3 The role of JCP in the Work Programme
47. This chapter considers the relationship between
JCP staff and Work Programme advisers and whether effective processes
are in place to ensure a smooth handover of jobseekers, including
whether sufficient and accurate information about the jobseeker
is passed on to Work Programme providers. We also consider the
relationship in the context of the processes for the application
of conditionality and sanctions, which are intended to promote
participants' effective engagement with the Work Programme.
The aspiration towards "warm
handovers"
48. JCP manages the handover of claimants to
the Work Programme. All jobseekers will have been supported by
JCP in the early months of their unemployment benefit claim. All
will have signed up to a Jobseeker's Agreement, in which the claimant
agrees to undertake particular job-searching activities and attend
mandatory "work-focused interviews". Work Programme
participants continue to receive out-of-work benefits as long
as they meet the conditions of their Jobseeker's Agreement, and
usually continue to report to JCP to "sign on", typically
every two weeks. All other contact related to employment support
is with the Work Programme provider for the duration of the two-year
attachment period.[36]
49. The initial report of the official DWP evaluation
of the Work Programme highlights the aspiration set out in most
Work Programme contracts for "warm handovers" of jobseekers
from JCP to Work Programme providers. These would typically involve
a three-way meeting between the JCP adviser, Work Programme adviser
and the participant. The aim of warm handovers is to ensure that
information about the participant's specific needs and barriers
to work are effectively communicated to the Work Programme provider
and that the participant understands why they are being referred,
what they can expect from the programme and what is expected of
them in return.[37]
50. Professor Sainsbury, co-author of the evaluation
report, highlighted evidence from the evaluation that warm handovers
did not appear to be commonplace. A key issue which may impact
on effective handovers is the quality of working relationships
between JCP and Work Programme staff. One JCP manager told the
evaluation team that "there has always been a level of hostility
from Jobcentre Plus staff towards private providers".[38]
Professor Sainsbury explained in oral evidence why some JCP staff
may have a hostile attitude towards the Work Programme:
They see it as a threat to their jobs and their livelihoods.
They do not trust it and they do not think that the Work Programme
providers are going to do as good a job as they did. That is another
reason why they do not sell it—"Why should I sit here
in my Jobcentre office selling an organisation, pumping them up,
when they are effectively the people that could do me out of a
job in future?"[39]
The evaluation report noted variable quality in relationships
between JCP and Work Programme staff; there was evidence of close
relationships in some localities but in others Work Programme
advisers had not even been able to establish telephone contact
with their local JCP as they had not been given a direct telephone
number.[40]
51. Providers painted a picture of improving
relationships with JCP. Sean Williams of G4S told us that warm
handovers occurred for the majority of jobseekers referred to
its Work Programme provision, although there were variations between
CPAs.[41] Rehab Group
aimed to ensure that all ESA claimants received a warm handover.
One of its supply chain partners had decided to co-locate with
a local JCP for one day per week, so that warm handovers for ESA
claimants could take place at the Jobcentre.[42]
Warm handovers were more problematic for Shaw Trust and CDG, which
operates in east London, due to the volume of participants in
their area and logistical difficulties within local JCP offices.
It was piloting different approaches, such as locating JCP staff
in its own Lewisham office and appointing outreach advisers to
liaise with JCP about harder-to-help clients.[43]
52. The Minister assured us that improving JCP/Work
Programme relationships was a priority for DWP. As well as encouraging
warm handovers, DWP was also promoting the co-location of offices.
He believed that JCP staff "now see the merits of a very
strong relationship with Work Programme providers."[44]
We gained a similar impression from our visit to Brent, in which
JCP staff and providers told us of a problematic relationship
in the early days of the Work Programme but reported recent improvements.
JCP staff had initially seen referring claimants to the Work Programme
as a failure, which was a source of competitive tension and some
hostility, but there was a growing understanding amongst frontline
JCP staff in Willesden that the Work Programme was needed and
local relationships were starting to mature.
Conditionality and sanctioning
of Work Programme participants
53. Work Programme providers can require participants
to undertake specific work-related activities, such as appointments
with advisers and training courses. Failure to participate in
these activities has "sanctionable consequences" i.e.
payment of benefit can be stopped for a period of time. The sanction
is four weeks for a first failure to comply, followed by 13 weeks
for any second or subsequent failure within a 52-week period.
54. DWP guidance to providers states that conditionality
can be applied on a case by case basis. It states that if "it
is apparent that a participant has failed to participate [...]
in a non-mandated activity, you should consider mandating them
to their next activity to help ensure they effectively engage
with you." Alternatively, providers can decide to take a
"blanket approach", applying conditionality to all participants
every time they want them to attend an appointment or complete
a particular activity.
