My very angry young client has to attend a New Deal training course with an outside company which is the only one with which local JCP office has a contract at present. However before he can start he has to sit a basic numeracy and literacy test with the JCP. He says he'd be humiliated having to take this test as he has GSCEs in a number of subjects including English and Maths. He's been told 3 times he has to take this test, already had a 2 week sanction and they're now looking at a 4 week then 26 week sanction.

In CPAG it states "If you are not considered ready for a job you are likely to be referred to a place on a training scheme...or New Deal programme..."

Who decides he's not ready for a job and so needs to go on a ND prog? He certainly thinks he's ready.

Even if he said yes to the ND prog is it compulsory that he has to do this basic skills test beforehand?

I asked them what type of questions he'd get and was told it's things like how much change you'd expect if you bought an item in a shop. She also told me it doesn't matter that he's got qualifications as he might well have forgotten his basic maths.

He's reminds me of a young me when I really gobby, stuck to my principles an wouldn't give in. How we learn!! (Mind you I'm not much different now).

hi sue
if 'they' think he needs a basic skills course, they should have reasons which they should be able to substantiate, and you would think they would listen when a person says they would feel humiliated...is it an appeal against sanctions, because i would have thought not wanting to attend a course he doesn't need is good cause...? i mean it would be horrible if kids got sent on useless courses against their wishes in a thoughtless 'Pauline from Restart' kind of way, by process, and a waste of taxpayer's money - please tell me they're not doing that stuff again...i get hardly any JSA labour market-type cases, but i remember seeing a kid years ago on a 'training course' where he was left in a room by himself and had to build a wall of bricks, and then knock it down and build it again etc...bright kid too... he left... : )

Sounds like our jobs. They keep building brick walls. We keep knocking 'em down!

at least that's inter-active... : )

intercity
- i just booked a train ticket (a charity discount thing) and brum to euston will cost £37.70.
as i will have to get up in the middle of the night i thought it would be a good idea if i booked from walsall to london, which i asked for first, but this will cost £117!!!
reason is walsall to brum will be a centro train not a virgin train, or at least that's the reason given...
so i'll pay the three quid or so to get to new street...

pardon me, just seemed apropos on the subjects of both 'reason' and basic skills training - don't ask....: )

I have too many clients coming in with the same story - ie they get nothing out of the 'training' courses. Although accessing porn sites on the training agents computers is one I've heard a few times but then again this might have been relevant as they were perhaps trainee exotic dancers eh?

It's money for old rope. How much are these providers paid for the contracts and I'm now looking at how to get hold of stats about how many claimants actually benefit from the courses.

It's a crying shame when there are some eager young people out there who want to learn a trade. Nothing's changed over the many years of these courses to help people back into work, apart from change of course name...anyway what and where is this mythical work that's supposedly out there.

i agree...and
basic skills training is a complete waste of time for people who don't lack basic skills, eg literacy and numeracy...as suggested by your client's GCSE's...actually, i don't think there's any evidence that people who have learned to read or count forgot how to do it...


there's a bit about basic skills here -

http://www.learndirect-advice.co.uk/featured/bassk/#what

and even here -

http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/Customers/Helpwithtraining/Basicskillsandenglish/index.html

In our area who do you think is running these lucrative waste of time JC+ training contracts?

The ex-JC+ staff who quickly jumped on the new deal / training provider band wagon.

Most people that we have seen who attended said they sat all day learning nothing and doing not a single thing left unsupervised looking at four walls most of the time.

I've just had a look at the learndirect website. One of the basic skills it lists is reading and understanding legal documents. Basic skill? Are they havin' a laugh?

To get back to your original question, Sue, I would suggest putting in an appeal as having good cause to refuse and force the training provider to justify their methods to a tribunal. They probably can't! But I would also make a complaint to whoever is the employment minister these days and ask how you get the company's contract removed for wasting tax payers' money. This may or may not produce a useful response, but I personally feel duty bound to protest about anything that's wrong with the system. If you don't say anything, it's bound to keep happening.

Well Paul, Even with a degree I still don't understand some (well a lot really)legal documents.

toxteth, I've appealed the decision and now appealed the second decision with same grounds for the second sanction. Also asked them how they can justify saying my client needs the basic skills test - no response as yet suprise surprise.

Complaints to ministers - pah! I've wasted so much time on these as all I get back are patronising responses from Bliar's lackies who never answer specifics. Might try again when I'm not weeping with frustation.

