A lot of press coverage questions whether reforms to social policy - particularly welfare services - should be taken forward in the current economic climate. My own view is that they need to be put in place more quickly but such measures need to be agile and designed to respond to various 'shocks' to the market we see taking place. Predicting unpredictable events is hard but designing flexible solutions, that can be iterated, is core to reducing the impact of recession on those most vulnerable as well as newly unemployed. This sits at the centre of much of our discussion with governments around the world. In the context of the FT's/Economist recent articles (see links below) I have submitted the following letters;

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/abbd412e-1037-11de-a8ae-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Financial Times
The clue is in the title – flexible New Deal

Sir
Many governments are wrestling with designing appropriate policy responses to recession in their welfare programmes. In the UK we may find ourselves ahead of the curve with flexible New Deal (fND) and we must avoid looking at previous programmes through rose tinted spectacles. (“Call to bring back 1980’s style welfare to work programmes” 14/15 March)

There is learning from many initiatives, including the Community Programme but such services need to be developed through fND and by bringing new flexibilities to existing welfare programmes. We have enough initiatives already. The time is at hand to knit these together in a coherent way to support the much broader demographic of people now unemployed and facing redundancy.

fND provides a framework for that integration. It is designed to allow the supply chain to take responsibility in designing appropriate responses to drive economic development and respond to changing economic conditions/challenges. Suppliers must create agile, evolving programmes which incorporate a variety of service models.

Key to success is the recognition that recession and credit crunch are impacting on unemployment in distinct and different ways. The emphasis has had to shift in programme design from ‘job placement’ to ‘job creation’. Additional, deeper services are required on housing and debt. It is crucial to join fND and other government funding more effectively. This needs to be a priority in coming months and is where the battle to reduce the recessionary impact on the UK will be won.

Run badly any welfare programme delivers “deadweight benefits to an ever more demoralized” unemployed community. It is time for the entire market to step up, lead, innovate, use its expertise/experience, and deliver through the policy instrument of flexible New Deal itself. As a policy response, that is the strength of the fND model – its flexible.

www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13331261 
www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13278305

The Economist Flexible Welfare Policy – Can UK lead the way?

Sir
I disagree that UK welfare reform looks ‘spectacularly ill-timed’ (A Flood of Misery 21/03/09). Your article ‘The Jobs Crisis’ (14/03/09) highlighted the difficulty governments face in managing ‘a difficult policy U-turn’ as they balance welfare policies against changing economic climate. The UK government has put in place a framework with the potential to be agile and responsive. It is a ‘flexible policy’ – a rare thing – and just the policy response required.

JobCentre Plus in the UK is best placed to deal with short term unemployment. Private and third sector operators, under flexible New Deal (fND), will deal with longer term unemployed. Further refinements will be necessary. We need more integration of debt, legal, housing and health support into fND. This requires joined up work with agencies and departments across government. We need to allow access for those at risk of long term unemployment – as models in France and Germany do. All of which is possible under the reforms.

The responsibility and accountability ‘to make sure the misery is not measured in decades’ (‘The jobs crisis’) rests with public, third and private sector suppliers, not politicians. We must step up as a market to provide effective, value for money, personalised services to mitigate the impact of recession on our communities. We have the policy framework in place to do just that.