(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...As we all might be aware that the Channel 4 Benefit Busters show was designed for publicity for A4e rather than a fair insight in to the benefit system.
Thursday’s (20th August) show which featured the training provider Action for Employment (otherwise known as A4e) and their star tutor/trainer/sales person/staff member Hayley Taylor (which I hear has since been sacked) pursuing ten single mums in to making the transition of going back to work, highlighted a major flaw.
Yes the PR backfired. Not solely due to opinion on the show which i will report later in a separate blog article but rather by their lack of success as the UK market-leader of providing Government welfare schemes.
A4e is paid to “help” tackle the issue of single parents claiming benefits. The Government has the very ambitious aim (so ambitious it beats all claims of sorting the financial crisis mess out) to get 70% of “lone parents into paid work” by 2010.
Note that we are already half way past the year 2009 and this doesn’t mention anything about sustainability.
So A4e have attempted to tweak the perfect element of promotion – Emma Harrison saying something on the lines of the show being just a slice of reality – into picking both the trainer and the participants, setting everything up and then being involved in the final edit.
As previously reported, A4e who holds 47 welfare contracts only managed a 20% job outcome rate (might be a little less due to reported fraud) which is quite shy of the 45% target, have avoided targets again!
The Channel 4 “Benefit Busters” documentary programme (“show”) clearly shows how incompetent A4e are at delivering these courses resulting to a poor standard with poor results.
This wasn’t a normal “Elevate” course at all. There were more financial resources, more resources were used behind the scenes to give more support to these women and if thats not enough even Emma Harrison the A4e chair dropped in but this didn’t help the success one bit.
A group of 10 women who were picked and agreed to be filmed soon decreased by around 20% leaving 8 women left. Obviously they didn’t choose anyone who they thought would drop out – they simply parked the “risky” group somewhere else.
To reach the 70% target or to exceed it they needed everyone to secure employment or at least 7 of the women.
Sadly for A4e, only 4 of the women secured employment – a disappointing 40% and only 3 women remained in the jobs – so one wasn’t sustainable (however the wording didn’t state anything about sustainability).
Benefit Busters threw up a few points, one of which I’ve been pondering for a while noe – namely, who are A4e’s customers? Is it the people who have the misfortune to have to attent A4e? After all, they’re the ones supposedly benefitting from the ‘courses’. Is is the DWP/govt? After all, they pay for and impliment New Deal. Or is it the tax payer? After all, govt money is really tax money.
The people who attend A4e and similar providers such as those women featured on Benefit Busters are often referred to as clients. However, if we think of the term client in the same way as ‘cusomer’, then where are client/customer rights?
Of course client/customer is interchangable whilst still seperated by different industrial/service sectors. For example, a freelance graphic designer and an accountant will both have clients whilst a supermarket and and electrical retailer will have customers. However, the term customer perhaps implies goods and services are bought in exchange for cash more than the term client does. On the other hand, graphic designers and accountants rarely work for nothing.
It’s often said said by many that prisons are ‘holiday camps’. However, would anyone pay good money to stay at such a Center Parks or Butlins if they were like this? The same goes for A4e, If ‘clients’ paid directly to go to A4e, I’d wager they’d improver overnight as clients would be empowered by the ability to vote with their feet. Just as customers of a supermarket can. What needs to be offered is the next best thing – choice! Clients must be able to choose wht suits their circumstances and abilities the best and not sent to a dead end option that suits the DWP, A4e and bonus seeking staff. If that means another provider or college that can do a much better job, then so be it. A one size fits all, lowest common denominator approach is not the answer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The participants are neither customers to the Jobcentre or the provider. In effect they are clients to the New Deal provider – the provider are the customers to Jobcentre/DWP therefore thats why they have a strong partnership allowing people to be “exited” for false and trivial reasons (amongst the few genuine) so peoples claims can be stopped and/or sanctioned – saving the jobcentre money.
Taxpayers are not customers. In certain respects as far as the courses go and Government, taxpayers are the shareholders (while MP’s are the directors, and civil servants the managers) but we must not be confused that taxpayers have any ownership to the money – at the end of the day its a tax and all us taxpayers do (if we got right to vote) is make the occasional vote to which party/candidate we want to vote or decide not to vote at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The most interesting point was made in the final scene of the programme. So a number of women were offered a job at Poundland after undertaking a work trial. However, one of them (I think Dawn) had to turn the job down because the job centre calculation showed that she was a lot better off staying on benefit. Basically, there was no way she could afford to look after her children if she took the job. In fact, Hayley Taylor ended up criticising Job Centre Plus for promoting the benefits of work on the one hand but making it difficult for people to take up work.
Another point -
I have never been on Elevate (mainly cos I am a single guy with no dependents, but the presentation of the course seemed to differ greatly from my experience of A4E doing the gateway course. I have to be honest, I certainly liked the course that was presented in the programme but it seemed to good to be true.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well…. I paused the screen the new circumstances states that she was around £100 better off. Note she pays no tax as would be under the threshold and NI for 20 hours a week equates well under a pound per week. She would pay (subject to the same job and no overtime/increased hours) only £15 in N.I for the entire tax year.
National Insurance is only a big chunk out when you work more hours a week/earn more (i.e. double the income doesn’t mean only double the N.I.C – doesn’t work like that).
The outgoings didn’t include the debt repayments (unless I have gotten confused between the different women as I only took notes watching it) to be fair but I can’t see such a replayment being over £50 per week.
OK, working for around £50 a week (in that case of a high debt repayment) doing 20 hours seems rather a poor wage but its getting out there in to work. The problem is, she just doesn’t want to work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The course would have been made better for TV and it is not the same as Gateway 2 Work or 13 week New Deal – this course was only 6 weeks even though (excluding the work experience) could have been delivered in a week.
Did anyone notice the illegal fire sign on the door when one of the women were interviewed? It seems they forgot about making the entire show perfect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The next programme features the Hull office of A4e. And I suspect will focus on the New Deal. If so, it is something many of us have had exerience of and will be able to relate to.
I’ve been in contact with someone who was on the New Deal ar A4e Hull. Look out for the A4e Hull staff member with a beard – a nasty piece of work according to my contact!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have just read one of the comments RE;Hayley Taylor being sacked.Is this because she was a patronising woman
who was no good at what she was doing?Can anyone confirm or deny that Hayley has been sacked and does anyone know the exact reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would like to know the answer to this as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
there isnt an easy solution women are targeted as they seen as to fill the low paid jobs,little more then hire and fire and open to exploitation.
the number of workless houses has risen to around 3.3million the jobcentres are packed,the only good point i can say the security guard is ok.other then that the whole scenario is bleak.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090826/tuk-number-of-workless-households-rises-6323e80.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i agree yet again! feel exactly the same !!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i DID NOT LIKE HAYLEY tAYLOR. mOTHERS OF YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE FULL TIME MUMS
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I used to work for them ad hoc – we thought we were helping, but were shoved into rooms with no resources – felt just like the ‘clients’ and left to get on with it. Ashamed and angry at seeing others ( and staff) treated so badly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0