A qualitative study with contributory benefit customers and staff

Question 1

Executive summary

Accepted Answer

The welfare system was founded upon the contributory principle – the idea of ‘something-for-something. The UK has two main contributory benefits for working-age people: New Style Jobseekers Allowance (NS JSA) for those who are unemployed, are able to work and are actively seeking work and New Style Employment and Support Allowance (NS ESA) for those who are assessed as being unable to work for health reasons.

Despite its founding principle, successive reforms have gradually shifted the welfare system away from contribution-based support towards a stronger focus on means-testing. Currently, more people now claim means-tested benefits than contributory benefits. Indeed, the share of working-age benefit expenditure spent on contribution-based benefits has decreased from 59% in 1980, to 28% in 2000 and it is expected to be just 7% in 2027^{[footnote 1]}. The ‘Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working’ Green Paper consulted on the possibility of reforming the structure of the health and disability benefits system. Therefore, it is important to understand current experiences on contributory benefits in order to make valuable improvements for the future.

This qualitative research explored customers journeys, experiences and aspirations within the contributory benefit system and beyond. The fieldwork took place between January and February 2026 and was composed of two strands – 44 qualitative interviews with contributory benefit customers and 3 focus groups with New Style ESA and New Style JSA work coaches.

Main Findings

Overall, findings highlight strong support for the contributory concept, contrasted with low awareness, mixed service experiences and some dissatisfaction with how contributions translate into benefit value and support.

Customer journeys

Most customers began their contributory benefits journey after leaving work due to ill health (NS ESA) or redundancy (NS JSA). NS ESA participants typically claimed soon after Statutory Sick Pay ended, while many NS JSA participants delayed claims due to lack of awareness, embarrassment, or optimism about returning to work. Awareness of contributory benefit was generally low, with most customers discovering them only at the point of need through family and medical networks or independent research. Where participants made dual claims, contributory benefits were usually claimed first, though the length of time before claiming Universal Credit (UC) varied widely.

The application process was largely viewed as straightforward and easy to navigate. However, some NS ESA participants were frustrated by the slowness and limited communication. Dual claimants consistently contrasted the perceived simplicity of contributory benefits with complexity and confusion of UC.

Participants primarily claimed contributory benefits for financial support, though this was interpreted differently by different participants rather than being linked to the benefit they were receiving. For many, benefits provided a safety net to help protect and subsidise savings. For others under acute financial pressure, benefits were essential for income replacement and debt management. Work coaches, by contrast perceived National Insurance contributions (NICs) continuity as the main motivator, particularly for NS JSA customers.

Despite generally expressing gratitude for receiving support, financial anxiety was common. Concerns centred on managing everyday costs, housing and long-term financial stability. Many participants expressed altruistic concerns for those without savings, housing security or partner income.

Work Histories, Aspirations and Barriers

Participants typically had long and established work histories. NS JSA participants were more likely to come from professional, managerial or skilled technical roles and described mid-career disruption, while NS ESA participants came from a broader range of backgrounds including frontline and administrative roles.

Attitudes toward work differed by benefit type. Many NS ESA participants viewed work nostalgically, feeling their health was a barrier to returning. NS JSA customers remained motivated to work but were increasingly frustrated by repeated rejections, a competitive labour market and perceived ageism. This led many to consider career changes, lower-level roles or stopgap employment.

Support on contributory benefits

Experiences of non-financial support varied significantly across benefit group and JCP sites. NS ESA participants, particularly those in the Support Group, felt forgotten. While some welcomed limited contact, most would have valued application support, clearer signposting to services or informal check ins. NS JSA customers had mixed views: some felt support was poorly matched to their needs, while others valued CV reviews and careers advice. Offers for support varied noticeably between JCP locations. Overall, key areas for improvement included building greater awareness of contributory benefits, clearer signposting to support networks, more holistic career conversations, and opportunities to improve confidence post redundancy.

Attitudes to potential policy principles

Awareness of the term “contributory principle” was very low, but support for the underlying “something for something” concept was strong. In general, participants felt the current system did not adequately reflect past contributions. There was a strong perception of unfairness and even penalisation when compared to those on UC. NS JSA customers were especially dissatisfied with benefit levels relative to their contributions. Similarly, work coaches were concerned by the low value of NS JSA in relation to contributions and supported an increase. However, they cautioned against increasing the value of NS ESA due to concerns over providing greater financial incentives for emphasising the limitations of a health condition.

There was broad support for maintaining a clear distinction between health related and non-health related unemployment benefits. However, most felt that any additional payment should be limited to people with the most severe conditions - such as those that significantly affect mobility or require extra support (e.g. carers) - rather than offering a high base rate.

Noticeably most NS ESA, and nearly half of NS JSA participants were uncertain of the duration of their benefit. Once duration was understood, NS ESA participants generally felt benefit duration was appropriate. Most work coaches agreed, though some expressed concern over the length of Support Group especially considering lack of Jobcentre engagement. NS JSA participants widely supported extending duration to 12 months given previous contributions and labour market conditions. Work coaches expressed caution about extending NS JSA beyond 12 months due to concerns about it leading to long-term unemployment.

Question 2

Authors

Accepted Answer

This research was conducted internally by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and was carried out by Madeleine Angwin, Disability Analysis Division.

Question 3

Glossary

Accepted Answer

Jobcentre Plus

Jobcentre Plus is a brand under which the DWP offers working-age support services, such as employment advisory services.

National Insurance Contributions

National Insurance contributions are a direct tax that employees and self-employed people pay once their earnings reach certain thresholds. National Insurance Contributions are needed to qualify for certain working age benefits and the State Pension.

New Style Employment and Support Allowance

A contributory benefit offered by the DWP for those who have a disability or health condition that limits their capability to work. To receive New Style Employment and Support Allowance, an individual typically must have been working within the last 2 to 3 years and have made (or been credited with) Class 1 or Class 2 National Insurance contributions. New Style Employment and Support Allowance can be claimed alongside Universal Credit.

New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance

A contributory benefit offered by the DWP for those who are unemployed or work less than 16 hours a week on average. To receive New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance, an individual must have paid sufficient National Insurance contributions. An individual can receive New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance for up to 182 days. It can be claimed alongside Universal Credit.

New Style Work Coaches

A specific type of front-line DWP staff based in Jobcentres who specifically support New Style Employment and/or Support Allowance, and New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance customers.

Occupational Sick Pay

A discretionary payment from employers to their employees during periods of sickness absence. It is not a legal requirement and is determined by the employer and outlined in an employee’s contract.