55. The guidance sets out a number of steps providers
must follow before mandating a participant to undertake a particular
activity, including:
- Ensuring that the activity
is reasonable in the participant's circumstances;
- Ensuring that the participant is fully aware
of the sanctionable consequences of failure to comply;
- Making the participant aware of the specific
action they are required to undertake and by when; and
- Notifying the participant in writing.
Decisions on whether to sanction participants for
failure to undertake a mandated activity rest with JCP Labour
Market Decision Makers.[45]
56. Organisations representing particular groups
of jobseekers reported that a lack of coordination and communication
between JCP and Work Programme staff was leading to the inappropriate
application, or threat, of benefit sanctions. The Single Parent
Action Network (SPAN) conducted a survey of 16 single parent Work
Programme participants, which found that in some cases the Work
Programme provider had not been aware of, or not followed, the
terms of the participant's Jobseeker's Agreement drawn up with
JCP:
For instance, [two single parent participants] were
told by the Work Programme to apply for jobs that went against
their Jobseekers' Agreement. [...][One] had been told to apply
for jobs where she would have to work Saturday and Sunday even
though her Agreement specified work between Monday and Friday.[46]
Cymorth Cymru, a charitable organisation which works
with a range of disadvantaged people, reported that in Wales JCP
staff "are not providing Work Programme providers with relevant
information such as action plans."[47]
The UK Council on Deafness stated that it was not clear that JCP
staff routinely pass on information, through their Disability
Employment Advisers, to ensure that Work Programme advisers understand
the specific support needs of deaf and other disabled people.[48]
57. Research by homelessness charities found
that some 22% of homeless participants in the Work Programme had
been sanctioned. Respondents to its survey claimed that sanctions
related to "appointments they hadn't been informed of, clerical
error, or appointments they had had to move due to other commitments,
e.g. a meeting with probation."[49]
The charities' report also argues that it is likely that many
of the homeless people who have been sanctioned, particularly
those with severe barriers such as learning disabilities, may
not have understood the reasons for sanctions being applied.[50]
58. Evidence from the official evaluation found
that most sanctions resulted from participants' failure to attend
their initial meeting with an adviser, rather than any subsequent
failure to engage in Work Programme activity. Furthermore the
evaluation found that:
Providers report that some of these failures to attend
result from poor quality information passed to them by Jobcentre
Plus. There is little evidence of effective communication on this
question between providers and Jobcentre Plus local offices.[51]
The evaluation report concluded that communication
between JCP and the Work Programme, in both directions, was "a
critical factor affecting the effectiveness of the sanctions process".
Overall, the evaluation's initial analysis suggests that "while
conditionality and sanctioning are an accepted and acceptable
part of the Work Programme there is some way to go in ensuring
that the processes work effectively."[52]
59. Improving local relationships
between JCP and Work Programme staff is rightly considered a priority
by DWP. We observed an improving relationship in Brent but the
evidence from the official evaluation suggests a varied picture
across JCP Districts and clearly more progress needs to be made.
Local JCP managers must take responsibility for ensuring that
the message gets through to frontline staff that good working
relationships with their Work Programme counterparts are essential.
60. We are in favour of conditionality
where it supports the policy intention of encouraging participants'
effective engagement with the Work Programme. However, we are
deeply concerned by evidence of the inappropriate use, or threat,
of benefit sanctions against Work Programme participants and the
initial findings of the official evaluation, which suggest that
the processes for the application of conditionality and sanctions
do not yet work effectively. We recommend that DWP conduct a review
of Work Programme conditionality and sanctioning activity as a
matter of urgency, with a view to ensuring that the processes
are clearly understood by participants and consistently applied
by both Work Programme and JCP staff, and that it publishes its
findings by the end of 2013.
36 Committee's 2011 Report, para 171 Back
37
DWP, Work Programme evaluation: Findings from the first phase
of qualitative research on programme delivery, November 2012,
chapter 5 Back
38
Ibid., para 5.2.3 Back
39
Q 6 Back
40
DWP, Work Programme evaluation: Findings from the first phase
of qualitative research on programme delivery, November 2012,
para 5.2.3 Back
41
Qq 310-311 Back
42
Q 311 [Andrew Conlan-Trant] Back
43
Q 311 [Richard Clifton] Back
44
Q 546 Back
45
See DWP, Work Programme Provider Guidance, Chapter 3a Back
46
Ev 153 Back
47
Ev w31 Back
48
Ev w86 Back
49
See DrugScope and Homeless Link, Ev 126 Back
50
Crisis/Homeless Link/St. Mungo's, The Programme's Not Working,
November 2012 Back
51
DWP, Work Programme evaluation: Findings from the first phase
of qualitative research on programme delivery, November 2012,
para 11.4 Back
52
Ibid. Back
| 
