The document discusses the performance and impact of the Work Programme in London. Key points include: - Performance in London was equally low as the UK overall, at 3.5% of referrals achieving job outcomes. - West London had higher performance than East London. - A survey found that most voluntary community sector subcontractors received lower than expected referrals and some received no referrals at all after 18 months. - The Work Programme is negatively impacting wider voluntary community sector employment and skills services due to reduced alternative funding and rules preventing work with Work Programme clients.

1. Fair Chance to Work 2
Impact of Work Programme on disadvantaged
clients and VCS organisations in London

2. This presentation:
• Work Programme performance in London
• Results of survey of VCS subcontractors
• Impact of Work Programme on wider VCS
• Work Programme customer experience
• Recommendations and next steps– your feedback

3. Work Programme performance in London
Key points:
• Performance equally low in London and UK (3.5%
of referrals achieved job outcomes)
• West London: fewer referrals and higher
performance than East
• London outcome rates lower than rest of UK for all
payment groups except JSA 25+
• Zero job outcomes in London for ex-Incapacity
Benefit payment groups
EARLY DAYS!!

4. Work Programme performance in London
Referrals Outcomes Performance
Ingeus (West London) 19,160 910 4.7%
Maximus (West London) 18,830 760 4.0%
Reed in Partnership (West London) 18,870 690 3.7%
Careers Development Group (East London) 26,630 910 3.4%
A4E (East London) 26,690 860 3.2%
Seetec (East London) 26,550 680 2.6%
West London Contract Package Area 56,860 2,360 4.2%
East London Contract Package Area 79,870 2,450 3.1%
London Total 136,730 4,810 3.5%

7. Experience of VCS subcontractors
Key points:
• Most subs have had lower referrals than expected
• 18 months in, many tier 2s have had zero referrals
• Common problems:
• Quality of communication with primes
• Quality of needs assessment from JCP/primes
• Customers on JSA with serious health
problems
• Financial constraints – including attachment
fees
• However – some good practice in prime/sub
relationships to build on

8. Impact on non-Work Programme orgs
Key points:
• Reduction in other (non-WP) funding from local
authorities, LDA, etc
• Rules around alternative funding (JCP, trusts)
precludes working with WP customers
• Dilemma of working with WP customers – to
support or not to support?
• Unpaid referrals
Work Programme is negatively impacting on wider
VCS employment and skills services.

9. Experience of disadvantaged jobseekers
Key points (anecdotal):
• General quality of support seems low, lack of
contact from advisors
• Lack of appropriate support for customers with
specialist needs – e.g. learning disabilities
• Pressure to place customers in jobs paying
poverty wages (cleaning at £1.40/room); or self-
employment non-jobs

10. Draft recommendations – your feedback?
• Review differential payments model – based on
needs not benefits
• Recognise milestones as payment outcomes for
disadvantaged clients
• Share and promote good practice in prime/sub
relationships
• Increase supply chain transparency
• Consider impact of WP on other projects/services
• London weighting
• Lobby for living wage jobs

11. European
funding
2014 – 2020

12. WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD US SO FAR
 Preference for place based programmes with flexible
geographies
 Any approach must be responsive to local need and
national priorities
 Simplification of fund management
 Integrated programming, in particular in relation to
the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF)
 Better co-ordination of match-funding & co-financing
across the public sector

13. GROWTH PROGRAMME THEMES
Top priorities
 Research, technological development and innovation – esp.
commercialisation
 Raising SME competitiveness – esp re exports
 Shift to low-carbon economy – esp energy efficiency &
renewable technologies
 Employment & skills (inc. social inclusion)
Other objectives
 Climate change adaptation, risk prevention & management
 Environmental protection & resource efficiency
 Sustainable transport and removing network bottlenecks
 Access to & use of ICT

14. PROPOSED DELIVERY ARRANGEMENTS
Maritime and
Rural Fisheries
Growth Programme Development Programme
(ERDF, ESF & EAFRD) Programme (EMFF)
(EAFRD)
Co-financing CSF Growth
Organisations Teams
LEPs / ITIs
Community Led Local
Development, including Leader and
FLAGs
Projects

15. London: EU Funding 2014-2020
Next steps:
• LVSC to circulate discussion paper around
network for comment/feedback:
• lessons from 2007-14 programme;
• policy priorities for London;
• feedback on commissioning; etc
• LVSC to host targeted event in early 2013
• BIS consultation paper in Spring 2013