Post by nickd on Mar 26, 2012 20:07:37 GMT 1
Only last year Chris Grayling was telling WORK programme
providers
"‘I am relaxed about people making profits if they
are getting large numbers of the long-term unemployed
into work and keeping them there."
At a recent select committee in to the WORK programme, Grayling's tone seems somewhat less relaxed and a whole lot harsher. He reminded the committee over how assertive he had been when laying down the terms of the contracts; in answer to WORK provider Serco telling him "This is not viable; it will not work. If we weren’t already in the industry, we wouldn’t bid"
Grayling reminded the committee that he had said to Serco "Well, that’s tough."
Grayling's altered attitude is revealed when he gave evidence before a Work & Pensions committee into the WORK programme on the 19th March 2012. It begs the question, did he mislead contractors over the figures when dishing these contracts out?
Chris Grayling: It was clearly in the public forum that, when the Flexible New Deal was first proposed by the previous Government, the former managing director of Serco said this was not viable, it would not work and they would not bid. As a result, the previous Government adjusted the financial terms of the Flexible New Deal. When we presented the Work Programme in the public forum and the former managing director of Serco stood up and said, "This is not viable; it will not work. If we weren’t already in the industry, we wouldn’t bid," I said, "Well, that’s tough. We’ve been through the figures exhaustively, and I think it is investable." They did bid, and so did everybody else.
This remark is likely to cause providers some concern. Whilst they may be under a responsibility to assess their own risk, the inescapable fact is that they bid for contracts upon the basis of figures put forward by Grayling and his team. If those figures are wrong, providers could end up seeking termination payments and showing a lack of faith in the way Government has mapped the programme out. There's more than a few doubts emerging over Grayling's figures...
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/uc1903/uc190301.htm
Other revelations come to light during Grayling's evidence session.
(1) Grayling insists that the "Work Programme will tackle the human consequences of endemic worklessness".
I've long held a contention on Mylegal that the WORK programme won't work, not least because of the whole ethos of putting private profiteering opportunities before the investment of cash into creating proper employment opportunities; - what some may term 'real jobs'. In his recent evidence before the Work & Pensions committee, Grayling glosses over the shortcomings into how inefficient the WORK programme has been at truly attacking the problem of what he calls 'endemic worklessness'. What many people will not realise is that 'long term unemployment' relates to those who have been out of work for as little as 12 months; - the public perception is several years on benefits; it's a perception the media has portrayed with a vengeance. It's hardly a true definition of 'endemic worklessness' in today's problematic labour market to classify long-term incapacity in this way with all the problems that disabled people are likely to encounter in being placed in a slumped labour market; - especially when the media has given them such a bad press.
In truth, Grayling is eluding to the real statistics. Mylegal did some research into the DWP's own figures (in the first Work report produced in February 2012) from which it could be seen that out of a total of 369,240 claimants a derisory total of just 3,110 truly long term claimants were referred into the programme; - it's hardly tackling endemic worklessness in such a way that is likely to satisfy those who have been taken in by all the media hype.
(2) Grayling has got it completely wrong on the numbers of claimants who he initially estimated would end up in the support group - these are the claimants with the most profound disabilities who are deemed to be incapable of work under the stringent rules relating to ESA assessment, although some can choose to voluntarily participate in the programme if they wish.
"We have found far more people appropriately put in the support group than we expected."
Chris Grayling: The fit-for-work level has been higher in the overall package. We were originally expecting 23% fit for work; 19% in the support group, and the rest to be in the work-related activity group. Before appeals, we have ended up with 37% and 34%, so you see the combination of the two. The work-related activity group is much smaller than expected, and the support group is nearly twice as big. Part of that is due to conscious policy decisions we have taken, but, leaving those aside, we have found far more people appropriately put in the support group than we expected.
