The Public Accounts Committee has today published a damning report on the government’s Work Programme, highlighting that those hardest to help on the programme are receiving minimum support.

It’s the second major report this week which has been critical of the coalition government’s flagship welfare-to-work programme – the Third Sector Research Centre released research on Tuesday which found ‘creaming and parking’ – helping those customers most likely to find employment while providing little assistance or referring on the harder-to-help cases – was an unavoidable consequence of the programme’s payment-by-results model.

The Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) report today also raises concerns about ‘creaming and parking’, saying that there is emerging evidence that those who are hardest to help are being ‘parked’ and therefore left with little prospect of moving into work.

The PAC calls on the Department for Work and Pensions to identify why the Work Programme’s differential payment arrangements, intended to incentivise providers not to neglect this group, are not working.

Charities are traditionally more likely to support the harder-to-help on welfare-to-work programmes, but some organisations helping these type of clients have said they have received no referrals from prime contractors. Last year, homelessness support charity St. Mungo’s withdrew from the Work Programme after receiving no referrals from its three prime contractors.

A DWP spokesman said it had no firm evidence that ‘creaming and parking’ was happening, stating there was only anecdotal evidence. He added that providers had clear incentives to help those hardest to reach: “Providers get £14,000 to support the harder-to-help. That’s £10,000 more than simpler clients. There are clear incentives to help everyone.”

Work Programme performance 'extremely poor'

Overall, the PAC report concluded that the Work Programme’s performance had been “so far extremely poor”.
Labour MP Margaret Hodge, chair of the PAC, said: “The Work Programme is absolutely crucial for helping people, especially the most vulnerable, get into and stay in work. However its performance so far has been extremely poor.

“The first set of data on job outcomes shows that between June 2011 and July 2012, only 3.6 per cent of people referred to the Work Programme moved off benefit and into work, less than a third of the target of 11.9 per cent. In fact, performance was so poor that it was actually worse than the Department’s own expectations of the number of people who would have found work if the Programme didn’t exist.

“None of the providers managed to meet their minimum performance targets. The best performing provider only moved 5 per cent of people off benefit and into work, while the worst managed just 2 per cent.”

However, a DWP spokesman has claimed Hodge’s figures are wrong: “More than 200,000 participants on the Work Programme have already got into work,” he said. “The 3.6 per cent figure is based on 31,000 people who qualified for a job 'outcome' – that means they had to stay in work usually for at least six months, or three months for the hardest to help. People in work, but who had not reached this point, will not have been counted.

“Information from industry body the Employment Related Services Association shows that actually 207,000 people on the Work Programme got into work by September.

“The Work Programme gives support to claimants for two years and it hasn’t even been running that long yet, so it’s still early days. We know the performance of our providers is improving.”