service. We also received a lot of evidence about the role the Department should play in helping providers to improve their customer service.

Customer Charter

57. In our inquiry into Contract Commissioning One Parent Families/Gingerbread told us that:

All claimants who are referred to a Flexible New Deal provider should be provided a statement of what they can expect from the provision, the way in which the provider is being funded to deliver the service (ie that the provider receives payment for helping them to access sustained employment), and details of how they can complain to this ombudsman if they feel that the service does not meet their expectations.[60]

58. In that inquiry we recommended that:

DWP introduces a customer charter which clearly outlines what is expected of customers and what they can expect in return.[61]

59. The Department replied that they were drawing up a DWP wide Customer Charter,[62] which they have now completed. Evidence to this inquiry was mixed. The Association of Learning Providers said that

There is nothing inherently wrong with the [DWP] Customer Charter, which sets out some clear basic rights and responsibilities. It is clear, simple and easy to understand, and the principles it espouses are applicable to DWP, JCP and its contractor base. Any customer will be able to clearly understand the basics about what they can expect from DWP (and its associates) and also what is expected of them. However posters on a wall do not of themselves facilitate positive behaviours..[63]

60. Reed in Partnership welcomed the DWP Customer Charter, noting that it had had one for 5 years but cautioned that:

the DWP Customer Charter should balance the fact that some customers, especially those on mandatory programmes, do not want to take part in activities. We therefore have to ensure that the Customer Charter and any associated complaints procedure does not allow people to 'play' the system in terms of delaying their active engagement in training programmes or the Mandatory Work Related Activity element of Flexible New Deal.[64]

KNOWING YOUR ENTITLEMENT

61. Several submissions said customers needed information on what they could expect from providers when they started an employment programme. RNIB said that customers would need guidance on what a quality service looked like, so they know when to complain or exercise any right to change providers.[65] This would particularly apply to those who are disabled or furthest from the labour market, who might be offered a limited service by providers who thought they were unlikely to find work. The National Autistic Society thought that more needed to be done to make people aware of the different types of support available.[66]

62. PCS believed this could be done through the customer charter:

[...] we believe the customer charter proposed by DWP lacks information about individual entitlements to services and the document is too vague to offer clients a sufficient understanding of their rights. The charter should clearly set out the minimum service standards clients are entitled to receive.[67]

63. However in oral evidence BASE told us that this model would not work for supported employment:

[...] supported employment is very, very personalised […]. You cannot really have a list of everything that you might be entitled to otherwise we get into this ticking off: 'I have had that. No, I have not had that. When is that coming?' The individual development plan or action plan is much more relevant.[68]

64. Mr Lester, Vice Chair, ERSA and Director of Operations, The Papworth Trust, speaking on behalf of the Papworth Trust said that providers were already doing a lot to inform customers about what to expect:

[...] pretty much all of us do what we can to communicate with customers when they come to the door about what they might expect. It comes in different guises so sometimes providers produce a leaflet, some produce a brochure, some ask us to do it but we try to make it as clear as possible to people what they might expect and what they need to do. [69]

65. However on our visit to Glasgow we met with customers from several different providers. A number were being offered very limited help, only "job search" and/or only group work with no individual help. Most had been given no guidance from Jobcentre Plus about what they might expect from the provider before they started. Many were surprised to hear of the level and range of help and training that customers with other providers were getting. They had not been aware that such things were on offer, and so had not been aware that they were getting a poor service.

66. We received strong evidence that customers need more information about what help and support they can expect from providers. We recognise that there could be a tension between this and the "black box" approach. However, in Glasgow we met clients who were receiving very little help, and who had no idea that personalised help and training were options. Jobcentre Plus staff should have a role in monitoring provision, and talking to customers about what help and training they have been offered. The customer could then challenge the provider if they felt they were missing out.

ERSA CUSTOMER CHARTER

67. The Department worked with ERSA to develop a Customer Charter for contracted employment programmes which will sit underneath the wider DWP Customer Charter. The Charter was published after the deadline for the submission of written evidence to this inquiry, but before we took oral evidence.

