Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
DWP UC risks documents released under FOI
Here’s the Computer Weekly initial take on the documents.
And this from the Register - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/13/universal_credit/?mt=1460545100441
‘The DWP pointed out that the documents are nearly four years old and said they have no bearing on how the programme is running today.’
Well I’ll go to the foot of our stairs!!!! They blocked the documents for so long they’re out of date!
Didn’t see that coming….
Where are the actual documents in question? Where can you see them?
Where are the actual documents in question? Where can you see them?
the twilight zone, just turn left at the outer limits and go straight on
‘The DWP pointed out that the documents are nearly four years old and said they have no bearing on how the programme is running today.’
The trouble is the documents surely have a bearing about whether the public can continue to trust what the Department and any minister are advising them….....
The problem I see is that this mistrust is now really undermining support for the welfare state.
Where are the actual documents in question? Where can you see them?
John Slater says that the docs ‘were emailed directly to the requesters’ and that he’s ‘still working through the information’
https://twitter.com/AmateurFOI/status/719546117592059904
Where are the actual documents in question? Where can you see them?
John Slater says that the docs ‘were emailed directly to the requesters’ and that he’s ‘still working through the information’
https://twitter.com/AmateurFOI/status/719546117592059904
thanks shawn.
There’s one now available at https://campaigningforchange.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/universal-credit-project-assessment-review.pdf
I found a few interesting bits in it:
“The policy team and the approach to preparing new secondary legislation are also embedded in the program to an unusual extent, and this is intended to ensure that the regulations reflect the design needs emerging from the agile methodology, rather than being designed upfront in top-down isolation.”
“But (because the aim is for the form of the secondary legislation to follow the detailed design work on the system that emerges through Agile), there are direct interdependencies between the planning for (one) the drafting work and (two) the design work…”
This seems to imply that the regs follow the computer program rather than the design of the benefit.
“A high level map exists of stakeholders, their issues and the messaging approach for each stakeholder community or person. This is currently at a low level of maturity as a result of a lack of resource being appointed to the task. This resource issue is being addressed – but the scale of the task is not fully appreciated at the moment. Some major communities need to be engaged with urgency to make sure the program does not suffer from lack of support, or, at worst negative activity. Local Authorities, in particular need to be addressed more effectively… Senior staff have recognised the need to “Man Mark” their senior stakeholders but this activity is currently not well coordinated and needs more sophistication in terms of messaging, agenda management and processes and systems (such as a customer relationship management system) to support it and reduce the impact of concerns on scarce senior resources. “
“The issues around the need for effective engagement with local authorities and other organisations (such as the citizens advice bureau) that are potentially important to successful delivery of the changes became very clear during the PAR. The process of engagement with these bodies has commenced but the efficacy and depth of that engagement is questionable and much more will need to be done before these key stakeholders feel engaged and the program benefits from that engagement. This is an area that is currently “behind the curve”. “
“... The potential reputational and practical risks to the program are being underestimated, and could result in the program suffering from delayed or disrupted roll-out, or in extreme cases active blocking of its intentions. In the case of local authorities, local councillors – using local media – could lead this concern (who are already focused on finding savings of over 25% across the complexity of multiple services).”
Those who work for local authorities (and CABx) may recognise the effects of this from the way in which DWP subsequently approached senior members and officials.
[ Edited: 21 Apr 2016 at 01:58 pm by Gareth Morgan ]
My goodness, you really do have to wade your way through the drivel don’t you? Talk about buzzword bingo.
There’s one now available at https://campaigningforchange.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/universal-credit-project-assessment-review.pdf
Great spot Gareth .... and here’s Campaign4Change’s piece on it:
https://ukcampaign4change.com/2016/04/19/hidden-for-four-years-a-review-of-universal-credit-it/
this is interesting as well -
‘... it appears that Stephen Crabb refused to sign off further public money for an appeal and officials were left with little choice but to release the reports.
https://ukcampaign4change.com/2016/04/18/crabbs-momentous-foi-decision-on-universal-credit-it/
Now they’re all on the FOI site
1. Issues Log http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_credit_programme/Issues Log - Redacted v3.pdf
2. Milestone Plan http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_credit_programme/Universal Credit Programme Milestone Plan 13 Apr 2012.pdf
3. UC Programme Risk Part 1http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_credit_programme/Z UC Programme Risk Part 1 - compressed.pdf
4. UC Programme Risk Part 2 http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_credit_programme/UC Programme Risk Part 2.PDF
5. UC Programme Risk Part 3 http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_credit_programme/Z UC Programme Risk Part 3 - compressed.pdf
6. UC Programme Risk Part 4 http://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_credit_programme/UC Programme Risk Part 4.PDF
Beware - 3 to 6 are huge.
The Rightsnet wordwrap seems to break the addresses so you’ll have to copy and paste them together.
[ Edited: 23 Apr 2016 at 11:32 am by Gareth Morgan ]The Rightsnet wordwrap seems to break the addresses so you’ll have to copy and paste them together.
It looks like the problem is badly formatted web addresses (ie they have gaps) ....
To save you having to copy the links above, the six files are all available @
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_credit_programme#comment-68600