The government claim that workfare gives the unemployed valuable job experience and increases the likelihood of them finding a job.

In the recent furore in the press those of us who dispute this have been called ‘job snobs’. The Sun stated “But spare a thought for the true victims of this preposterous campaign – the youngsters who might now miss out on the chance of getting some valuable experience… and maybe even a job.”

On the DWP website there is a fascinating report from 2008 entitled “A comparative review of workfare programmes in the United States, Canada and Australia”

The report was commissioned by the DWP.

The report on America is the most informative, although the comments on Canada and Australia do not alter the findings.

“This report focuses on workfare schemes that mandate participation in unpaid work activities in the public, private or ‘not-for-profit’ sector as a condition of receiving benefits. These workfare activities are sometimes referred to as ‘unpaid work experience’, ‘community service’ or ‘work for benefits’. Most workfare programmes have two explicit aims: to improve the employability and ‘work habits’ of participants and to enforce the reciprocal responsibilities of those receiving social assistance through taking part in activities of benefit to the wider community.”

The report draws a number of conclusions. The most notable of which are:

• There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers.

• Workfare is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high.

• Welfare recipients with multiple barriers often find it difficult to meet obligations to take part in unpaid work. This can lead to sanctions and, in the most extreme cases, the complete withdrawal of benefits that leaves some individuals with no work and no income.

If Ian Duncan Smith and Chris Grayling still have their jobs by the time this article is posted, perhaps they should read the DWP report!

The following are excerpts from the report. It speaks for itself.

In the US, most states operate workfare schemes as part of their obligations under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), introduced in 1996. This established Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) as the core welfare programme for families with dependent children under the age of 18. Under TANF, all states are subject to a work participation requirement to engage at least 70 per cent of its welfare population in work related activities for at least 30 hours a week. As TANF programmes are designed and implemented at state level, there is considerable variation in the scope and nature of workfare programmes across the US.

Most significantly, the MDRC report found ‘little evidence that unpaid work experience leads to consistent employment or earnings effects’ among those engaged in workfare compared to control groups of non-participants.

• clients with multiple barriers did not benefit from unpaid work placements because workfare programmes did not provide the support necessary to address their needs;

• the emphasis on unpaid work at the expense of job search activity made it difficult for clients to capitalise on their experience and obtain paid work;

• workfare was least effective in weak labour markets. The West Virginia CWEP had one of the highest proportions of welfare recipients in workfare programmes but was least successful in raising employment levels because unemployment levels of 18 per cent in the early 1980s constrained the possibilities for finding work.

New York City: The Work Experience Programme

New York City implemented a large municipal workfare scheme called the Work Experience Programme (WEP) in the 1990s. Though initially for General Assistance

recipients (able-bodied individuals without children), it was later extended to all TANF recipients. Participants are required to work three days a week, with the remaining two devoted to job search activity10. The most common placements include sweeping streets and cleaning public buildings and parks, although some administrative work is available. The work is unpaid and failure to engage in mandatory activities leads to benefit sanctions.

WEP is the largest workfare scheme in the US with the number of participants peaking at over 30,000 in 1996, although this declined to 17,000 by 2001. During the same period, welfare caseloads fell by 26 per cent. However, the evidence suggests the programme has had a limited impact on employment outcomes with Human Resources Administration (HRA) records showing that only five per cent of WEP participants found jobs.

New York City has also increased the number of wage-paying subsidised jobs available to welfare recipients relative to unpaid work experience placements. This shift was prompted by a recognised need to provide less punitive forms of activity for recipients reaching federal time limits as the job market tightened in the 2001/02 recession16. The New York Parks Department redesigned its programme accordingly so that work placements consisted of both WEP positions and newly-created subsidised jobs made available through the Parks Opportunity Program (POP). In May 2003, there were only 1,000 unpaid WEP placements compared to 1,800 paid POP placements with the number of POP placements set to increase further.

Winsconsin Work W-2

Recent developments indicate that Wisconsin is scaling back its basic workfare programme. In April 2008, the state governor, Jim Doyle, announced a transitional jobs pilot called ‘Real Work for Real Pay‘ (RWRP) that will place W-2 participants in ‘real jobs, where they can earn a pay check, gain work experience and develop the skills needed to remain employed and become self sufficient’. RWRP participants will receive a wage from the employer and intensive job coaching and on-site support for an average of four months. When the wage subsidy ends, the employer is expected to retain the RWRP participant as an unsubsidised employee. Unlike the Trial Jobs component of W-2 which only offered employers $300 to provide subsidised work placements, employers will now be recompensed for the full costs of providing placements.

Washington State: The WorkFirst Programme

Washington State is unique in evaluating the impact of participation in workfare relative to other mandatory TANF activities within its WorkFirst welfare-to-work programme. This ‘WorkFirst Study’ surveyed 3,000 families in March 1999 to measure the employment and earnings outcomes for participants undertaking unpaid work experience (workfare) compared to those in subsidised ‘Community Jobs’ (CJs). These CJs were introduced in 1998 for individuals with multiple barriers to work who have received benefits for 24 months. Participants must work up to twenty hours a week for nine months but are supported through an intensive case management approach that helps them to cope with the demands of the job. Clients are also required to enrol in a complementary activity such as basic education or substance abuse or treatment for an additional 20 hours a week.

The WorkFirst survey data showed that subsidised CJs generated far better outcomes than unpaid work experience. Workfare placements increased employment by only 13 per cent compared to 33 per cent for those in CJs, whilst workfare increased the quarterly earnings of participants by only $45 in the year following placements in contrast to a $792 increase for those who had been engaged in CJs. These stark findings on the poor performance of unpaid work experience prompted the State Legislature and the governor to discontinue the workfare component of the WorkFirst programme.