68. ERSA told the Committee that it had worked "very closely" with the Department to draft the Charter;[70] ERSA members had undertaken focus group work with their customers and this was fed into the Charter.[71] BASE told us that it had not been involved in drafting the charter but that it "would support all those sentiments" expressed in it. [72]

69. ERSA went on to explain that the Charter was voluntary, but was open to all providers, whether they were members of ERSA or not. Mr Murdoch, Chair, ERSA and Executive Director, A4e; speaking on behalf of ERSA went on to say:

It is not enforceable at this stage in relation to a framework such as Ofsted. The next step is for us working with DWP and Jobcentre Plus providers to look at that kite mark and how we follow up to make sure that we can be certain of those minimum standards.[73]

70. In oral evidence, the Minister said that the Department would not have asked the industry to draw up a customer charter from scratch, but that ERSA had based their charter on the Department's one. When he was asked about it being unenforceable he said :

It is a helpful standard that we are putting down, that there is an encouragement on first providers to sign up to it. I think there is an encouragement from the industry to want to be able to use it alongside some of the other things that we do.[74]

He added that Merlin bespoke accreditation based standard and the Code of Conduct also had a role in driving up standards for customers (these deal primarily with the relations between prime contractors and sub contractors and are discussed in chapter 5).

71. The ERSA Charter is currently voluntary and unenforceable. Customer rights need a much higher status than this. It is also important that customer rights are enshrined right from the start of contracts. We regret the fact that the Department seems to be adding in customer rights as an afterthought. We call on the Department to introduce a compulsory, monitored and enforceable Customer Charter as soon as possible. This should be based on the ERSA charter and contain details of how customers can complain.

Poor service and complaints

72. During our inquiry we heard several accounts of the poor service that some customers are receiving from providers. Problems that customers can experience were highlighted in a Manchester Evening News article from March 2008 which reported:

Job hunters say up to 200 of them are crammed into [A4e's] premises in Minshull Street, Manchester, where they have two computers, and no telephone access, for job searching and just one toilet each for men and women. They have presented photo evidence claiming to show that many have to stand through training sessions due to lack of classroom space and that there are poor standards of cleanliness.

[…] Many said they were scared to speak out for fear of having their benefits cut but more than 60 people signed a petition documenting problems including overcrowding, blocked fire exits, poor ventilation and "filthy" toilets. It was shown to A4e and DWP representatives.

73. The Shaw Trust drew attention to providers claiming "zero hour contracts" (where a contract of employment does not guarantee a minimum number of hours per week) as job outcomes. It said that:

We acknowledge that there may be some circumstances—particularly within certain industries—where such contracts are preferable to a client not being offered a job at all. However, we strongly believe that this is unacceptable as a standard outcome under normal circumstances, and we regret to see this practice being used widely by some providers.[75]

74. The "Benefit Busters" documentary also drew attention to this issue.[76] Customers in the programme were dissatisfied with A4e staff offering them short-term and zero hour contracts, often through agencies, rather than focusing on helping them to find sustainable employment. However, in oral evidence Mr Mudoch told us:

I do not think they [zero hour contracts] have a place within these contracts. I believe that temporary work sometimes is an important stepping stone in relation to sustained jobs but at no stage should zero hour contracts be part of that programme. We are aware that many employers are moving to zero hour contracts but it is important as an industry that we work with employers to make sure that is not the kind of work we are looking for.[77]

75. As already discussed, on our visit to Glasgow, we met a number of customers who were receiving a minimal service which did not meet their needs. Customers also told us that provider staff could be very patronising. Very basic advice about time-keeping and appropriate dress for work was being given to highly qualified people who had worked their whole lives and who found it insulting. One customer commented that he was "treated like an infant". The customers we met did not have the right to change provider. Very few of the customers we met in Glasgow knew how to complain, and there was little enthusiasm for doing so.

76. In oral evidence with the Minister, we raised some of the complaints we had heard. The Minister told us that he had been "hugely impressed" with the FND facilities he had visited, but was interested in hearing if they were not of the same quality everywhere.[78] He also said that zero hour contracts were not eligible for outcome payments.[79] However in supplementary evidence the Department clarified that as long as the employer provided the necessary paperwork a zero hours contract could count as a job outcome. Depending on the programme the employer would have to state that the job either had lasted, or was expected to last, 16 hours a week for 13 weeks (eight hours in the case of Pathways).[80]