This could be a significant problem because if the WORK programme is in effect identifying larger cohorts of claimants in the support group, it shows their estimations to be out of kilter and could potentially throw out Grayling's claims to have been "through the figures exhaustively" This could blow their financial accounting out of the water, it could also start alarm bells ringing with already sceptical work providers.
(3) Grayling concedes on appeals - "We do not have statistically accurate data yet"
Chris Grayling: It is too early to be certain because, with the timetabling, we started doing the assessments last June. We now do a reconsideration in virtually every case. People would have started to receive decisions in late June/early July. There is a period of nine weeks before the reconsideration deadline is reached, which is about September. Then you have a wait of about 24 weeks for an appeal to be heard. So, the appeals data have only just started to come through, and we do not have statistically accurate data yet. What I have done is ask Malcolm Harrington to watch over that early flow of appeal data.
This is an important concession because Government is admitting it has no accurate data upon which it can be certain that the revised work capability assessment is leading to a reduction in the number of appeals. We are currently looking into this on Mylegal in more detail as we are sceptical about claims that the appeal figures are coming down, from what I see there is no evidence at all in my work as a welfare benefit specialist that the DWP is making a determined effort to objectively reconsider every case before an appeal. From what I see the DWP decision-maker's are just continuing to tick the box indicating their agreement with the controversial ATOS healthcare professional's assessment. In truth, with so many assessment being passed onto the decision-maker's desk, I very much doubt they have the time to objectively overview the evidence in any form of meaningful reassessment of the decision. Grayling mentions no firm evidence basis upon which he has studied the views of all the parties in appeals, this is the only way of getting to grips with ascertaining precisely what the real reason for the delays can be attributed to.
It seems to be more a question of the DWP & ATOS being maxed out on the number of cases they can handle leading to long delays and thus more time elapsing before client's appeals even reach the Tribunals. I simply do not accept Grayling's lame assertion that delays in the appeal process are caused by ATOS healthcare professionals studiously burying themselves in 'back offices' whilst they acquaint themselves with a new set of rules. It's far more likely to be a backlog of cases which slows the DWP down to a point where their appeals offices must be snowed under with ESA appeals and thus unable to pass them on to the Tribunals.
(4) Grayling is quite simply making wild assertions upon which he has no firm evidence base to speak.
Chris Grayling: "In a nutshell, if you are saying to people that currently they are getting £90 a week for your benefit and it will be £67, they will always choose to appeal".
In my view this is a direct contradiction, Grayling by virtue of his £90 a week statement can only be referring to longer term Incapacity Benefit (IB) cases. Against this he admits..
"Bear in mind that a lot of these are guesstimates within the Department, because we are dealing with an IB cohort about which we know very little."
I would encourage readers to take a look at Grayling's evidence statements. They appear to be all over the place in terms of consistency and display a lack of robustness in his argument; - he is very effectively challenged by Glenda Jackson on a number of points, it makes interesting reading. Grayling's greater problem is over that which he has with his chancellor in terms of the disparity between his 'departmental expenditure limits' and 'actual managed expenditure' as shown in DWP budgets allocated to make the WORK programme work.
The fact is Grayling is and always has been dealing with the unknown. The danger in this programme has always been in making assumptions before carrying out any assessments, now the results are coming in we are starting to see results which are frankly unimpressive.
In summary, I think Grayling may well have been relaxed when awarding the contracts, but he is now talking tough to providers as the dawn breaks in the sure fire realisation that Osborne has firmly told him and IDS that their simply aren't the billions to pay for these Payment by Results contracts. Rest assured Osborne will have told them to stick within his expenditure limits whether people like Serco like it or not.
A neat way of capping the cost of payment by result contracting is to cap the results; - Osborne & co know all too well that it's a whole lot cheaper to ship claimants off ESA and park them on to cheaper Jobseeker's Allowance or in some cases wait for those of later working age to reach Pension Credit age.