How do we get info about these companies with whom the JCP has contracts - is it just under FOI? Has anyone done this and had any joy? If so I'd appreciate a copy of the letter please.

How do these companies and the JCP measure whether claimants are considered to have successfully completed the course? Surely can't be through the numbers who've got proper jobs or apprentices (sorry for the use of such quaint olde english words.

Well I'm fogetting about it for a few days as I'll be chillin (proper definition judging by today's weather) in Ireland near the Atlantic coast. Gale force winds and storms for a few days will be preferable to dealing with govt depts.

Phew! As "an ex JCP staff member who jumped on the bandwagon" I feel somewhat nervous to post a reply!! Apologies for my mercenary approach, but I have a mortgage and bills to pay!!!
Sue; your client has probably come on to New Deal because he has been claiming JSA for 6 months. Participation on New Deal is mandatory for 18-24yr olds who have been claiming JSA.
Having worked on all sides of the fence on this issue..JCP..JCP Providers...and Welfare Rights I would agree with the comments earlier that much New Deal Provision is provided "on the cheap", and training is of low value. However from the other side, JCP contracts that are awarded to the providers are certainly not generous; same old story is that you get what you pay for. I have recently been involved in a project funded by Community Futures Fund, which paid for 6 clients to be trained as >10 tonne dumper truck drivers or 360degree excavator operators. Due to recent changes in training requirements by the Construction Industry Training Board, the cost of training these already experienced clients was in excess of £1,500 each. It's a sad fact that quality training that will enable people to gain skilled employment requires far greater investment from JCP/LSC; and ultimately us...the taxpayer!
Several providers that I am aware of have refused to tender for further JCP contracts as they are basically uneconomic to run.
All this is very far from the initial Pilots of New Deal when there was a wide range of training and work experience opportunities available for clients (Anyone remember New Deal for Musicians?).

Wed 23-May-07 09:34 AM by ken

Edited to correct link

wonder why i shudder whenever i think of ESA...

going off at a slight tangent, did anyone notice this by any chance?

Risks to vulnerable individuals of participation in DWP pilots must be justified by the potential benefits to society: New Social Security Advisory Committee report

(rightsnet news 18 May, 2007)

Hiya,

I am afraid that because your client is recieving JSA, he is subject to the Job centre as they are basically his Boss. It is mandatory for all clients to take a basic skills test, the test that is taken at the job centre is only 15 questions and it is simply so they can guage if he has a basic skills need - and this is because alot of people who have difficulty finding work have a basic skill need.

He really does not need to feel insecure this is something that everyone needs to do, and I am afraid that the Job centre is well within thier rights to sanction him if they see fit. He needs to be carefull as after the 4 week sanction it goes up to 6 months!!

after he has taken the test, he will be referred to a training programme at an external providr, which will initially be a two week intensive JobSearch called GAteway to Work - this will help him to develop a dynamic CV, and develop his interview techniques, he will also have a recruiter working for him to source Jobs for him - He may feel that he is being vicitmised, but all of this things are put in place t help and make sure that he gets all the support he needs to find a job.

At the end of the day he needs to realise that JSA is not a right, you are basicall working for the Job Centre by 'activly seeking work'

hi Una

if it were true that basic skills test are mandatory for all clients, including those with nationally recognized education certificates indicating no lack in basic skills, one could infer that -
1. an awful lot of time, and tax-payers money is being wasted; or, 2. the lengthy education system up to and including university level has been a total failure, and the certificates aren't worth the paper they are written on; or
3. the jobcentre really is god, and pretensions to an educated and aware populace in a mature and advanced democracy are delusory.

thanks for posting.

I've got to agree with Jo's comments

Additionally yes I do know the sanction periods increase and I am helping him pursue an appeal against the two which have now been imposed. Basic skills test completely inappropriate in his circumstances.

There's one thing though, he won't have to do a third as he's found himself a proper apprenticeship with a good local firm who didn't need him to take one of their forced basic skills tests as they accepted his GCSE certificates. They didn't think he might have forgotten these educational skills as the local JCP inferred he had. He's obvioulsy not daft as he managed to get the job himself without help from his bosses at the JCP.

As an aside why is the JCP exempt from paying the minimum wage if as you say he's "basically working for the Jobcentre" whilst signing on.

Reading this back before posting, it reads like a personal dig but it's honestly not - it's at the system as a whole.

