Irish "DWP" DO have an idea if Workfare costs jobs or not

I wrote last year about the DWP having no idea if Workfare costs jobs or not and I'm interested to find that their Irish equivalents, the Department of Social Protection were somewhat more responsible. They got Indecon International Economic Consultants to do a report - and published it

The Irish scheme is called JobBridge and typically offers the unemployed a 6-9 months "internship" for which they get €50 on top of their welfare payment each week.

The report actually looked for and documented cases where the scheme could have displaced paid employment. Some snippets from the somewhat dryly named section "6.1.5 Scheme deadweight and displacement" include:

• 6.4% (of employers) indicated that they would have taken on paid employees in the absence of the scheme
• It is also notable that the proportion of host organisations who indicated that they would have been highly likely to have offered paid employment to JobBridge interns in the absence of the scheme rises to 10.3% among large organisations employing 250 persons or more
• Indecon also understands, based on information supplied by the Department of Social Protection, that a total of forty cases of suspected displacement were investigated by the Department since July 2011. Following investigation, it was found that these allegations were substantiated in four distinct cases and action was taken to disqualify these companies from participating in JobBridge.

That last item is particularly impressive - the Department of Social Protection were alive to the risk, investigated, took action and allowed publication.

My original FOI showed that DWP had done nothing like this. It's possible that a second FOI request that's in progress will yield better results. Update 02 February 2015: No, it didn't :-(

Does the Bedroom Tax help people get into work?

Readers may remember my work on the idea that the Benefit Cap helped people get work and may be interested in whether other controversial  "Welfare Reform" policies increase employment?

The "Bedroom Tax" is one such policy and I'm grateful to Trudy Baddams for asking how many people has the DWP helped into work by introducing the bedroom tax

The answer was essentailly:

“The information requested is not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However one of the aims of the evaluation of the Removal of the Spare Room subsidy (RSRS) is to assess the extent to which, as a result of the RSRS, more people are in work, working increased hours or earning increased income. The Interim Report of this evaluation found that 18 per cent  of affected claimants had either looked for employment, or looked to earn more though employment-related income as a result of the RSRS. The final report of the RSRS evaluation will be published in late 2015.”

 The Interim Report does indeed show affected people looking for work (or more hours/better pay) but also:

"Our survey found, however, that most (87 per cent) of those claimants who said they
have looked for work also said they that, in the first six months since RSRS had been
implemented, they had not been able to find work or secure better paid employment.
 
From the qualitative work with claimants, most participants who were able to work had
considered earning more through starting work – although this was not solely in response
to the reforms, rather that they had been hoping to do so anyway. Those who reported that
they were looking for extra hours or a better paid job more often reported that this was in
response to the policy."

So it doesn't look like the policy is actually getting people work.

"The out-of-work group who are in housing estates and unwilling to work"

This story starts back in September with another utterance from Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary:

"We're not just getting people back to work, we're making real inroads into that stubborn part of the out-of-work group who are in housing estates and unwilling to work..."

(Source:  Sunday Express: We are breaking up 'Shameless' housing estates, says Iain Duncan Smith)

This suggests some pretty detailed research into a highly targeted intervention. How had he identified those in Housing Estates? And, fascinatingly, had they discovered a way of identifying those "unwilling to work"?

So I asked and was told:

"According to the Department’s most recent Labour Market Statistics, the number of claimants on Jobseekers Allowance is down half a million since the election, the number on out of work benefits is  800,000 lower since the election, and the number of children in workless households is at its lowest since records began, having fallen by 290,000 since the election.

During his work as both a constituency MP and Secretary of State of the Department, the Secretary of State will have seen for himself the impact of these falls, and has subsequently reflected on this during his interview."

So it looks like there hasn't been any rigorous research on this - at best, Iain might have spoken to a few formerly unemployed people and discovered that they lived in housing estates and really didn't want to work but had been forced into it by his policies.

