A paper published today has found that many Work Programme providers see 'creaming and parking' – helping those customers most likely to find employment while providing little assistance or referring on the harder-to-help cases – as an unavoidable consequence of a payment-by-results model.
The Third Sector Research Centre’s (TSRC) paper Does sector matter? Understanding the experiences of providers in the Work Programme draws on findings from a three-part study of the Work Programme conducted between summer 2011 and autumn 2012: an evidence review, key informant interviews and two case study deliveries.
And one of its key findings is that many providers see the need to cream and park as a “rational response to payment-by-results”.
“This ties in with evidence from the New Deal for Disabled People, Pathways to Work and Employment Zones, which strongly suggested that the funding model dictates behaviour, not organisational motivations,” according to authors James Rees, Rebecca Taylor and Chris Damm.
They continue to say that the differential payments designed to reduce creaming and parking by rewarding finding places for harder-to-help customers with higher outcome payments were seen by respondents as a "blunt instrument".
And some interviewees expressed the ironic notion that “nominally harder-to-help individuals can in fact be more work-ready than a bureaucratically-applied label suggests, and vice versa”.
Sector suffering, specialists in particular
The authors further examine whether the voluntary sector is being ‘squeezed out’ of the Work Programme, and find some evidence to support this.
They say that the smaller number of large prime subcontractor contracts, together with a heightened risk environment, has made it tough for all potential providers – but that voluntary sector organisations were at a particular disadvantage since they often have less means to meet "rigorous requirements" such as demonstrating a £20m turnover.
Charity representatives interviewed also expressed their concern that bidding for some contracts was out of the question, since it could compromise their mission and therefore damage their reputation.
The research also highlighted that tier 2 ‘specialist’ providers appear to be receiving no or very few referrals, and that the structure of the Work Programme disadvantages those who are not generic providers, affecting many voluntary sector organisations that provide specialist support.
Co-author James Rees commented on the findings: “Despite positive government attempts to introduce payment incentives for harder-to-help groups, it appears that those who are furthest from the labour market or require specialist provision are not being catered for by the Work Programme in practice.
“It seems that reduced funding, coupled with a more competitive and commercial environment, may be undermining the success of the Programme. Interventions for many clients may be costly – but they may pay off in the long run.”
Umbrella bodies: Report confirms our own findings
James Allen, head of public services and partnerships at NCVO, said that the research mirrors the body's own experience that position in the supply chain is a key factor in how a provider experiences the Work Programme.
“Smaller organisations are frequently exposed to disproportionate levels of risk,” he said. “Charities can find this either challenging or simply a complete barrier to involvement.
“We share the researchers’ concerns that specialist providers are receiving a low number of referrals, and that harder-to-help service users are being ‘parked’. While we have seen examples of good practice by both prime and sub-contractors, there are still question marks over the quality of service that many people on the Work Programme actually get.”
Ralph Michell, director of policy at Acevo, added that the TSRC report echoes what some specialist voluntary sector providers have been telling his organisation. “Many of the most disadvantaged people are not receiving the help that they need through the Work Programme,” he said.