Personal Independence Payment

A benefit which can help with extra living costs where someone has both a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability and have difficulty doing certain everyday tasks or getting around because of their condition.

Statutory Sick Pay

The legal minimum amount that employers must pay eligible employees who are unable to work due to illness. Statutory sick pay is payable for up to 28 weeks of sickness.

Support Group

The Support Group is for New Style Employment and Support Allowance customers whose Work Capability Assessment outcome considers them to have limited capability for work and work-related activities. People in this group are not required to take part in work-related activities. It is equivalent to the Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity group in Universal Credit.

Universal Credit

A payment to help with living costs for people on low income or out of work. UC has replaced, for most customers, six means-tested benefits and tax credits: Child Tax Credit; Housing Benefit; Income Support; income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance; income-related Employment and Support Allowance and Working Tax Credit.

Universal Credit Health Element

The extra monthly financial amount paid on top of the Universal Credit standard allowance to people who have limited capability for work- and work-related activity (LCWRA).

Work Capability Assessment

A process used to determine to what extent a person’s illness or disability affects their ability to work. Depending on the outcome of the Work Capability Assessment, people are either deemed to be fit for work or continue to be entitled to New Style Employment and Support Allowance or UC Health. A customer does not have to complete the Work Capability Assessment if their circumstances change, or they chose to stop their claim. For New Style Employment and Support Allowance, those deemed not to be fit for work are then placed in one of two groups: the Work-Related Activity Group, members of which will have regular appointments with an advisor, or the Support Group, members of which do not have regular appointments.

The New Style Employment and Support Allowance Work Related Activity Group is for customers whose Work Capability Assessment outcome considers that they have limited capability for work but will be capable of work at some time in the future and who are considered capable of taking steps towards moving into work (work-related activities). Time in this group is limited to 12 months. People are required to have regular engagement with an adviser and undertake work-related activities. It is equivalent to the Limited Capability for Work group in Universal Credit.

Work Coach

Front-line DWP staff based in Jobcentres who support customers into work by challenging, motivating, providing personalised advice and using knowledge of local labour markets.

Question 4

Abbreviations

Accepted Answer

Abbreviation	Full term
DWP	Department for Work and Pensions
JCP	Jobcentre Plus
LCWRA	Limited Capacity for Work and Work-Related Activity
NICs	National Insurance Contributions
NS ESA	New Style Employment and Support Allowance
NS JSA	New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance
OSP	Occupational Sick Pay
PIP	Personal Independence Payment
SG	Support Group
SSP	Statutory Sick Pay
UC	Universal Credit
UC Health	Universal Credit Health
WCA	Work Capability Assessment
WRAG	Work Related Activity Group

Question 5

Introduction

Accepted Answer

This research was conducted to build DWP’s evidence base around customers journeys, experiences and aspirations of people who claim New Style contributory benefits – NS JSA or NS ESA. The study is qualitative and exploratory. It is not generalisable to the population. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling and 44 in-depth interviews were conducted with participants on contributory benefits. 3 focus groups were conducted with legacy work coaches.

Policy Context

The welfare system was founded upon the contributory principle – the idea of ‘something-for-something’. However, in recent years, the share of working-age benefit expenditure spent on contribution-based benefits has decreased from 59% in 1980, to 28% in 2000 and it is expected to be 7% in 2027^{[footnote 2]}.

Currently, the UK has two main working age contributory benefits: New Style Jobseekers’ Allowance (NS JSA) and New Style Employment and Support Allowance (NS ESA). Whilst introduced in 1996 and 2008 respectively, JSA and ESA became ‘New Style’ when they were modernised to work alongside Universal Credit (UC).

NS JSA is for those who are unemployed or working less than 16 hours a week on average, are able to work and are actively seeking work. Those receiving NS JSA can access the benefit for up to 6 months. As of April 2026, NS JSA customers over the age of 25 receive up to £95.55 per week, whilst customers under 25 receive up to £75.65 per week.

NS ESA is for those who are assessed as being unable to work for health reasons. NS ESA is made up of two groups: the work-related activity group (WRAG), for those who currently have limited capability for work but can prepare for work in the future, and Support Group for those who have a condition which severely limits their ability to work or conduct work-related activity. Whilst WRAG last for 365 days, there is no time limit on the Support Group. However, as NS ESA is a working age benefit, Support Group customers claims end when they reach state-pension age. Those on NS ESA are placed in either WRAG or Support Group via the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). As of April 2026, NS ESA customers in the WRAG receive up to £95.55 per week whilst Support Group customers receive up to £140 per week^{[footnote 3]}.

Both NS JSA and NS ESA pay a flat rate to customers but are contributory as eligibility is derived from past National Insurance contributions (NICs), rather than current savings or household income. Customers may be eligible for UC at the same time as receiving a contributory benefit if they have made sufficient NICs but have savings below the UC threshold. These customers are referred to throughout this report as ‘dual claimants’.

As part of the Government’s Plan for Change, the ‘Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working’ Green Paper consulted on the possibility of reforming the structure of the health and disability benefits system, including contributory benefits.

Therefore, this report explores customers journeys, experiences and aspirations within the contributory benefit system and beyond. This research builds on the DWP’s evidence base around contributory customers pathways within the welfare benefit system and employment, and how these could be improved for the future.

Research Methods

Research design and research questions

The study aims to explore how contributory customers’ attitudes, behaviours and needs shape their journeys within the welfare benefit system and employment.

The main objectives of this research were to:

understand the factors influencing contributory customers journeys onto and within the benefit system
understand contributory customers’ work histories, attitudes and aspirations
identify any work or non-work-related non-financial support contributory customers want or need
provide insights into contributory customers’ and work coaches’ attitudes toward current and hypothetical policy principles

Sampling strategy

Contributory customers were recruited across four strands, using a DWP sample. These were:

NS ESA only customers: Consisted of people who only received NS ESA. They did not receive means-tested benefits, but they may have received PIP.
NS ESA and UC customers: Consisted of people who receive or have recently received both NS ESA and UC. They may also have previously received other means-tested benefits or PIP.
NS JSA only customers: Consisted of people who only received NS JSA. They did not receive means-tested benefits, though they may have received these in the past. They may also have received PIP.
NS JSA and UC customers: Consisted of people who receive or have recently received both NS JSA and UC. They may also have previously receive other means-tested benefits or PIP.

Work coaches were recruited from 11 Jobcentres across England and Scotland. To be selected for the study, work coaches required current experience working with NS ESA or NS JSA customers. Many reported working with both NS ESA and NS JSA customers and often reported being the only New Style work coach in their Jobcentre.