Links
www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/jun-2011/dwp062-11.shtml
Mylegal research
Work programme - it won't work
mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=586
Work programme under the microscope
mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=588
providers
"‘I am relaxed about people making profits if they
are getting large numbers of the long-term unemployed
into work and keeping them there."
At a recent select committee in to the WORK programme, Grayling's tone seems somewhat less relaxed and a whole lot harsher. He reminded the committee over how assertive he had been when laying down the terms of the contracts; in answer to WORK provider Serco telling him "This is not viable; it will not work. If we weren’t already in the industry, we wouldn’t bid"
Grayling reminded the committee that he had said to Serco "Well, that’s tough."
Grayling's altered attitude is revealed when he gave evidence before a Work & Pensions committee into the WORK programme on the 19th March 2012. It begs the question, did he mislead contractors over the figures when dishing these contracts out?
Chris Grayling: It was clearly in the public forum that, when the Flexible New Deal was first proposed by the previous Government, the former managing director of Serco said this was not viable, it would not work and they would not bid. As a result, the previous Government adjusted the financial terms of the Flexible New Deal. When we presented the Work Programme in the public forum and the former managing director of Serco stood up and said, "This is not viable; it will not work. If we weren’t already in the industry, we wouldn’t bid," I said, "Well, that’s tough. We’ve been through the figures exhaustively, and I think it is investable." They did bid, and so did everybody else.
This remark is likely to cause providers some concern. Whilst they may be under a responsibility to assess their own risk, the inescapable fact is that they bid for contracts upon the basis of figures put forward by Grayling and his team. If those figures are wrong, providers could end up seeking termination payments and showing a lack of faith in the way Government has mapped the programme out. There's more than a few doubts emerging over Grayling's figures...
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/uc1903/uc190301.htm
Other revelations come to light during Grayling's evidence session.
(1) Grayling insists that the "Work Programme will tackle the human consequences of endemic worklessness".
I've long held a contention on Mylegal that the WORK programme won't work, not least because of the whole ethos of putting private profiteering opportunities before the investment of cash into creating proper employment opportunities; - what some may term 'real jobs'. In his recent evidence before the Work & Pensions committee, Grayling glosses over the shortcomings into how inefficient the WORK programme has been at truly attacking the problem of what he calls 'endemic worklessness'. What many people will not realise is that 'long term unemployment' relates to those who have been out of work for as little as 12 months; - the public perception is several years on benefits; it's a perception the media has portrayed with a vengeance. It's hardly a true definition of 'endemic worklessness' in today's problematic labour market to classify long-term incapacity in this way with all the problems that disabled people are likely to encounter in being placed in a slumped labour market; - especially when the media has given them such a bad press.
In truth, Grayling is eluding to the real statistics. Mylegal did some research into the DWP's own figures (in the first Work report produced in February 2012) from which it could be seen that out of a total of 369,240 claimants a derisory total of just 3,110 truly long term claimants were referred into the programme; - it's hardly tackling endemic worklessness in such a way that is likely to satisfy those who have been taken in by all the media hype.
(2) Grayling has got it completely wrong on the numbers of claimants who he initially estimated would end up in the support group - these are the claimants with the most profound disabilities who are deemed to be incapable of work under the stringent rules relating to ESA assessment, although some can choose to voluntarily participate in the programme if they wish.
"We have found far more people appropriately put in the support group than we expected."
Chris Grayling: The fit-for-work level has been higher in the overall package. We were originally expecting 23% fit for work; 19% in the support group, and the rest to be in the work-related activity group. Before appeals, we have ended up with 37% and 34%, so you see the combination of the two. The work-related activity group is much smaller than expected, and the support group is nearly twice as big. Part of that is due to conscious policy decisions we have taken, but, leaving those aside, we have found far more people appropriately put in the support group than we expected.
This could be a significant problem because if the WORK programme is in effect identifying larger cohorts of claimants in the support group, it shows their estimations to be out of kilter and could potentially throw out Grayling's claims to have been "through the figures exhaustively" This could blow their financial accounting out of the water, it could also start alarm bells ringing with already sceptical work providers.
