Sun Sep 15 10:47:30 UTC 2024: ## “Working Well” Program: A Cost-Effective Yet Ineffective Job Scheme?
**Manchester, UK** – A controversial new report from the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), founded by former Conservative minister Iain Duncan Smith, is calling for the Labour government to expand the “devolution” policies initiated by the Tories at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). This report highlights the “Working Well” programme in Greater Manchester as a model for cost-effective job creation.
The CSJ claims the program, which provides employment support and connects individuals to services, generated a £2.68 return on investment for every £1 over ten years. However, this analysis has been disputed by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), which puts the return at £1.75 for every £1 invested.
While both sides agree on the financial benefits of the program, concerns have been raised about its impact on participants. **The Canary** investigated and found that despite a focus on helping people into jobs, the program didn’t necessarily lead to fair-paying or rewarding employment. Additionally, the program appeared to have little impact on the health and wellbeing of participants, with data suggesting that it might have even worsened the health of some.
The program primarily involved referring participants to existing services such as GPs, the National Career Service, and job search websites. Critics argue that this essentially amounts to a “glorified work program” that doesn’t address the root causes of unemployment, such as systemic barriers faced by marginalized communities.
The GMCA, however, emphasizes a personalized approach, highlighting initiatives like “Roots to Dental” which addresses the link between poor oral health and employment. However, concerns remain regarding the program’s focus on individual responsibility for overcoming barriers rather than addressing societal and workplace obstacles.
Furthermore, the evaluation of the program appears to focus heavily on job start rates, while neglecting to fully assess its impact on participants’ health and wellbeing. The Canary’s investigation found discrepancies between the reported data and the actual performance of the program, raising further questions about its effectiveness.
The CSJ’s promotion of this program as a model for nationwide expansion has sparked debate, with critics questioning whether it truly serves the best interests of chronically ill, disabled, and marginalized individuals or if it is merely a way to push them into low-paying, insecure jobs.
First Piper 