We can obviously have every confidence that the tail is not wagging the dog and that

The Department for Work and Pensions has the most rigid and painstaking system for approving claims for "placement and sustained placement payments" submitted by the Work Programme providers - certainly nothing like "If they say they've placed someone in a job, then that's a PR bonus for us and our impeccable, if "simple" statistics on the success of the Programme, so just pay it"?

Item 1.  22 February 2013 - the PAC publish their report on the first 14 months of the Work Programme

The government's flagship multibillion-pound programme for helping the long-term unemployed into work has been branded "extremely poor" in a damning assessment by MPs. Margaret Hodge, who chairs the committee, said the programme was particularly failing young people and the hardest to help.

She also criticised the DWP for publishing unvalidated data from a trade body representing Work Programme providers, saying: "This is just not on."

The " trade body representing Work Programme providers" is of course ERSA (who are these days proudly boasting on their website about how "ERSA has speareheaded [sic] the establishment of the IEP, a professional body for the employability sector.)  The "unvalidated data" concerned ERSA collated data showing that "200,000 people had been placed in work" which the DWP had duly republished as "the results of the Work programme".

Item 2.  also 22 February 2013 - from the DWP Statement in response to Public Accounts Committee report on the Work Programme

A DWP spokesperson said:   "This report (22/02/13) paints a skewed picture.  More than 200,000 people have moved off benefits and into a job thanks to the Work Programme."

A sort of "If we say it's ok to publish data provided by our contractors as our "performance stats" it's ok, ok?" and they also repeated it in the "detailed breakdown of performance outcomes" provided in the response to the PAC.

How is the Work Programme performing?

Official statistics showed that from June 2011 until July 2012:

•31,200 participants had stayed in work for long enough to achieve a job “outcome” – that means they stayed in work for a sustained period and the organisation has claimed a payment.

•Of those, 19,300 had been in work for at least six months and 11,900 for at least three months.

•Of those who joined the Work Programme in June 2011, 9.8% had been in sustained work.

Data from industry body the Employment Related Services Association showed that by September 2012:

•Over 200,000 participants had got off benefits and into work.

Anyone spot the seamless transition from "official statistics " into "impeccable ERSA data also subsequently quoted in a way to give the impression they were also "official statistics"?

Item 3.   How it happened - from PE Issue 1338 (Page 10) - click on to enlarge

Anyone who suggests that when the next set of WP Performance data is issued, should it show a "miraculous improvement" before breaking into unrestrained applause it would be wise to wait until someone outside the DWP and ERSA has had a look at the base data behind it, and especially to see if in fact there is any,  is obviously a complete cynic.