Evaluation, statistics and OR

Getting the unemployed back to work

Both the UK and France have come up with plans for this over the past week, limiting access to benefits for the unemployed. 

The French have gone for a definition of the rights and duties of the unemployed, which link receiving benefits to whether or not the unemployed person rejects a reasonable offer of work.  The reasonable offer is defined and changes with time, so that shortly after being laid off, you have the right to expect at least 95% of your previous salary, but after a year, a reasonable job will pay you the same or more as your benefits rights.  Similarly the distance you have to travel to a suitable offer is defined and does change over time, the reasonable limit being an each way journey of 1 hour by public transport or over 30 kilometres each way, whichever is longer.  This system does bring a certain level of bureaucracy, as one would expect from the French, but the travel limits are interesting in a country where it is assumed you will go home for a full four course lunch.

The British "Work for Benefits" plan was revealed on Monday, and has the support of New Labour and the Conservatives (spooky).  It aims to reduce the number of people receiving benefits and will look at Job-seekers Allowance as well as Incapacity Benefits.  I have a few concerns about work to receive benefits - whose jobs are being taken to do this work?  If people are removed from benefits but can't find work, how do they live? 

While there are undeserving poor out there, there are also deserving poor who need help.  I have a neighbour who is an alcoholic.  He keeps being put in prison, but unless the underlying causes of his alcoholism are addressed, he is incapable of functioning according to the norms of society, so comes out, re-offends and is straight back in prison as a recidivist.

What jobs are we prepared to put people out of, in order that people on benefits can do that work?  This is a similar problem to what do we do with people who are given community orders instead of prison sentences.  Are these people taking jobs that others might find a good market niche and profitable for themselves?

I try not to push Internet sites that are not mainstream, but the Daily Mash had an extreme but amusing take on what the unemployed might do, and it definitely struck a chord with me.  Are we pushing people into meaningless activities to justify their benefits, and if we aren't, have we just displaced a problem?

Who is responsible for pupil behaviour?

Sir Alan Steer has published his review of pupil behaviour, and has said that parents and adults set a bad example for young people.  Bad behaviour is a key reason for teachers leaving the profession that has to be one of the most important to the progress of the country.

For those of us without children, it is relatively easy to put all the blame on parents, but as the review points out, young people are also influenced by what they see around them.  Greedy and aggressive behaviour will have an influence on all those around us, not just those that we are related to.  If what you see around you is the norm for behaviour, and that includes a lot of swearing, throwing V signs at other drivers for real or imagined discourteous behaviour, lack of acknowledgement of the existence of others, lack of basic good manners, and a me-me-me culture, what sort of person do you turn out to be?

So we all have a role to play in the development of young people, but the current norms of society seem to push against us all playing our part.  The "wot you lookin' at" riposte and fear of reprisals if one comments on bad behaviour puts a break on what is left of society trying to regulate itself.  However learning providers who work with difficult young people say that setting boundaries, not swearing back and telling people when they have crossed the line is important, and develops respect.

Indeed it seems to me that society has become a dirty word in the UK and anything that limits personal freedom is resented.  At the same time, we are bombarded with directives from government, health advisers, and a range of "authority" bodies on how we should behave and live our lives, developing an intolerance of the nanny state.  However someone needs to remind us when we overstep the line, as it seems that our personal views of limits of acceptable behaviour have been eroded, and while we all demand respect, we are not inclined to give it.

How far the media and its constant building up and destruction of figures in public life is responsible, how far the liberty of the 60s is to blame - two questions for the sociologists perhaps.  But as individuals we can all make a difference by behaving with integrity, and doing as we would be done by.  If you like being sworn at in the street fine, but if not....

Ingrid Betancourt is finally free

A few months ago, I wrote a blog in this area that was not totally in line with my given subjects, but raised the issue of looking at news stories that don't particularly have a British slant to them.  Prompted by the return of Prince Harry early from a tour of duty in Afghanistan, I wrote about the trials of Ingrid Betancourt, a Colombian presidential candidate who had been held by the FARC for over 6 years, and who'se health was deteriorating.

In London on Wednesday afternoon, the key stories in the London Standard were a drugs raid that Prince William had some peripheral interest in and the hopes of Andy Murray against Raphael Nadal.  At Southampton Airport the following morning, there were no obvious splashes on newspaper front pages of anything of interest.  Once home, my own local paper had it emblazoned across the cover - Ingrid Betancourt Libre.

I still get emotional when I look at the photos supplied on this - follow this link to see for yourself.  Fantastic news!