Well the minumum wage is about £5 an hour and J.S.A £46.85 for claimants aged 18-24, I have been unemployed myself and my experience was it took less than an hour a week to sign on. True he is also expected to be taking steps to look for work, but I've done a fair bit of that in my life and never expected my boss to pay for it.

I don't want to have a dig at anyone either, and I'm not really talking about this specific case as I think the advice already given is perfectly correct. However, as a former DWP employee I want to stand up for those currently working for Jobcentre plus.

Regarding those working for the various new deal providers, how can we blame them for "Jumping ship" and joining private sector organisations, when the Government insists on taking more and more of their work and giving it to the private sector?

As for those who work for JC+ they don't make the policy, and in my experience often don't agree with them, but I do feel they are damned whatever they do.

It is obvious to me that there is a very serious problem with lack of basic skills in this country, and many people with poor basic literacy don't actually tell you they can barely read and write. Some people have become very skilled at masking their lack of basic educational skills.

Incidently, many employers will tell you that they don't trust educational certificates and I have myself seen people doing work experience who were reasonably qualified but not much use to an employer. How exactly is that the fault of JC+ staff?

Let's suppose JC+ decided that they would exempt certain people from the basic skills test because of their qualifications, or because they didn't appear to need it. I don't suppose anyone on Rightsnet would accuse them of making arbitrary and subjective decisions that this certificate is worth more than that one, or would they?

Or do people think it is better to just leave people to go on with the charade of signing on and looking for work, when you know perfectly well that they are never going to find it.

Chris

All you say may be true - I've no means of assessing it - but if it is, what a sad reflection it is on our education system.

Incidentally, what happens if someone with a degree goes to JC+ to sign on? Do they have to do a basic skills test? If not, where (in terms of qualifications) is the cut off point?

I can answer this as my partner had a HE qualification and the answer is yes they can still make you take a 'basic skills test' the logic is despite having a degree you may lack the necessary basic core skills to gain employment (their logic not mine might I add) - there is inconsistency in this practice as some advisers may exercise that little known word common and sense in the same sentence and decide upon looking at an individuals qualifications they might just might be employable. It depemds when study was undertaken - what the qualifications are and whether or not the adviser thinks its a reasonable course of action. so if you get a brand new adviser who follows the rules to the word you are stuffed basically!

I think several responses have answered the 6 month mandatory element of your question - the basic skills test is 'screening' and is generally applied to all potential ND clients. I 100% appreciate the sentiment of your young person but being realistic in terms of clients welfare it may be better for him to do the test rather than face a heavy sanction - I agree principles are wonderful things sadly your client cannot eat and pay the bills with them! Personally given the lack of time you have on this before sanctions increase I would proceed with the basic skills test with a means to an end view - then when the client has income secured then I would start arguing the toss about the reasonableness of the testing. Its great your client is challenging what appears to be a ludicrous system but his first priority is to secure income to live on - that doesn't mean he can't challenge the system but perhaps needs to be a bit more lateral in his challenge.
Hope it goes well Caroline

Hi Caroline, thanks for your input. One of my recent posts tells of his new employment so we don't have to worry about further sanctions.

There's no way he would have agreed to take the test. He'd originally come in with his mum and was point blank refusing to take it even though I told him principles wouldn't put jam on his butty. Mum sat there bemused - obviously used to his ways and obviously quite proud of him as well. I'd a lot of respect for him myself but I wasn't the one without income.

I agree the system is totally corrupt and frustrating and a complete waste of tax payer's money - I too am often to be found shouting very loudly and campaigning against a totally out of date and not fit for purpose welfare system this country has. Am glad cl has got into work - one of my conspiracy theories is that they system is design to be so bad that cls will be desperate to take any job just to get off benefit!

"At the end of the day he needs to realise that JSA is not a right, you are basically working for the Job Centre by 'activly seeking work'".

Actually, it is a right, laid down in statute. The right may be conditional but it is a right nevertheless and if it were Con/JSA its the claimant's money in the first place (National Insurance!).

And just because a person has to be actively seeking work this does not give the DWP the right to act unreasonably. Good cause is what is reasonable in the circumstances.

I can just imagine a claimant telling a tribunal "do they really expect me, a maths graduate, to have to explain to someone with an NVQ in colouring in, how much change I get from £1 if I buy a mars bar and a packet of digestives".

Principles or money? Each individual has to choose for him/herself and live with the consequences. I've had many similar battles with the old DHSS when I was younger. Youth does that. I'm a bit more pragmatic now. However I still enjoy a good scrap though from time to time!

you and me both Paul