So I submitted a review request pointing out

"...you have not provided information for the main part of my request, ``In particular, please provide:
• The numbers in the out-of-work group who are in housing estates
and unwilling to work during 2010 and for all subsequent years for
which statistics are available
• The method used to identify claimants as “unwilling to work” ''

After some nagging and delays I was told "The Department does not define “unwilling to work” therefore data is not held on this topic"

It also tells me of  statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on working or
workless households, derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) but so far as I can see, there's no analysis of "housing estates"

My conclusion: While the "stubborn part of the out-of-work group who are in housing estates and unwilling to work" might actually exist, no one really knows how many there are and if the numbers have changed recently. Iain Duncan Smith's statement should be seen as essentially political speech intended to demonstrate action on a matter of public concern. See also "Folk Devil"

The “Pretending There Are Enough Jobs” Industry

This post is a bit off-topic as it refers to Australia but it makes a point that applies just as much to the UK. Points made in the full article include:

"To put it simply, there is not enough work for everyone who wants it and that is not going to be reversed anytime soon."

"As of August 2014, there are 4,868 job service providers in Australia"

"Now, if these Job Service Providers were making a difference that would be fantastic, but they cannot force employers to create more positions,"

"Tony Abbott, plans on making it harder for jobseekers to receive payments. Apparently, the Government wants to beat the unemployed into submission while ignoring that employers aren’t hiring because they don’t need any more employees and that is not the fault of anyone who currently does not have a job."

"If all goes to plan, half of us will be employed in the “pretending there are enough jobs” industry helping the other half of us get employed (most likely in the “pretending there are enough jobs” industry)."

Another sort of Jobcentre target

Most jobseekers have to attend the Jobcentre every two weeks but this is going to change. From October 2014, it is expected that 50% will be on weekly "Job Search Reviews" Enter "D McDermott" who was told s/he'd now have to attend weekly and was even told that everyone had to.

"D" made an FOI request, to find out more. In the first round it became clear that only 50% would receive this extra support. Also provided was the mechanics of the 50%. Basically, if JCP staff feel you'd benefit from weekly attendance, that's what you get. It gets more complex - Senior Operations Managers and Customer Services Operations Managers (CSOM) are going to  measure the position against the 50% ratio for their cluster of Jobcentres and will investigate where any Jobcentres are significantly above or below the target.

So, front-line staff have to decide whether to require weekly attendance based on what they feel about the claimant and with the knowledge that 50% is expected and will be monitored. "D" wrote back:

You can not possibly know for sure that 50% of all claimants will need this extra help so I do not understand how targets can be set.What happens if a Jobcentre only has 5% of claimants who need extra support? Will said Jobcentre employees be subject to extra demands/reprimanded to fulfil this quota?

From an FOI point of view it's rather week. The DWP is unlikely to have any "recorded information" showing that discipline will be applied to staff not meeting their quota.

It's still a good question though. 

'Benefits Street' and the Myth of Workless Communities

This is an interesting paper about a hunt for inter-generational benefit culture and how hard it is to find evidence.

Abstract

This paper critically engages with a pervasive myth about welfare in the UK which is commonly spread by politicians, think tanks and the media. This is the myth that there are areas of the country which are so affected by entrenched cultures of 'welfare dependency' that the majority of residents are unemployed. In undertaking research that sought to investigate a different idea - that there are families where no-one has worked over several generations - we simultaneously gathered evidence about the likelihood that there are localities where virtually no-one is in employment. The rationale for Channel 4's Benefits Street was exactly this; that whole streets and neighbourhoods are of out of work and living on welfare benefits. We draw on research evidence gathered in Middlesbrough and Glasgow to investigate this idea. Thus, the aim of our paper is simple and empirical: is the central idea of 'Benefits Street' true? Are there streets and neighbourhoods in the UK where virtually no-one works?

