I haven't really written one, but I will think about it if I can find time outside of pursuing my demanding contract with the DWP. In the meantime let's have a look at what information I do have available.

In 2004 approximately 8 million people were unemployed in the UK if you don't use the government's official measure, which is to only include people willing and able to satisfy the Jobseeker's Allowance rules.  If you want to measure unemployment accurately, you have to include all people who are not working. 
Even this figure doesn't include everyone. Therefore the New Deal doesn't even address the majority of unemployed people, so by its nature any information about it's usefulness is inaccurate.
Here are some pdf files of relevant research about New deal. I'll let you decide about it's status of independence and accuracy on an individual basis. Aspects that are discussed besides the obvious include:

• the substitution effect e.g. a participant getting a job at the expense of a non participant resulting in a net gain of zero. This is a fatal flaw in any non job creation employment scheme, it doesn't have any macroeconomic influence. Redistribution is the most you can hope to gain from it.  
• Jobeekers signing off because they find it unacceptable, creating the illusion of employment.
• possible effects on wage levels. The theory of the wage effect is that by putting pressure on people to look for work you can drive down wage levels by increasing the supply of possible candidates for any given job. That's real useful in a country that is experiencing massive inflation, isn't it? When Pertemps try to get you to apply for a minimum wage job they don't tell you how you will pay your £500+ a month rent, or nearer double that if you want to take out a mortgage, plus ever escalating food, fuel and £1300 council tax bills.
  They say it is unrealistic to expect more, but clearly it is they that are being unrealistic by ignoring the fact that basic living costs are well in excess of that level of pay. Do you think they prioritise your interests or theirs? Ignoring a major issue doesn't make it go away.
  Economic realities are difficult to argue with, and the current great mystery is how we have ultra high inflation at the same time as negligible wage increases. It doesn't add up.  I believe it is the wage effect coupled with government pressure and propaganda.
  A real problem is that studies of New Deal, just like the aims of the programme itself, tend to be very short term in their analysis. They define a sustained job as 13 weeks in length. What? That alone demonstrates an immediate limitation. You could be forgiven for thinking that the same number of years might be a more fitting definition.

Research documents

As far as a more medium term evaluation is concerned, in 2005 38% of participants on New Deal nationally had attended the programme before, therefore it didn't find them a job the first time round, otherwise they wouldn't be there. In Kidderminster, the rate of return to New Deal is 75%. I don't have any written evidence of that because it is my policy not to compromise the positions of regular, low paid, conscientious workers. However, if anybody would like to refute it, you are very welcome. If I ask an executive for the information, chances are they will simply be unable or unwilling to do so, delegating to someone else or just not bothering at all, which has been demonstrated amply in the past. To put it in the simplest terms, the likelihood is that I and the majority of attendees will be returning to do it all over again.
By May 2008 I could be back there. Do you think that they will be pleased to see me? Their contract will be winding down then so I imagine they will be indifferent. Some people think that New Deal is a work for your dole scheme, rather than being aimed at finding you a job. Where did they ever get that idea?
The total cost of New Deal between 1997 to 2006 was £3 billion. Let's hope all the involuntary donors i.e. members of the public think it was worthwhile and value for money.
All the DWP does is augment the supply of labour, by forcing people to apply for jobs who otherwise would not do so, without increasing the supply of jobs. This is highly destructive to all non rich members of society, increasing unemployment and eroding wages.  What they should be looking for is a high ratio of jobs to units of labour. 

Observations of a field researcher