77. The Minister said that customers in Glasgow could go through the three stage complaints procedure; complain to their provider, then Jobcentre Plus, then the Independent Case Examiner.[81] He said that choice was being introduced for customers joining programmes in some areas,[82] but he accepted that "for those that are already in the system, I would accept there may be some more difficulty, and that is where we need Jobcentre Plus to use its ongoing relationship with the customer to be able to pick up that dissatisfaction and be able to feed it back".[83] He said that work was on-going to ensure customers had a more consistent relationship with one Jobcentre Plus adviser which would enable them to raise such issues. [84]

78. We were disappointed to hear of a range of poor service experienced by customers. The evidence we heard was anecdotal and we have not had the opportunity to establish whether such problems are widespread. We do not doubt the commitment of most providers to customer service, but the Department and providers must work harder to ensure problems are dealt with promptly. Customers on many programmes have no right to change provider, making it particularly important that they are given a good service. We note that many of the customers we spoke to were reluctant to complain. The Department and providers need to be proactive in order to identify, even serious, problems.

79. Providers seem to agree that "zero hours" contracts should not have a place on employment programmes. However, such contracts are still eligible for outcome payments. This is unacceptable, and the Department should act quickly to ensure that "zero hours" contracts are not eligible for outcome payments.

Potential role of customers in contract management

80. We heard that customer feedback was far more than just complaints, and that it could be used both to improve the service for customers and to keep the Department informed. The Wise Group criticised the Department's work on customer satisfaction:

while customer feedback is provided to DWP (except for the Employment Zone), the current system encompasses only sporadic conversations with clients (beyond exit interviews, inevitably capturing only the views of those who 'stay the course'). Perhaps more revealing would be conversations with those who leave their programme early, particularly if their reason for doing so was related to quality of the provider.[85]

81. Reed in Partnership made the same points and noted that a focus on customer satisfaction could help the Department to monitor other problems:

greater use of customer satisfaction surveys and mystery shopping results could be useful mechanisms to benchmark performance, and reduce tendencies to 'cream'.[86]

82. Ingeus UK agreed, and thought the Department needed to do more work in this area:

DWP needs to strengthen its ability to ensure not only that public funds are protected and best value obtained but that all customers receive a good quality service. Research into customer satisfaction is a welcome step but further work is needed to see how the customer charter and a customer satisfaction metric can be used to drive quality improvements.[87]

83. A4e said that the Department's approach was wrong:

Current systems across contracted programmes are more focused on compliance rather than continual improvement and we believe it is to the benefit of future service quality that this balance is redressed. […] Systems across the board need to be more engaged with customers so that they have a real voice and impact on service quality measures. This is essential if employment services are to become service led treating service users as both experts and customers.[88]

84. In oral evidence it was put to the Minister that the Department's inspection processes involved little contact with customers. He responded that:

We do take customer experience very seriously and customer feedback is part of our contract management process. [...]We have to be clear and relatively simple in the way that we do this and the clarity and simplicity is that Ofsted or the others in the devolved areas are the people who inspect quality. I think it is right to put the principal relationship between customer and quality through the Ofsted process.[89]

85. Mr Cave, Delivery Director, Employment Group, DWP stressed the role of Jobcentre Plus in the contract management process. Customers on FND are still required to sign on every two weeks at the Jobcentre in addition to whatever activity they undertake with the provider. In addition, complaints which the provider cannot resolve are passed to Jobcentre Plus. Each district has a third party provision manager who will have "provider engagement meetings" with both the provider and the DWP Contract manager. Mr Cave said that this meeting was an "important forum for seeing whether there any systematic customer service issues".[90]

86. It is important that providers have a complaints system in place. However, they should also have mechanisms for customers to provide feedback and comments and the Department should check that this takes place. Such information will not be comparable year on year, or between providers, or with Jobcentre Plus. We recommend that the Department carry out and publish a "Customer Survey" for customers on contracted provision, as they do for their own customers, to provide rigorous comparable data.

87. Customers can also have an important role in letting the Department know what is going on on the ground. They may be able to identify instances of creaming and parking, or to identify the reasons for a provider's poor outcomes. We agree that one way to do this would be through customers' continuing relationship with Jobcentre Plus. However, Jobcentre Plus staff need to be advised to initiate these conversations with customers, and to be given the time to talk to customers. There also needs to be a mechanism for any problems to be fed back to both the provider and the Department.