Overview of research activities

The fieldwork comprised two strands: in-depth telephone interviews with contributory customers and focus groups with NS work coaches. All fieldwork was conducted by experienced DWP social researchers. With participants’ consent, a note taker was present for the interviews and interviews were auto-transcribed with MS Teams transcription tools. Data was handled in line with GDPR requirements.

A total of 44 in-depth interviews were conducted with contributory customers. The interviews took place by telephone from 12th January to 10th February 2026 and lasted between 35 and 75 minutes.

Three online focus groups took place with work coaches from across England and Scotland. Each group consisted of between three and five work coaches. The focus groups lasted between 60 and 90 minutes and took place between 13th January and 18th February 2026.

Research Considerations

When interpreting the findings of this report, certain factors must be considered:

This study is cross-sectional. This means that data was collected at one specific point in time, acting as a “snapshot” rather than following individuals over time. As a result, participants often focused on the financial and employment challenges of the Christmas and New Year period.
Self-selection bias. Only customers who opted into the study were interviewed. Whilst this approach is the most ethically appropriate option, self-selection can limit the range of experiences and perspectives in the data, potentially overlooking certain vulnerable groups such as those with serious health conditions, or those who do not wish to engage with the DWP.
Varied participant circumstances. Whilst recent benefit claims were prioritised within our sample, participants may still be at different stages along their NS ESA, NS JSA and UC journeys. Individual experiences may be shared by a large number of claimants in the wider NS benefit population, or very few, but it is not possible to know from this type of research. Further, the data in this report does not provide statistically representative analysis on contributory benefits.
Questions were adapted to suit participant circumstances. In line with standard qualitative interview practices, questions may have been tailored or skipped depending on time constraints and participants’ level of vulnerability and engagement. Participants were also able to skip any question they did not wish to answer.
The data presented in this report reflects participants’ self-reported perceptions and views. Whilst these accounts may be influenced by memory limitations and may not always be factually accurate, they nonetheless represent the beliefs and experiences shared by the participant at the time of research.

Further details on sampling, analysis and reporting can be found in Annex 1.

Question 6

Journeys onto Contributory Benefits

Accepted Answer

This chapter explores customers journeys onto contributory benefits, including circumstances pre-benefit claim, pathways onto benefits, experiences of application and any challenges they faced during this process.

Pathways onto contributory benefits

NS ESA Pathways

Most NS ESA participants had extensive employment histories, primarily in ABC1 roles^{[footnote 4]} before claiming NS ESA due to the development or deterioration of a health condition. Participants regretted leaving employment, but felt that there was no alternative due to the severity of their condition:

My last role … it was an enjoyable role; I didn’t want to leave, but my health deteriorated. I struggled to stay at work, and I spent the best part of 18 months off sick before realising [that]… there wasn’t a medical route for me to return to work

(Female, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former University Administrator.)

By contrast, some participants reported “ping-ponging” between jobs before claiming NS ESA. In these circumstances participants felt that it was in their “nature to work” and therefore pursued different employment opportunities in the hope of remaining in work before realising that this was not feasible due to their health or disability:

I got a lot of health conditions going on, I was trying to work, but I couldn’t hold down a job due to my health [I was] in and out of jobs

(Female, 64 or over, NS ESA, Former Admin and Hospitality Employee.)

Most participants moved on to NS ESA from full-time employment after exhausting statutory sick pay (SSP). Although many also received occupational sick pay, they often did not recognise this as separate from SSP and were unaware that SSP is time-limited to 28 weeks.

In some cases, participants did not receive statutory sick pay before claiming NS ESA. This was either because the participant had left work (voluntarily or via redundancy) before being diagnosed with their medical condition, or because they were self-employed and therefore not entitled to SSP. A participant who chose to leave employment before his formal diagnosis reflected on how the symptoms of his health condition influenced his decision to leave work:

I stopped working … simply because I felt so bloody tired all the time… the ability to get things done was getting harder and harder and harder … I realised the reason I was struggling so badly was because of the leukaemia

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Senior Manager.)

Similarly, those who received both NS ESA and UC reported the development or deterioration in a health condition/disability that meant they were unable to continue working. In these cases, the majority claimed NS ESA before applying for UC though the period between applications varied significantly from weeks to years.

Only two participants received UC before NS ESA. One participant was working part-time, and left due to a deterioration in health, the other was not working and claimed NS ESA so they would not have to look for work while unwell.

NS JSA Pathways

Whilst NS ESA customers primarily left work due to health conditions, most NS JSA participants left work due to redundancy or the end of fixed term contracts. A small number resigned because of burnout or workplace bullying.

In circumstances where participants were made redundant, they received redundancy pay. However, the amount received varied considerably between participants:

They gave me an obscene amount of money. To give you an idea, the redundancy payment was more than my wife earns as a full-time teaching assistant

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Senior Manager.)

Unfortunately, the redundancy money I got was the lowest one they had

(Male, 55 to 54, NS JSA, Former Factory Worker.)

Similarly to NS JSA only customers, those on NS JSA and UC often had extensive employment histories in an ABC1 role before claiming a benefit due to redundancy. Almost all participants in this group decided to claim NS JSA before exploring UC. The length of time participants left between claiming NS JSA and UC varied, with around half applying soon after their NS JSA application, often on the advice of JCP staff. Others applied sometime after their NS JSA application due to a “change in financial circumstances”, often a reduction in their savings making them now eligible for UC.

Only one participant received UC before receiving NS JSA. In this circumstance, the participant was receiving UC whilst working in an admin support role. When they were made redundant, they claimed NS JSA.

Interestingly, a few participants’ journeys onto contributory benefits were shaped by their perception of an individual benefit and what it stands for, rather than their eligibility. For instance, one NS JSA and UC participant who left work due to a health condition, and was accordingly signposted to NS ESA by his employer, explained how he opted not to apply for NS ESA, despite being eligible and receiving PIP, because NS ESA did not have the pro-work mindset that he aspired to:

Once you are on [NS] ESA you don’t have to work, but for me personally, it’s not the right mindset. I want to work.

(Male, 45 to 54, NS JSA and UC, Former Charity Sector Team Lead.)

Awareness of contributory benefits

Nearly all participants reported having little awareness of contributory benefits before making a claim. Those with prior knowledge typically had experience working in welfare advice services.

For most participants, contributory benefits were discovered at the point of need, usually through signposting. The sources of signposting varied by benefit type.

