A radical review of the welfare system, carried out
by David Freud, has recently been released. The review advocates
greater use of private and voluntary sector resources and expertise
so harder - to - help benefit claimants receive more employment
support. This particularly applies to people who have been trapped
on benefit for long periods of time.
We believe that David Freud’s review is an important part of the
current debate on the future of welfare reform. Much of Freud’s
thinking concurs with our own and we largely welcome its
recommendations.
We are especially pleased that Freud has recognised the
importance of the need for individuals to receive a personally
tailored package of support. This is something that we have long
advocated.
Our experience shows that segmenting people according to their
benefit status or pre judging what needs a lone parent or older
person will have is an artificial segmentation and does not
encourage their personal adviser to demonstrate flexibility in
assisting them.
We have found that a lone parent’s main barrier to work is not
always childcare, it may for example be a lack of basic skills or a
motivational issue. It is imperative therefore that individuals are
offered a package of support tailored to their particular
needs.
Whilst placing people in work is vital, it can sometimes provide
only a temporary advantage. Employment coupled with workplace
progression will move people away from benefit dependency and help
eliminate the problems of child poverty and poverty.
We therefore support programmes incorporating a longer period of
sustainability with providers being incentivised to offer in work
support for a much longer period than at present. This acknowledges
the importance of improving people’s skills and helping them to
progress in the workplace.
It will allow personal advisers to develop a strong relationship
with their client over a period of time, build levels of trust and
support the individual to engage in training and progress in the
workplace.
Freud suggests that benefit claimants are automatically
contracted out to the private and voluntary sectors after 12
months.
We think this approach is too inflexible, early intervention is
usually lower cost and more effective. We recognise the concern
that for some no intervention is actually needed but we believe
intelligent early referral should be considered, for example
prisoners on release or those with poor basic skills.
We believe that the greater involvement of the private and
voluntary sectors will drive up performance. However, these
contracts must be awarded to the provider able to offer the highest
quality and best value on the basis of a level playing field where
all sectors, including Jobcentre Plus, can compete.
We favour a single provider led model where there is genuine
engagement from the lead provider with smaller local organisations,
who are often best placed to engage with the communities they
serve.
With the added support that greater flexibility will bring, we
recognise the need for the individual to accept greater
responsibilities. We support the idea of a contract between the
personal adviser and the jobseeker, with responsibilities on both
sides.
We therefore cautiously welcome moves towards a more mandatory
system which incorporates more conditionality. It is however,
absolutely crucial that any such moves are accompanied by
sufficient support and safeguards.
As well as individually tailored support being available, the
system must ensure that people are not unduly penalised for lack of
compliance and that there is an efficient and speedy appeals system
with appropriate advocacy for vulnerable claimants.
We agree that work accompanied by workplace progression is the
way to eradicate child poverty. However, any increased compulsion
for lone parents to return to work must be accompanied by the
provision of sufficient childcare.
We know that many lone parents cite the lack of affordable
childcare as a barrier to them entering the workplace. It is
therefore crucial that this is
addressed before lone parents are required to
return to work at an earlier stage.
Our experience suggests that clients are more concerned about
the quality of support and real potential to progress than they are
with a choice of providers or a large number of options.
We believe it is more important to provide a full range of
co-ordinated services: the ‘choice’ faced by an individual should
be which routeway to take on the road back to employment rather
than who to take it with.
We broadly welcome this review and look to the Government to now
work with partners and providers to determine how best to take
these recommendations forward.