Job scheme 'a success' – but no one's keeping count
26 June 2006
By ANNA CHALMERSBusinesses are receiving up to $17,000 from taxpayers for each beneficiary they employ, but Work and Income cannot say how many are kept on after the 12-month subsidy ends.
The Job Plus scheme has subsidised the wages of 123,000 beneficiaries working as labourers, restaurant staff, builders, salespeople and machinery operators since it began in 1998. The scheme provides up to $214 a week for every participant.
Despite record low levels of unemployment last year, more than 10,900 employers received subsidised workers, compared with 8787 in 1998.
At its peak, in 2000, more than 21,000 employers used the scheme.
Job Plus, which has a maximum subsidy period of one year but no cap on numbers, is not monitored to see whether employers keep on staff when the subsidy ends.
National Party associate welfare spokeswoman Anne Tolley said the situation was woeful.
"There has to be some sort of obligation from the employer that if it works out they will keep them."
A request by The Dominion Post under the Official Information Act for the scheme's latest audit was refused by Social Development Ministry officials.
But the ministry did reveal that though listed objectives were met, the audit gave some recommendations for areas needing improvement.
Work and Income deputy chief executive Ray Smith said Job Plus was the agency's most successful scheme.
Long-term beneficiaries were twice as likely to have a job at the end of the subsidy period than those not on the scheme. "Our overall measure isn't whether the employers hang on to the individual, it's whether or not they come back on to a benefit."
If it became apparent that an employer was regularly accessing Job Plus and not providing work after the subsidy ended then Work and Income "would stop working with them".
Lower Hutt cafe Zampelles has five staff subsidised by the scheme. Manager Sue Orr said she doubted whether the workers would have been taken on without the subsidy.
One had been out of work a long time, another was visually impaired and a third "super shy". The former beneficiaries had blossomed and were good with customers. She would have no hesitation in recommending all five remain after the subsidies ended.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/0,2106,3711775a6479,00.html
Sorry not sure if this will be of interest or help to readers etc
I am also still very hesitant to discuss my own POV concerning Protected Disclosures legislation matters let alone personal experiences - however fortunately (or perhaps I should say unfortunately ) these sort of articles and reports often attract my attention as they may demonstrate some of the huge difficulties & obstacles to quality assurance with transparency and accountability within public service institutions imho :(