Participants claiming NS ESA most commonly became aware of the benefit through family members or medical charities, particularly cancer charities such as Macmillan and Cancer Research. Some participants also supplemented this advice with their own online research.

By contrast, most NS JSA participants reported discovering the benefit through independent online research. Only a small number were directed to NS JSA by friends or family members.

Work Coaches echoed this pattern, noting that many NS JSA customers arrive at the Jobcentre already well-informed:

A lot of people have read up about jobseekers before they even get here [the Jobcentre]. The type of customer it is, is ‘I know what I’m entitled to’… they don’t come to us not knowing how it works

(Work Coach, London.)

Although no participant reported being signposted to NS JSA by their employer, Work Coaches identified employer advice as an important awareness route:

They’re prompted by employers to come to us for JSA

(Work Coach, East Midlands.)

For dual claimants, awareness of UC eligibility most often came from JCP staff, rather than from independent research, charities or family members:

It was the jobcentre where I heard [about UC], they urged me to look

(Male, 45 to 54, NS JSA and UC, Former Financial Controller.)

Main reasons for claiming a contributory benefit

Financial Support

Nearly all participants – NS ESA and NS JSA – identified financial support as their main reason for claiming a contributory benefit. Whilst the term “financial support” was used pervasively amongst participants, the meaning behind this term varied. Broadly, these can be grouped into three viewpoints: contributory benefits as a safety net, an avenue to reduce debt and the primary source of income.

Financial support as a safety net

Firstly, most participants viewed their benefit as a “safety net” to support them financially without being entirely financially reliant on the benefit to live:

It’s a safety net – it’s an addition to help tide you over during the most dire times

(Male, 35 to 44, NS JSA, Former University Lecturer.)

Participants tended to view the idea of a safety net in two different ways – as insurance (support for now) and as a means of future proofing (protecting for the future). These two viewpoints will be explained in turn.

Although no participants explicitly compared contributory benefits to insurance, many described them as a safety net supporting them through unexpected or exceptional circumstances, such as redundancy or poor health. In these situations, participants saw contributory benefits as providing a financial “buffer” between work and unemployment. NS ESA participants with this perspective felt the benefit offered them “breathing space” enabling them to come to terms with a health condition without immediate financial stress. Similarly, NS JSA participants felt the benefit allowed them an opportunity to get “into the right head space” after redundancy without a complete loss of income pressuring them to take the first job available.

By contrast, those with a ‘future proofing’ perspective saw contributory benefits as a safety net protecting future finances. For instance, through providing a few weeks of income/ NICs for seasonal workers, an income to use alongside/ protect savings, or a way to achieve more favourable payment schedules compared to UC:

We’ve got the oil riggers where it’s gone quiet for… the Christmas period. [They] know [they’ll] be back in work in about 2 weeks’ time, so this is just a stopgap to get class 1 contributions and just get that couple of weeks money that [they] are entitled to that [they] paid in for

(Work Coach, Scotland.)

Although only NS JSA participants framed contributory benefits as a temporary measure between contracts, across both NS ESA and NS JSA groups participants commonly described using contributory benefits in combination with savings. Some viewed this as a way of protecting savings:

Once my [Jobseeker’s] allowance runs out… I will have to start digging into my savings

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Partner Programmes Manager.)

Like everybody else, if you’re prepared to throw free money at me, I’m going to keep on saying yes, you know, I have a son who is going to be going to university, so I want to keep saving for that you know. I’ll take what I can get

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Senior Manager.)

At the point of application, participants with this future proofing mindset were already identifying specific costs they intended to cover using a combination of benefit income and savings. Costs typically included petrol, food and children’s activities:

The Jobseeker’s Allowance was never ever going to be enough for me to pay my bills, so my bills are coming out of the savings account, which is really really not enough either, but it was just a help for me to be able to buy food, to be able to put fuel in my car if I had interviews, just things like that

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Global Publication Manager.)

Work Coaches reflected on having conversations about benefit use with customers:

We have conversations around customers tell us I’m going to use it to pay petrol. I’m going to put it towards my child going on a school trip. So, they don’t need the money necessarily… It’s not the same as somebody that’s on Universal Credit when that money is needed, particularly for the day-to-day expenses

(Work Coach, London.)

Here, the work coach suggests that many of those on a contributory benefit are not reliant on the benefit for day-to-day expenses or financial stability. Whilst this is the case for participants who claimed a contributory benefit as a form of financial safety net, it is not true for those who claimed a contributory benefit to reduce their debt.

Financial support as a way to reduce debt

The term “financial support” was linked by some as a means to reduce debt. For most of the participants in this circumstance, their debt was accumulated before claiming a benefit due to the sudden reduction in income.

I went from earning three days a week money to £368 [a month], so it was a massive, massive financial change. I’m in a lot of debt, a lot of credit card debt

(Female, 35 to 44, NS ESA, Former Teacher.)

A few participants also linked their experiences of debt to the NS JSA 7 day waiting period where no benefit income is received:

You’re not giving any money for those 7 days (the JSA grace period) so you’re always clawing back money, you’re always going to be in debt

(Male, 55 to 64, NS JSA and UC, Former Technical Administrator.)

Within this quote, there is a sense that the structure of the NS JSA benefit leads to financial uncertainty as participants without savings feel stuck “clawing back money”, rather than being able to achieve a level of financial stability.

Financial support as income replacement

Finally, for some participants, “financial support” was understood as income replacement, with the contributory benefit serving as their primary income source:

I thought there’s no way, no way, I can go back to work this time. But what can I do y’know? What can I do? I need money coming in, don’t I? So I looked into [NS] ESA

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Plant Operator.)

Here, the participant directly links their exploring and later claiming of NS ESA to their need for an income stream. In these cases, participants link the receipt of benefits to their savings status:

When my job ended, I had financial difficulties and needed financial stability…I had no savings… so I applied for UC and NS JSA

(Male, 45 to 54, NS JSA and UC, Former Charity Worker.)

Here, the participant viewed benefits as the means to regain financial stability after struggling without income or savings. Unlike most participants, this group viewed contributory benefits as a “lifeline” providing essential income, rather than a “safety net” supplementing savings.

Entitlement and NICs

Whilst most participants claimed a contributory benefit for financial support a few reported claiming simply because they were entitled to:

They said you are entitled, you need to apply, so I did. I didn’t think I’d be entitled even when I applied, I was just doing it because it didn’t cost me anything

(Female, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Librarian.)

Here, the participant displays a low-cost decision-making approach, viewing a contributory benefit as something they “might as well apply for” given their entitlement.

