I have been asked to post this message on behalf of Citizens Advice National Development Team. The text is written by Ben McGurry, Financial Icclusion Partnership Manager with Citizens Advice.

"Some of you will be aware that a recent article entitled "Citizens Advice applies to help cut disabled benefits", published on www.benefitsandwork.co.uk has caused an element of confusion and prompted a number of questions from bureaux. This is unfortunate and a distraction, as the piece in question contains significant and numerous factual errors and misrepresents the role of bureaux and Citizens Advice. Moreover, the article appeared without prior comment or input from Citizens Advice. The article relates to the possible involvement of Citizens Advice in the recently announced Provider Led Pathways to Work programme, which is being led by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

The motivations behind the article remain a mystery. However, it is important to set the record straight, as we have been approached by an organization with a view to partnering on this particular project. Below you will find a number of bullet points that set out precisely where we are with Pathways to Work and the proposed model of working, which I hope answer any questions you may have:
• Citizens Advice has been approached by the Shaw Trust (http://www.shaw-trust.org.uk/) who wish to bid to government to deliver Pathways to Work services in certain areas.
• Expressions of interest (or Pre Qualification Questionnaires) were invited up until 31 August as a first stage.
• Shaw Trust have expressed a wish, if successful, to sub-contract with the CAB service to provide independent money and welfare benefits advice to service users. They want to make this part of their bid, but it is not clear that this service feature will be part of the specification, or that the funding level offered to successful bidders in any area would enable Shaw Trust to afford to commission these services as 'added extras', or at the price we might charge (incorporating Full Cost Recovery at both a bureau and Citizens Advice level).
• We have only so far agreed to Shaw Trust including within their expression of interest that there is an 'in principle' commitment to us working with Shaw Trust - this is on the understanding that we will be subcontracted only to provide independent advice to those service users who wish it and will not be involved in any capacity in the sanctions processes involved here.
• It would seem likely that service users will wish to seek independent advice on the issues raised by their engagement with the Pathways to Work programme, particularly to evaluate whether they are likely to be better or worse off financially as well as whether they have been treated fairly by the benefits process. Seeking that such services form part of the Programme would seem to be beneficial to the individuals likely to be affected.
• However the terms upon which such services might need to be provided will be critical to whether or not we could play a role here.
• The next stage of the competition is expected to develop over the next few months and we need to decide in more detail whether to proceed with this, in the event that Shaw Trust are invited to continue. We expect a view to taken on this having regard to fit with the aims, policies and principles of the Service and our Corporate Strategy, and other considerations such as capability to deliver and consistency with our social policy work.
• The scale of bureaux/Citizens Advice operations being discussed so far are relatively small scale equivalent to employing eight full time equivalent paid advisers.
• We are not bound to anything with Shaw Trust at this stage.
• Shaw Trust are totally aware of our position regarding Pathways to Work and the article.
• We expect to hear from DWP this week whether or not Shaw Trust would be invited to submit a full bid (w/c 18 Sept). However, at the time of writing this briefing we have not heard from the Department.

If you have any further questions or concerns at all on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. My email address is ben.mcgurry@citizensadvice.org.uk.

Notes:
• For further information on the Provider Led Pathways to Work programme please visit the DWP’s website: www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/Partners/Opportunitiestotender/Dev_012570.xml.html"

We already have a project in Newham in which we, the council, have commisioned the C.A.B to provide direct advice to the clients of all the Job Brokers/employment agencies who are active in Newham.

The main difference is that it has been funded initially through NRF and then through another temporary finance stream. However all this funding has now ceased and I may very well ask participating brokers to pay for the service next year.

The other difference is our scheme is available to all Job Brokers who wish to participate, but I still think it would be a worthwhile service even if we had only one major Job Broker in our borough.

The reports we have commisioned show that customer satisfaction is very high (with customers valuing the independence and epertise of the CAB), and because she is an expert on benefits she identified over £1.5 million of underclaimed benefits in the first two years of our project. What is interesting is that this has been accross the board, not just tax credits and into-work stuff.

Because they are from the C.A.B it has also been much easier for these clients to get advice about Housing and debt etc than would have been the case otherwise.

Many of the clients are already on compulsorary programmes and subject to sanctions for non compliance, but I have not seen any evidence that they blame the C.A.B for this. The trouble is that the clients who have the most sticks to get them into work, also have the least carrots, so they value the service less.

One problem has been getting all the Job Brokers to make referrals as their staff are already trained to provide benefits advice themselves and they have already bought software. I really wish we had been able to agree an arrangement with them when they were establishing their contracts as they all have provision of benefits advice as part of their specifications.

I think it is eminently sensible to give this work to a specialist agency rather than attempt to get their own staff to do it. If I were a client I wouldn't want to be getting my better off calculation from someone who is judged by how many people thay get into work, it has also been obvious to me that the quality of advce from the CAB has been superior to that from the job brokers.

Finally I'd just say it isn't clear to me if the complaint is that the advice won't be independent because it is funded by the DWP, or whether they are saying it should be provided directly by Government agencies like JC plus. In any case plenty of advice is already funded directly, or indirectly by central or local Government but we haven't lost faith in it.