The sector has been myopic and has erroneously focused on a single element of the Payment by Results regime.
The Document; The Work Programme Framework makes two very important observations……
- “the price paid for job outcomes should not exceed the benefit savings that have been generated”. See IB, JSA savings for 1 year divide by 12 x by 13 or 26 weeks =: thats more like it!! ( I know its crude but does it work?
On page 4, paragraph 5 of The Work Programme funding model says;
- Whether contracts within the Work Programme are “….exclusively or heavily outcome-based….” This is of material importance
Exclusively or heavily outcome-based implies the potential for there to be a myriad of interconnected outcomes.
Can I draw your attention to the suggested payment structure presented by David Freud in Chapter 4 of Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity: options for the future of welfare to work 2007
A potential payment structure
Once a provider has successfully supported a move into employment they
would receive separate payments for:
- The initial move off benefit
- Continuous, or near continuous employment for 13, 26, 52, 104 and 156 weeks
- Personal pay progression, possibly reflected in a lower requirement for tax credits
- Improvements in the person’s qualifications
- Bonus payments linked to targeted outcomes across all client groups
- Bonus payments for specific outcomes linked to wider Departmental objectives (such as the Child Poverty target)
Payments would also need to be weighted to reflect the complexity of needs of claimants so that the hardest to help would yield the greatest payments for successful outcomes. This would ensure that the incentives exist to extend the opportunity of support to everyone within the system.
……………………………………………….
So there we have it… we need to embrace ALL the potential In-work outcomes …… so lets get to it.
.. here’s the link to chapter 4…. “>