Whilst this approach was not commonly expressed amongst interviewees, it was mentioned frequently by work coaches as an important reason for claiming, particularly amongst high earning NS JSA customers:

They’re com[ing] from high, top management jobs and they’re coming in to claim because they say it’s their right, which of course it is

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

Here, claiming is linked simply to entitlement. However, more often work coaches reflected on customers linking entitlement to their NICs:

For JSA, it’s the mindset of ‘I’ve paid my NI and so I want it’, which is a genuine reason to claim. We get a lot of that

(Work Coach, London.)

Above, the connection between ‘paying in’ through NICs and ‘getting out’ via the receipt of a contributory benefit is clear. Work coaches also spoke about how they often used this ‘something for something’ narrative to encourage reluctant individuals to claim:

When I’m taking [new] claims, and [I have to] say to them, ‘you’re paid this per week, you get your class one National Insurance contribution’ and some of them are like it’s not worth it. And I’m like ‘you’ve paid into the system, so this is what you are entitled to’. So you just want to give them something back after they’ve paid in

Yeah, definitely. One of the things I often say when they bring that up is well you wouldn’t pay a load of money into NatWest and not draw it out, so why not gov.uk bank, why not? I always say I’d be the first in the queue

(Two Work Coaches in conversation during a focus group.)

Whilst work coaches here emphasise the importance of previous NICs for encouraging customers to claim a contributory benefit, some participants’ main reason for claiming a contributory benefit was to ensure continuity for their NICs:

I wanted the benefit of getting contributions towards my state pension

(Female, 34-44, NS ESA, Former University Administrator.)

The primary driver for me, because I had a redundancy payment and I have got some savings, I wasn’t looking for income support, I was just looking to … keep my contributions, keep my stamp going as part of that

(Female, 35 to 44, NS JSA, Former Teacher.)

Here, participants link receiving a contributory benefit to receiving NICs. Whilst these participants were in the minority – with most favouring financial support as their main reason for claiming – work coaches highlighted the significance of NICs in encouraging participants to claim:

For the majority of our customers, they mainly want to claim it for their stamp… if they’ve not got the full 35 years Class 1… they are not bothered about the money, it’s a pittance to them if they used to be high earners. What they don’t want is the gap in the National Insurance Contributions, they want that class 1

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

Experience of application

NS ESA application experience

Most NS ESA participants described the application process as straightforward and were particularly positive about being able to apply online:

The initial application, which I did on my phone… was really good, straightforward, and I think it was very, very impressive, the way it was put together

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Senior Manager.)

Despite finding the process easy to navigate, many participants were critical of how long it took to progress:

It’s relatively straightforward but long and drawn out. At every stage, the process has been straightforward in terms of knowing what I have to do, but it takes an awful long time

(Female, 35 to 44, NS ESA, Former University Administrator.)

Delays were stressful for participants, especially where limited two-way communication left them unable to track the progress of their application.

These concerns were intensified for participants who experienced a gap in income between the end of their SSP and the start of NS ESA. Although NS ESA claims can be started up to three months before SSP ends, the number of participants experiencing a gap in income between SSP and NS ESA suggests a lack of awareness of the NS ESA process. While with hindsight participants acknowledged that they could backdate their payments, the experience of a gap still caused anxiety.

Some participants also reported delaying their NS ESA claim due to stigma associated with claiming benefits or a belief that they could manage financially without support. In these cases, participants described reaching a “tipping point” at which financial assistance became essential.

NS JSA application experience

The majority of NS JSA participants were positive about the application process, commonly describing it as “straightforward” and “smooth”:

I found it all quite easy and straightforward. Nothing has been too complex, and everything has been explained to me clearly

(Female, 35 to 44, NS JSA, Former Local Government Officer.)

However, a small number of participants struggled, particularly with application forms, which they perceived as overly complex or burdensome:

The forms are too many and too complicated

(Female, 35 to 44, NS JSA, Former Teacher.)

Although not asked directly, over half of NS JSA participants reported delaying their claim by several months. Reasons for delay broadly fell into three categories: lack of awareness, embarrassment and internalised stigma, and optimism bias.

The most common reason for delaying a NS JSA claim was a lack of awareness of eligibility. Many participants believed they were not entitled to NS JSA because they had recent work history or savings:

I didn’t claim the Jobseeker’s Allowance straight away because my understanding was that I could not claim it … and then after a few months, I realised I could

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Digital Transformation Lead.)

Some participants delayed claiming due to a reluctance to engage with the benefit system or feeling emotionally unprepared to apply. These accounts pointed to embarrassment and internalised stigma around claiming benefits:

I phoned up after being unemployed with no benefits for 7 months living off savings, I didn’t want to phone up and put it off… “I’ve been brought up to see it [receiving benefits] as an embarrassment

(Female, 45 to 54, NS JSA, Former Medical Receptionist.)

Work coaches reflected similar observations:

I’ve had people sit in front of me who are applying for a new style benefit, who say, ‘I don’t really want to be here’ and they’re almost trying to back out of coming in

(Work Coach, West Midlands.)

A smaller group of participants delayed their NS JSA claim due to optimism bias – the belief that unemployment would be short-lived and that returning to work would be quick. Participants applied only when it became clear that re-employment would take longer than expected:

I’ve been out of work since June 2025, but I was hoping I could get a job quicker, live off my savings… but in October [2025] … I decided to finally apply for [NS] JSA

(Female, 45 to 54, NS JSA, Former Medical Receptionist.)

I was made redundant in the summer, and I was expecting to get a job quite quickly, [so] I didn’t apply immediately for [NS] JSA and then [when that didn’t happen] I applied later in September

(Female, 45 to 54, NS JSA, Former Civil Engineer.)

Although only a few participants delayed claiming NS JSA due to optimism bias, Work Coaches identified this as a common pattern:

We often see people who have been working who don’t make a claim straight away for NS JSA because they think they might have got a job quicker

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

Dual Claimants’ application experience

Participants with dual claims consistently viewed the contributory element of their benefits positively, describing it as “easy”, “straightforward” and “simple”. By contrast, the UC application process was widely perceived as complex, confusing and intimidating:

[NS] ESA is a valuable service [whilst] UC is a scary one

(Female, 55 to 64, NS ESA and UC, Former Beautician.)

From a jobseeker’s standpoint, it’s pretty straightforward and the process is relatively easy to follow. I think UC is extremely complex and I think there is a lot of work that could be done with Universal Credit

(Male, 35 to 44, NS JSA and UC, Former Head of Sales.)

