Our Freud report response

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.

David Freud

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.