Ombudsman

88. Our last report called for both an Ombudsman for sub-contractors and an Ombudsman for customers. We said:

As a last resort, customers should be able to take their complaints to an independent Ombudsman who would be responsible for independently resolving such disputes and for reviewing the delivery of the customer charter.[91]

89. In the Department's response to that report it said that:

Where local resolution does not prove possible, a complaint can be escalated. If a customer remains dissatisfied after having exhausted the Department's complaints processes, they can ask the Department's independent complaints reviewer, the Independent Case Examiner, to investigate. All DWP customers, including those who are attending contracted provision, are already able to take their complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) for investigation.[92]

90. In oral evidence Mr Davies from BASE said that "personally I would like to see some sort of Ombudsman for customers of back to work services".[93] Mr Murdoch said that there needed to "be clear response to customer complaints"and that an Ombudsman was one way to do that. [94]

91. The Minister however was reluctant to set up an Ombudsman:

I am not brimming with enthusiasm for another Ombudsman to be established with all of the associated costs. In fact, someone might accuse me of setting up a new quango, and God forbid that that accusation would ever be made. We have an independent complaints examiner, so in many ways some of the functions that you would want to be performed by an Ombudsman are already there[95]

92. Customers on programmes need to know how to complain about the service they receive. They need to be able to lodge formal complaints which receive a response and to escalate that complaint to the Department if it is not resolved satisfactorily. We are not yet convinced of the need to set up an Ombudsman, but the Department should keep this under review.

Ofsted

93. Ofsted in England, Estyn in Wales and (from January 2010) Her Majesty's Inspector of Education in Scotland, inspect providers. Ofsted has previously inspected Employment Zones, a contracted employment programme. We heard that Ofsted might only choose to inspect prime contractors every four years, and that that inspection might only look at one sub-contractor. This would provide very limited oversight. In oral evidence the Department confirmed that Ofsted would inspect sub-contractors.[96]

94. Ofsted have published a consultation paper on the inspection of contracted employment programmes; it suggested an "early visit" within 12 months of the contract starting, a "survey visit" within two years but full inspections only every 4 years.[97] It was not clear what work would be done with sub-contractors. The consultation paper makes frequent reference to "learners" and "education", which may not be the appropriate language for many employment programmes. It goes on to say that:

Inspectors will focus on whether particular groups of participants are progressing into sustained employment and achieving as well as they should, including those whose circumstances make them vulnerable and those who are most ready to enter into sustained employment. We will specifically judge how well a provider fulfils its duties in terms of equality and diversity and the impact on participants' progression to employment and other achievements.[98]

95. In oral evidence Mr Davies from BASE told us that there were problems with the way Ofsted works:

there is a possible issue around Ofsted recently in terms of the generic duties that inspectors are increasingly being put into so that there is a wide range of provision that inspectors may have to go into and look at. There is an element here that if you employ specialists in that area you are more likely to get a better picture of what the provision is like.[99]

96. The Minister however told us that Ofsted was making use of specialist inspectors:

[Ofsted] have taken on quite a variety of different sorts of inspection work, and in each one of those, particularly as they merged with the adult learning inspectorate, you have different specialisms for groups of inspectors, who need to be able to develop beyond their generic expertise as inspection services in looking at education and training[100]

97. Mr Cave went on to say that the Department had a regular review process with all three inspection bodies, looking at their inspection methodology to ensure it was right for the Department programmes.[101]

98. We have received evidence that Ofsted has improved its inspection of providers over recent years. However employment programmes tend to rely far more heavily on the relationship between staff and customers than academic or vocational education. Motivation and self-esteem can be more important than what the customer has actually learnt. The Department needs to monitor closely that what Ofsted identifies as quality actually relates to sustained job outcomes.

99. We heard contradictory evidence about whether Ofsted was using specialist inspectors or moving to a more generic use of inspectors. Employment programmes are very different from much of the provision inspected by Ofsted and specialist inspectors should be used.

60 DWP's Commissioning Strategy and the Flexible New Deal, Second Report of the Session 2008-09 p 47 Back

61 DWP's Commissioning Strategy and the Flexible New Deal, Second Report of the Session 2008-09 p 48 Back

62 DWP's Commissioning Strategy and the Flexible New Deal: Government's response too the Committee's Second Report of the Session 2008-09 p 16 Back

63 Ev 77 Back

64 Ev 73 Back

65 Ev 43 Back

66 Ev 69 Back

67 Ev 56 Back

68 Q39 Back

69 Q38 Back

70 Mr Murdoch Q33 Back

71 Mr Murdoch Q34 Back