Participants highlighted two main challenges of holding a dual claim. First, they perceived a lack of clear, specialist support for dual claims. Participants reported that no one within the JCP appeared to have ownership or expertise in dual claims, leading to participants feeling stuck in between teams:

I don’t know how many times I’ve got in touch with UC and they’ve told me ‘We don’t have anything to do with X, you’ll need to report it to ESA, to then speak to ESA and be told it’s a UC issue

(Female, 25 to 34, NS ESA and UC, Former Health Care Assistant.)

There was very much a feeling that ‘sorry that’s a JSA issue, you need to speak to someone else’ and then ‘that’s a UC thing, you need to speak to someone else’… it’s very frustrating and inefficient

(Male, 45 to 54, JSA and UC, Former Alliances Director.)

Second, dual claims reported receiving small UC awards, which led to frustration about the effort required to apply for the additional benefit. UC was therefore seen as high effort for low financial gain:

[My initial UC claim] was declined initially; I then reapplied as my circumstances have changed. In addition to JSA, I [am] now entitled to £1.43 per month from UC which was a completely pointless waste of time…

(Male, 45 to 54, JSA and UC, Former Alliances Director.)

Work coaches echoed this perspective, noting that customers often expect UC to meaningfully improve their financial position when claimed alongside a New Style benefit. In practice, however, as New Style benefits are deducted pound-for-pound from UC, additional UC entitlement can be minimal:

Often they think that claiming UC on top of NS JSA will leave them in a better financial situation, whilst that might be the case sometimes, often the additional amount they receive is pretty small

(Work Coach, North East.)

Experiences with other benefits

Although interviews focused primarily on current experiences of contributory benefits, many participants referred to past experiences of claiming benefits or explained why they had not applied for other benefits they were eligible for, noticeably Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

Previous experiences on benefits

Most participants receiving NS ESA emphasised that they had never claimed benefits before. In contrast, nearly half of participants receiving NS JSA (including those with dual claims) reported having claimed benefits previously. In most cases, these claims dated back more than 10 years to their early working life, before they had established long-term careers:

I was in my early 20s, I was made redundant, and I was on benefits then

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Partner Programmes Manager.)

A small number of participants on NS JSA dual claims described more recent benefit use linked to short periods of unemployment:

I was on it late last year… only for a couple of months and then came off and went into employment, and then was out of employment again after 6 months

(Male, 35 to 44, NS JSA and UC, Former Head of Sales.)

Attitudes to PIP

Participants were not directly asked about PIP during interviews; however, it frequently arose in discussion with NS ESA participants. Whilst some participants had claimed PIP others explained why they had not claimed despite being advised to do so by JCP staff. Two main reasons arose.

First, several participants expressed concern about the stigma associated with PIP and worried how they would be perceived as a customer:

I don’t want people to think I’m taking advantage of [my] situation… I’d be too embarrassed

(Female, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Librarian.)

Second, some participants felt that PIP was not appropriate for them, as they did not believe their health condition was severe enough:

I don’t think it’s right. I don’t feel I’m bad enough that I should be claiming it… even though my doctor and the job centre told me to

(Female, 64 or over, NS ESA, Former Medical Receptionist.)

Participants expressing this view often emphasised their independence and self-reliance:

I’m really independent, I’ve never liked claiming benefits. I much prefer to stand on my own two feet… I know I was entitled to PIP, and I didn’t claim for it… it’s not in my nature to just take something just because it’s available

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA and UC, Former Farm Manager.)

Summary

In summary, most participants claimed a contributory benefit due to ill-health (NS ESA) or redundancy (NS JSA). In cases where participants had a dual claim, the contributory element was typically claimed before UC, with participants being signposted to UC by JCP staff. Participants were signposted to NS ESA by family members and charities, and to NS JSA through online independent research.

Participants main reason for claiming a contributory benefit was financial support. However, this was a broad term used by participants to cover protecting savings, providing essential income and supporting with debt. Work Coaches highlighted that entitlement, and continuing NICs are also important reasons for claiming contributory benefits.

Most participants found the application for NS ESA and NS JSA straightforward, though some criticised the complexity of the forms and the duration of the NS ESA application process. Those with dual claims found the UC element complex and confusing to navigate alongside a contributory benefit, highlighting that future services must prioritise simplicity.

Whilst participants were often unaware of NS ESA and NS JSA before applying, some had previous experience within the benefit system. In particular, half of NS JSA participants had previously received benefits, and some NS ESA claimed PIP whilst others considered claiming but chose not to as a result of stigma.

Question 7

Work Histories, Aspirations and Barriers

Accepted Answer

This chapter explores participants’ work histories, attitudes and aspirations, as well as barriers to employment.

Work Histories

Whilst most participants had extensive work histories in ABC1 roles prior to receiving a contributory benefit, differences in occupational level and sector were noticeable between NS JSA and NS ESA participants.

NS JSA Work Histories

Participants claiming NS JSA tended to have professional, managerial or skilled technical backgrounds. Many had held senior or mid-level roles. Several roles were knowledge-based and associated with professional qualifications or significant responsibility, such as civil engineers, university lecturers, teachers and project managers.

A number of participants had also worked in administrative or public-facing roles, such as welfare advisors and administrative team leads. Participants in these roles most often left work via redundancy due to restructuring and organisational change.

NS JSA dual claim participants had predominantly worked in senior management, finance, sales or administrative roles, often with corporate or third-sector settings. These roles included Partnership and Alliances Directors, Financial Controllers, sales leads and organisational team leaders.

This group showed a pattern of career-level or mid-career disruption, with many coming from relatively stable or senior positions. In some cases, their Universal Credit (UC) claim is perhaps surprising given their high earning background, but potentially reflects issues with high living costs, reduced savings resilience or longer job search durations.

From discussion with Work Coaches, the work history and financial security of NS JSA customers appears correlated with the prosperity of the local area, with some work coaches reporting engaging with high level of senior management whilst others explained that most NS JSA customers were manual and seasonal workers:

We have a lot of care work, admin, rails, construction, warehouse, factory, that’s the majority around here

(Work Coach, Scotland.)

We have a lot that come off high paying jobs”.

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

NS ESA Work Histories

Participants claiming NS ESA came from public sector, operational and manual roles. Many had worked in physically demanding or frontline occupations including as healthcare assistants, nurses, HGV drivers, plant operators and police officers.

Administrative and support roles within institutional settings (e.g. university administration, school libraries, reception work) were also common.

Compared to NS JSA participants, this group had fewer participants from senior professional backgrounds.

