Transcript Dave Simmonds & Paul Bivand

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