Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Work Programme performance Dave Simmonds & Paul Bivand Inclusion FND performed better Start-up performance of FND and New Deal 25+ Numbers: GDP growth since start New Deal 25+ (1998-9) FND (2009-11) GDP 1998-99 GDP 2009-11 GDP growth since programme Q1 16% 6.0% 5.3% Percentage of starters into short/sustained jobs 14% 5.0% 12% 4.0% 10% 4.0% 3.1% 8% 3.0% 2.6% 2.2% 6% 1.5% 4% 1.7% 1.5% 2.0% 1.0% 0.6% 2% -1% 1 2 -0.3% 3 0.4% 0.2% 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.0% 10 11 -3% 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -1.0% Months since start Is performance down to providers or the economy? Above 1 = more new vacancies than new claimants New JCP vacancies per new JSA claimant, GB, SA 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 Jul 2004 Jan 2005 Jul 2005 Jan 2006 Jul 2006 Jan 2007 Jul 2007 Jan 2008 Jul 2008 Jan 2009 Jul 2009 Jan 2010 Jul 2010 Jan 2011 So, how did the industry do? Annual changes in total JCP job outcomes (including from programmes) Annual change in New JCP vacancies per new JSA claimant and JCP job outcomes, GB, SA New vacancies per new claimant Lone Parents Long-term unemployed Short term unemployed People with a Health Condition or Disability 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% Ju l-0 5 O ct05 Ja n06 Ap r-0 6 Ju l-0 6 O ct06 Ja n07 Ap r-0 7 Ju l-0 7 O ct07 Ja n08 Ap r-0 8 Ju l-0 8 O ct08 Ja n09 Ap r-0 9 Ju l-0 9 O ct09 Ja n10 Ap r-1 0 Ju l-1 0 O ct10 Ja n11 Ap r-1 1 -80% What trigger points should there be for change control and pricing review? Annual change in New JCP vacancies per new JSA claimant, GB, SA Annual change in New vacancy/claimants ratio Annual GDP growth 60% 6% 40% 4% 20% 2% 0% 0% -20% -2% -40% -4% -60% -6% -80% Jul 2005 Jan 2006 -8% Jul 2006 Jan 2007 Jul 2007 Jan 2008 Jul 2008 Jan 2009 Jul 2009 Jan 2010 Jul 2010 Jan 2011 Market performance • Not just contractors – the market as a whole • Performance per start cohort: • For the 8 customer groups • Across CPAs, within, and by type of local economy • For equality groups and early entry groups – cross-cutting • Job outcome ratio and projected 2-year job outcomes for cohorts • Sustainment payments made (% of maximum given job outcomes and date) • Agreeing a ‘parking’ indicator Scrutiny at CPA level • Understanding significant divergences in performance • How do differences in performance by CPA reflect the economy in the CPA? • The new vacancy/new claimant indicator can be calculated for CPAs and lower levels • Providers should be demonstrating performance as well as DWP monitoring – extent of transparency? What do we mean by ‘parking’? • The impact of the design (deliberate or not) of interventions to remove people from the active labour market • Shift onto inactive benefits in late ‘80’s • ‘Parking’ also applies to individuals or groups within programmes • a minimal service is given because the chances of a payable outcome is considered to be low • The intent and design of the Work Programme is not to park eg. use of differential pricing • Are there clear indicators that would measure if the market as a whole and/or individual contractors are parking? Fairness indicators • ‘Fairness indicators’ will work best if there is wide agreement about their definition and use • Examples of what could be used: • Differences in performance between customer groups compared to bid and/or public targets • Profile of participants entering year two • Year two job outcomes • What else? Local challenges – will areas be parked? • Many LAs have enough vacancies to chip into volumes • But some – in most CPAs – have few vacancies • Local authorities are keen to ensure Work Programme providers do not park low vacancy areas • How do we measure? Helping local partners scrutinise • Intent is for primes and LA to measure performance on same basis • Work Programme performance in LA area against benchmarks of: • LEP or other LA clusters • CPA • National • Performance for equality and vulnerable groups • Local Fairness indicators • Needs to be considered alongside local labour market indicators eg. vacancy ratio