This pattern was reflected by Work Coaches:

For [NS] JSA it’s senior roles, experienced people. [For] NS ESA it’s a bigger mix, from senior management to part time labour

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

Most participants claiming both NS ESA and UC came from lower-paid, frontline and service-sector employment, often characterised by physical work, shift patterns and job insecurity. Roles included care home workers, cleaners, call-centre workers and security officers.

However, some had worked as junior service managers (for instance retail shift managers), team leaders and small business owners.

Participants on NS ESA and UC were more likely than those on NS JSA and UC to be in roles with limited scope for workplace adjustments, largely because their jobs tended to be more service-orientated or manual, rather than managerial or technical. In some cases, participants reported that adjustments were not practical in their work environment:

I took a job at Costa Coffee. I was in agony because I was just on my feet [and] I get a lot of backpain. I was supposed to be learning how to do the drinks, but you could not sit down anywhere. I was only there 3 weeks. I just physically could not do the job

(Female, 64 or over, NS ESA, Former Medical Receptionist.)

Employer Relations

During interviews NS ESA customers were asked directly about any reasonable adjustments employers had provided because of their health condition. NS JSA participants were not asked directly about their relationships with their former employers, though sometimes it arose in conversation. Overall, participants had mixed experiences with their employers, which shaped their attitude toward returning to work.

While only a few NS JSA participants spoke of their relationship with their former employer, they were typically portrayed positively for providing career advice and support after redundancy:

When I was made redundant the company that I worked for offered me 4 sessions with a career advisor, she helped me do my CV, offered guidance about … the sort of areas that I could go into using my transferable skills

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Global Publication Manager.)

Of those who mentioned employer relationships, only one spoke poorly of their previous employer and expressed concerns over how this relationship could impact their future employment:

I’ve got the senior partner who [will] give me a reference. I will avoid the manager at all costs… It’s a real sort of poisonous environment for me around here now. So, I do need to move away

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Digital Transformation Lead.)

Most NS ESA participants spoke about their relationship with their previous/current employers, though experiences were mixed.

Some NS ESA participants spoke of a positive relationship with their employer. These relationships were formed around regular and proactive communication about the participants’ health conditions:

My employers … they’re giving me really, really good support. They keep checking up on me, asking how I’m doing

(Female, 45 to 54, NS ESA and UC, Former Support Worker.)

Some NS ESA participants reflected on how employers engaged with their reasonable adjustments and health needs to allow a gradual return to work:

I am very much blessed to say they were very supportive and tried to understand what I was going through, they tried to fit in for the recommendation from the hospital… tried their best to get me back to work gradually

(Female, 35 to 44, NS ESA, Former NHS Clinical Manager.)

However, many NS ESA customers felt unsupported by their employer and felt as though their health condition was a burden:

I didn’t find them supportive. I think they just wanted to get rid of me because they forgot that they’d even said to me, in your 25 years of service, we can see you haven’t had any time off sick… as far as I’m concerned after 25 years I wasn’t appreciated

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA and UC, Former NHS Porter.)

Some NS ESA participants felt as though their health condition was not understood, or believed:

They were not supportive. They didn’t believe I had mental health, even though over the year I had been off sick with stress due to the job. It was pretty horrendous…

(Female, 65 or over, NS ESA, Former Police Officer.)

Participants spoke of struggling to receive necessary adjustments, and being viewed as a burden to the business:

At my occupational health appointment, they were not supportive, it [was a case of] we can try but it’s not going to be good for the business. They were happy for me to have reasonable adjustments, but only for a certain amount of time but I need them permanently

(Female, 18- to 4, NS ESA and UC, Former Health Care Assistant.)

A few NS ESA participants reported receiving a disciplinary or even being dismissed due to absences relating to ill health:

When I went back to work, they sacked me because I was off work for so long, but they told me I [could] take as much time as I need off

(Female, 65 or over, NS ESA, Former Medical Receptionist.)

Work Attitudes and Aspirations

NS JSA and NS ESA participants had different attitudes to work. Most NS ESA participants viewed work with nostalgia as something their health would prevent them from doing again. NS JSA participants were motivated to work but becoming frustrated and disheartened by the job application process.

NS ESA Work Attitudes and Aspirations

Nearly all NS ESA participants spoke about their regret around leaving work and their enjoyment of their previous role:

I loved it. Loved my job. Miss it terribly

(Female, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Care Worker.)

However, most highlighted that they had little choice but to leave as their health condition made it too challenging to continue:

It was an enjoyable role, I didn’t want to leave, but my health deteriorated and I struggled to stay at work.

(Female, 35 to 44, NS ESA, Former University Administrator.)

Though some suggested that they would return to work if their health were to improve, they felt in the present circumstances this was almost impossible. Indeed, most were reluctant to talk or think about future work as they felt uncertain about their futures:

My future is a bit uncertain. My diagnosis is palliative… I’d absolutely love to return to work, but I just can’t see it happening

(Female, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Care Worker.)

In these situations, participants viewed work with a sort of nostalgia, as enjoyable and fulfilling, but not something they would be able to do again.

However, a small number of participants spoke about currently or previously working whilst on NS ESA. In these circumstances, employment was viewed as detrimental to their health, often due to ill-suited roles:

I have had a couple jobs under the 15 hours I was allowed to work…I took a job at Costa Coffee. I was in agony because I was on my feet… I would walk out the front door and collapse on the bench outside and just sit there until I could get my strength up to get back to my car. I was an absolute wreck

(Female, 64 or over, NS ESA, Former Medical Receptionist.)

In a small number of cases, participants were on their second spell of NS ESA and had returned to work before coming back onto the benefit:

Just last time, I got back to work a bit soon when I should’ve held it off longer. My fault really, I couldn’t wait to get back to work

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Plant Operator.)

In these circumstances, participants were eager to return to work, viewing it as a return to normality after the uncertainty of illness. Participants reflected that this eagerness led them to rushing back into work before they were ready, struggling to recover and resulting in a return to NS ESA.

Eagerness to return to work was noticeable amongst participants recovering from surgery:

I [am] looking forward to it [returning to work]… It’s a sign to me that I’ve rejoined society… coming back to work is a relief… I feel more energised and more alive and like I’m part of a team

(Female, 35 to 44, NS ESA, Former NHS Clinical Manager.)

A few with mental health conditions wanted to return to work but were anxious about how employers would perceive their period of unemployment:

I want to get back to work and need to be back in work. One of the issues I really struggle with is how am I going to tell a future employer about why I’ve been off. It’s become overwhelming to think about

(Male, 45 to 54, NS ESA and UC, Former Social Housing Officer.)