(3) Grayling concedes on appeals - "We do not have statistically accurate data yet"
Chris Grayling: It is too early to be certain because, with the timetabling, we started doing the assessments last June. We now do a reconsideration in virtually every case. People would have started to receive decisions in late June/early July. There is a period of nine weeks before the reconsideration deadline is reached, which is about September. Then you have a wait of about 24 weeks for an appeal to be heard. So, the appeals data have only just started to come through, and we do not have statistically accurate data yet. What I have done is ask Malcolm Harrington to watch over that early flow of appeal data.
This is an important concession because Government is admitting it has no accurate data upon which it can be certain that the revised work capability assessment is leading to a reduction in the number of appeals. We are currently looking into this on Mylegal in more detail as we are sceptical about claims that the appeal figures are coming down, from what I see there is no evidence at all in my work as a welfare benefit specialist that the DWP is making a determined effort to objectively reconsider every case before an appeal. From what I see the DWP decision-maker's are just continuing to tick the box indicating their agreement with the controversial ATOS healthcare professional's assessment. In truth, with so many assessment being passed onto the decision-maker's desk, I very much doubt they have the time to objectively overview the evidence in any form of meaningful reassessment of the decision. Grayling mentions no firm evidence basis upon which he has studied the views of all the parties in appeals, this is the only way of getting to grips with ascertaining precisely what the real reason for the delays can be attributed to.
It seems to be more a question of the DWP & ATOS being maxed out on the number of cases they can handle leading to long delays and thus more time elapsing before client's appeals even reach the Tribunals. I simply do not accept Grayling's lame assertion that delays in the appeal process are caused by ATOS healthcare professionals studiously burying themselves in 'back offices' whilst they acquaint themselves with a new set of rules. It's far more likely to be a backlog of cases which slows the DWP down to a point where their appeals offices must be snowed under with ESA appeals and thus unable to pass them on to the Tribunals.
(4) Grayling is quite simply making wild assertions upon which he has no firm evidence base to speak.
Chris Grayling: "In a nutshell, if you are saying to people that currently they are getting £90 a week for your benefit and it will be £67, they will always choose to appeal".
In my view this is a direct contradiction, Grayling by virtue of his £90 a week statement can only be referring to longer term Incapacity Benefit (IB) cases. Against this he admits..
"Bear in mind that a lot of these are guesstimates within the Department, because we are dealing with an IB cohort about which we know very little."
I would encourage readers to take a look at Grayling's evidence statements. They appear to be all over the place in terms of consistency and display a lack of robustness in his argument; - he is very effectively challenged by Glenda Jackson on a number of points, it makes interesting reading. Grayling's greater problem is over that which he has with his chancellor in terms of the disparity between his 'departmental expenditure limits' and 'actual managed expenditure' as shown in DWP budgets allocated to make the WORK programme work.
The fact is Grayling is and always has been dealing with the unknown. The danger in this programme has always been in making assumptions before carrying out any assessments, now the results are coming in we are starting to see results which are frankly unimpressive.
In summary, I think Grayling may well have been relaxed when awarding the contracts, but he is now talking tough to providers as the dawn breaks in the sure fire realisation that Osborne has firmly told him and IDS that their simply aren't the billions to pay for these Payment by Results contracts. Rest assured Osborne will have told them to stick within his expenditure limits whether people like Serco like it or not.
A neat way of capping the cost of payment by result contracting is to cap the results; - Osborne & co know all too well that it's a whole lot cheaper to ship claimants off ESA and park them on to cheaper Jobseeker's Allowance or in some cases wait for those of later working age to reach Pension Credit age.
Links
www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/jun-2011/dwp062-11.shtml
Mylegal research
Work programme - it won't work
mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=586
Work programme under the microscope
mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=588