Full paper here

Daily Work Search Reviews

One of the support options for the long term unemployed announced by George Osborne back in September 2013 was daily visits to a job centre.  This has now been the reality for some claimants for a few months now in the form of "Daily Work Search Reviews". The guidance gives examples of claimants who may be suitable:

• claimants who need additional support with their jobsearch activities, which the Work Coach believes will be best provided by Daily WSR. This may include following up job applications and interviews, identifying and addressing issues such as skills gaps
• claimants who have reasonable levels of work experience but may lack the level of motivation required to seek out employment opportunities or pursue options for improving their employment prospects
• claimants who have a history of poor timekeeping in terms of attending interviews at the Jobcentre. The timekeeping requirements of Daily WSR would improve claimant's discipline and understanding of the importance of timekeeping in a work environment

This might be reasonable but I found something rather curious in the detailed design of  DWSR. Also from the guidance

61. Daily WSR times must vary on each day Monday to Friday; this varied pattern is then repeated for 4 consecutive weeks (i.e. the attendance time must be different for each day of the week but in each 4 week block the time on a particular day will be consistent).
 ...
63.The timetable must be changed every 4 weeks; the exception being that the revised timetable issued at week 8 can run for 5 weeks (i.e. until the end of the Daily WSR period).

It's difficult to see how this detail helps review jobseeking activities. As a lesson in timekeeping it seems a bit OTT for those who hope to get a 9-5 job. It offers a good chance of a sanction though when the jobseeker gets confused!

Naturally, I've been asking about the intent of the design but have yet to get a good answer 

I have found a big clue though. An obvious use of this regime is to disrupt a claimant who may be working on the side and the following paragraph hints at it:

19. Check the Customer Information System (CIS) to determine if the claimant has a Fraud Referral and Intervention Management System (FRAIMS) indicator present. If so, the Fraud and Error Service (FES) must be contacted for further advice before any decision to assign the claimant to Daily Work Search Review (WSR).

This paragraph seems to be unique to Daily Work Search Reviews. I think the intent is to frustrate fraudsters working on the side who have not yet been detected. Those already being investigated may be allowed to continue until there's enough evidence.

Of course, for the honest claimant it's a hassle but that has never worried the Jobcentre,

Update 19-Aug-14: I finally got some sort of answer.

The first interesting part was where I’d suggested DWP ask the author of paragraphs 61 and 63 for the thinking behind the variable timing aspect. They answered:

“We do not hold information on who wrote sections 61 and 63 of the Help to Work guidance”

Maybe that’s usual in the Civil Service but it seems odd to me. In many workplaces it’s normal to keep a note of who did what and why. Then, when the next person comes along and considers removing something or making a change, they do it the knowledge of why things were done the way they were. (My favourite example of the importance of records is this)

They do offer some information on the intent of making claimants turn up on a complicated timetable for their Work Search Reviews

"Information about the intent of the variable timing aspect can be found at paragraph 48. It lists claimants who may be suitable for daily work search reviews. One of the groups mentioned are

“Claimants who have a history of poor timekeeping in terms of attending interviews at the Jobcentre. The timekeeping requirements of Daily WSR would improve claimant's discipline and understanding of the importance of timekeeping in a work environment”.

This doesn’t really wash because the other groups are mentioned are those lacking motivation and those needing additional support. How are they helped by this? Also note this guidance:

"49. Key considerations for Work Coaches in determining a claimant’s suitability for Daily WSR must include:

• whether the claimant is likely to be able to understand and cope with daily variation in attendance times"

 So, to qualify for this lesson in timekeeping, you must be bad at it but not actually incapable (E.G.: Due to mental health issues)

My conclusion

The reason the timing of DWSR is as difficult as it is may well be due to an initial idea to disrupt those working on the side or to frustrate claimants off benefits and hit sanction targets. However, to be lawful, all interventions by the Jobcentre are supposed to be helpful so something benign had to be documented.

I may now move on to investigate paragraph 19 mentioned above.

See also the (lack of ) evidence fro DWSR being effective.

(Original version published 19/07/2014 20:18)