Memorandum submitted by the British Association
for Supported Employmant (BASE) (EP 16)
1. The British Association for Supported
Employment (BASE) is the national trade association representing
nearly 200 organisations that provide specialist supported
employment services to disabled jobseekers and employers. BASE
was formed in 2006 through the merger of the Association
for Supported Employment (AfSE) and the National Association of
Supported Employment (NASE) and represents both open placement
providers and supported businesses.
2. The customers that BASE members serve
are those considered to be furthest away from the labour market
and who require specialist support services to help them to find
and keep work. This includes people with learning disabilities,
autism, Asperger's syndrome, people with long term mental health
needs and people with severe physical and/or sensory impairments.
Although employment levels among these groups have increased slightly
over the last decade, they remain disappointingly low, with some
groups experiencing over 90%—95% unemployment.
3. BASE welcomes the opportunity to contribute
to the Select Committee's report into the management and administration
of contracted employment programmes. We have previously submitted
evidence around the DWP Commissioning Strategy (attached) and
will not repeat the views stated within it. We believe that much
of the content is applicable to this review.
4. BASE continues to have deep concerns
about the procurement and administration of employment programmes
for people with significant disabilities. The current tender exercise
for Work Choice, the new programme that will replace Workstep
and Work Preparation, has highlighted some of the difficulties
experienced by local specialist providers who should have a valuable
role to play within the delivery of specialist employment programmes.
5. It is clear to BASE that the current
procurement of specialist support for disabled jobseekers is more
about fitting into a rigid procurement process than meeting customer
needs. The original aim was to replace a programme that was seen
as not producing sufficient outcomes. BASE would dispute the original
premise given that it has been the only programme delivering its
targeted outcomes and within budget. Standards have increased
substantially since an inspection regime was introduced.
6. Some of our members are involved as subcontractors
in the delivery of Pathways to Work. In two contract areas, we
are aware of difficulties where the prime provider has not paid
the subcontractor since the start of the contract. One of these
subcontractors sought to challenge this by contacting DWP only
to be told that DWP does not speak to subcontractors. This seems
at odds with DWP's stated aim of "active stewardship"
within the market.
7. Many of our members have reported considerable
problems in relation to the tender exercise for Work Choice. Despite
assurances that the process would be made as streamlined as possible,
providers have found that they have had to be very active in contacting
shortlisted bidders and have had to complete a variety of information
templates for multiple bidders, often within unacceptably tight
timescales. We do not believe that DWP has been able to influence
the prime bidder sector sufficiently in this area.
8. BASE is very concerned that the procurement
strategy is resulting in reduced funding for direct provision.
We are aware of prime providers offering subcontracts with a 30%
management fee deduction. It has been difficult for subcontractors
to compare offers from different prime providers. The new Work
Choice programme anticipates a higher level of outcomes despite
reduced funding. This is compounded by the new contract management
costs being taken from delivery funding rather than DWP management
budgets. We believe that this will drive provision away from the
harder to help clients and could eventually result in a failure
within the subcontractor market.
9. It has been stated that Work Choice is
a programme for all people with disabilities where disability
is the primary barrier to employment. This appears to blur the
boundaries with the remit for the Pathways to Work programme.
Our understanding was that the new programme would focus on those
who need intensive or long term support that Pathways to Work
cannot meet. BASE is particularly interested in provision for
those people further from the labour market and we are very concerned
at the apparent lack of awareness of PSA16 amongst shortlisted
prime providers. An event in the south east of England found that
only one shortlisted prime provider knew what PSA16 was about.
Indeed, some said that they would refer such customers to local
authority provision. This is extremely worrying for a programme
whose primary focus should be to meet the needs of the PSA16 disability
groups. Indeed, DWP has just issued a note to prime providers
to remind them about PSA16. BASE is concerned that the shortlisted
prime providers do not fully understand the needs of the PSA16 customer
group and that their anticipated outcomes and costs may not be
wholly realistic. We have yet to see an adequate equality impact
assessment that identifies mitigating actions to address these
foreseeable dangers.
10. There appears to be little awareness
within across Government department of the range of initiatives
being taken forward at this time. BASE continues to reinforce
the need for alignment of Work Choice with the Valuing Employment
Now strategy and there seems to be little awareness of other initiatives
such as the Getting a Life pilots. Additionally, we believe that
more appropriate and in depth consultation with stakeholders during
the design of Work Choice would have alleviated some of these
issues. Some proposals such as changes to financial incentive
rules appear to have been made without any consultation and so
the implications have not been fully understood.
11. There is widespread scepticism about
the ability for the DWP Code of Conduct to be effectively applied.
BASE believes that it needs to be far more robust and be a legal
requirement within contracts. We are pleased that it is proposed
to have a means of independent arbitration. We are, however, still
concerned about how DWP can resolve contractual disputes and improve
communications with subcontractors.
October 2009
| 
