9 out of 10 of Work and Health Programme (WHP) participants (88%) have not obtained a ‘job outcome’.

9 out of 10 of Work and Health Programme (WHP) participants (88%) have not obtained a ‘job outcome’.
New DWP figures covering the period from the launch of the WHP in England and Wales between November 2017 and April 2018 up to February 2019
The DWP figures also show that:

78% of WHP starters are disabled people;
13 per cent were long-term unemployed; and
9% were from early access groups.

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2019/may/9-out-10-work-and-health-programme-participants-do-not-have-job-outcome

I would be good to see this results of the WHP, compared to the 'Work Program' that it replaced.  

Nine out of 10 suggests that c10% of WHP participants do obtain a 'job outcome'. That compares with about 2% of WP participants.

That figure is misleading because WHP participants are fewer in number than WP participants (as WHP is select, whilst WP involved many), so it would be necessary to look at the actual numbers rather than percentages. That might reveal that the numbers are the same or similar, for instance, if it was true that WHP participants are a 1/5 of the number of WP participants then that would make the actual numbers of 'job outcomes' pretty similar.

Worth looking into the figures more closely

Suggest as a first step you read the discussion on the thread begun by MightyQunit entitled “Being Mandated onto WHP” at link:

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t3574-being-mandated-onto-whp

I posted a link on that thread to “Work and Health Programme Provider Guidance” and post it again here, suggest you read the information in this link too.:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-and-health-programme-provider-guidance

and, specifically, Chapter 3 on referral. Check out what the rules are on referral and what the referral process and interview involve as it will prepare you for what to expect.

MightyQunit  contribution to this discussion ended with a post on May 3rd but he resumed the discussion on what happened next at:

https://respectfulbenefits.forumotion.com/t3652-linking-periods-for-the-work-health-programme

Here he relates how his cunning plan to avoid referral turned out. The primary issue remains unresolved as I understand it and, as predicted, it threw up a whole new set of issues requiring further deft negotiation and resolution.

You have not actually attended the initial provider referral interview yet Jobber, according to your post.

I would suggest you do not attend, ignore them completely and have no further contact with them or answer their calls, emails or texts.

If, or when, your coach raises the subject with you again, as doubtless s/he will, you should, if you do not wish to enlist on the programme or attract more grief, respond along the following lines:

I agreed to accept your invitation at a previous meeting to attend an interview with you, my coach, to discuss referral to the Work and Health Programme.

The DWP regulations clearly state that such an invitation and such an interview should take place in order for what’s involved in the Programme to be explained to me and any questions I might have as to its relevance to me in my circumstances would be answered so that I could make an informed decision on whether or not to volunteer for, or agree to, referral. This to be done before my name is passed to a provider.

It came as a considerable surprise to me, therefore, to receive a letter from a WHP provider informing me that I had voluntarily agreed to have myself referred to the programme and was obliged to attend an initial interview at their premises in a fortnight’s time.

This referral method is in direct breach of the DWP’s own regulations. Additionally, I will be seeking legal guidance on whether a breach of the privacy laws has occurred when my personal details were passed on to a third party without my knowledge or consent.

Considering the shabby, underhand and duplicitous way in which I have been treated I shall not be volunteering to join the Programme. Furthermore, I will resist with all the legal resources at my disposal any threats, intimidation or mandatory requirements as well.

Remember attendance at the Provider’s premises automatically infers referral.

Thanks Committed Claimant and have particularly noted this point you mention: attendance at the Provider’s premises automatically infers referral.= I will not be going

I see they can just mandate me to at a 6-9 week stage after, but hoping they will have taken my health issues fully on board by then. And agree its not for me. I hope.


Committed Claimant, many thanks for the letter that's very much appreciated indeed and will be using at the appropriate time-like soon!  

My head is like mush these past 6 months or so so finding things much harder to deal  with articulate myself and thank god for spell checkers.




Committed Claimant, please note, there was no invitation to attend WHP.WHP stuff was just casually mentioned to me at what I will describe as a per usual UC appointment. I am guessing this goes in my favor when I mention this in the letter you have drafted?


jobberpw

First, there is no point in running yourself down. The only purpose that serves is the opposition’s.

I am glad that you appear to have decided to ignore the Provider’s invitation or any of their advances. That should include any and all contact. You are not required to justify or excuse your decision to them.

The comments I made were meant as a basis on which to build your own arguments or answers to the inevitable coach response in your own way, either verbally or written, Obviously only you can fine tune it to incorporate your own circumstances.

Please don’t concern yourself with what might happen in 6-9 weeks’ time. One hurdle at a time is usually enough to for most of us, more than enough for some. Aim straight, hit the bull and yours will be the victory. Then you can think of setting up for the next target.