As highlighted by Work Coaches, NS ESA participants are often looking for redirection, in a few cases this is via a career change:

They ended work because of health and now they’re looking to redirect to something else, work perhaps but definitely something that’s a bit more gentle

(Work Coach, East Midlands.)

A few participants were considering changing career to something better suited to their health condition. However, this was viewed as a daunting process, particularly as most participants were close to retirement age after long careers in specific sectors:

It’s going to be quite scary. It’s going to be out of my comfort zone. I don’t know what people expect of me. I’m used to high pressure environments, but I don’t know where I sit in the world away from the police

(Female, 65 or over, NS ESA, Former Police Officer.)

Participants expressed concern that their age, alongside their need for reasonable adjustments or ongoing health conditions, might negatively affect employers’ willingness to hire them.

Despite these barriers, both participants who intended to return to work and those who did not, viewed employment positively. These views were underpinned by a belief that those who can work should work. Indeed, many emphasised that, prior to developing a health condition, they had spent their adult lives in full-time, continuous employment, rarely taking leave. Participants viewed this work history with pride.

Participants also reflected on the negative impact that being out of work and spending extended periods at home was having on their wellbeing:

I worked all my life and in the house, I get bored easily, I can’t handle it… at home – it does mess with your mind a bit

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Plant Operator.)

A few participants spoke about volunteering as a way to find purpose and community:

I’d like to go back to work, even if it was only in a voluntary capacity, because I don’t like sitting about in the house not doing very much

(Female, 55 to 64, NS ESA and UC, Former Charity Worker.)

However, they felt unable to volunteer due to lack of income:

I can’t afford to volunteer because that costs money, like getting to different places and that

(Female, 64 or over, NS ESA, Former Medical Receptionist.)

Indeed, only one participant was actively volunteering. She highlighted the social benefits of volunteering for her:

I have been a volunteer for the last 11 years. About an hour and a half a week at a community café… I love it. We are helping people who are lonely. I sit and chat and I’ve got a band of friends now that if I hadn’t have had when my husband died, I would’ve been in a very big mess

(Female, 64 or over, NS ESA, Former Nurse.)

NS JSA Work Attitudes and Aspirations

All NS JSA participants expressed a strong desire to return to employment and did not view claiming NS JSA or receiving benefits as a long-term option, consistently framing it as a short-term measure whilst they sought suitable work. As one Work Coach explains:

The majority of people who claim NS JSA want to go back to work, it’s just a temporary stopgap until they find something better or another job

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

Participants frequently described themselves as “keen and ready” for work and highlighted sustained efforts to secure employment. Many spoke about actively applying for roles, attending interviews, networking and using platforms such as LinkedIn to search for opportunities.

Work Coaches also emphasised the typically short duration of NS JSA claims. They noted that many individuals move off NS JSA quickly, often before completing the first 13 weeks of their claim:

I am confident when they come to me that they are on and off quite quickly

(Work Coach, Scotland.)

By contrast, all NS JSA participants in this study had been receiving the benefit for at least two months at the point of interview. Many described feeling increasing pressure to find work, driven both by financial necessity and concerns about career trajectory. This pressure appeared to be particularly acute for participants whose re-employment was taking longer than anticipated given their professional background and skillsets:

I expected just to walk straight back into a job, so I was surprised when that didn’t happen

(Female, 45 to 54, NS JSA, Former Civil Engineer.)

Many participants spoke about repeated rejection from roles for which they felt well qualified. This often led to feelings of disappointment:

The optimism has significantly fallen because the job I was perfectly qualified for did not give me an interview

(Female, 35 to 44, NS JSA, Former Local Government Officer.)

Disappointment was further intensified in cases where individuals were applying for less senior roles or roles with lower salaries, yet continued to receive rejections:

I am applying for less senior positions, lower salary expectations but I’m still getting rejections and it’s very demoralising

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Partner Programmes Manager.)

Work Coaches reflected that some NS JSA participants – particularly those with previous high incomes – could be reluctant to adjust their salary expectations:

With our high earners, I’ve had customers in where I’ve said to them there is this job on [government website] … for £40,000 a year, and they say ‘I’m used to earning £70,000 a year’

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

Whilst initial reluctance to adjust expectations was reflected by participants, many described accepting flexibility and considering lower-level or lower-paid roles. These roles were viewed in two regards: as “knee jerk” and as “stop gaps”.

In the case of “knee jerk” roles, these were often part time roles that participants picked up soon after redundancy as a result of panic and the desire to maintain household income.

By contrast, “stop gap” jobs were picked up after a period of unsuccessful job applications, and concern over the state of the current jobs market. Stop gap jobs were viewed as something to “tide them over” until suitable employment could be found.

While participants acknowledge that such roles are not viable for them long term, they often expressed hope that these opportunities could lead to increased hours, progression or the development of new skills.

I cannot wait to go back to work. I’ve actually got an interview next week for a job and it’s two days a week. I can’t afford to work two days a week long-term, but the fact I will be out of the house, I’ll be back in an office with people, you never know what will come of it. It’s worth a chance

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Global Publication Manager.)

By contrast with “knee jerk roles” where participants will take any job available, willingness to take stop gap roles was often bounded by what was considered reasonable, typically remaining within a similar sector or aligned with previous experience:

Normally it’s what they’ve just left, so we very rarely get any job seekers bearing in mind that if they come from a quite high-level occupation, they’re not coming to us and saying I will do anything….They want to stick to what they’ve just left, which is fine

(Work Coach, North East.)

In these cases, participants described having a “goal job”, suggesting career plans and long-term thinking. However, participants recognised that securing another professional role could take time. “Stop gap” and “knee jerk” work was therefore viewed as a practical necessity rather than an abandonment of career aspirations:

My goal would be another permanent job within the scientific industry, but it might take a year to find that role, in the meantime I still need to feed my kids… so I’ve been accepted to do casual exam invigilating work in a school

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Lab Assistant.)

Work Coaches also highlighted that the recruitment process for higher-level roles can be lengthy and complex, which may prolong time spent on NS JSA even when individuals are progressing towards suitable employment:

With high level roles… I’ve had people who made their claim in week one and didn’t get a start date until about a week before their claim was due to end. That’s the same job – it’s gone through 7 interview stages

(Work Coach, West Midlands.)

In cases where NS JSA participants were unable to secure the professional opportunities they expected, many described broadening their job search. This included exploring adjacent sectors, considering career changes and retraining:

I’ve opened up my search to wider areas that I haven’t worked in before. I’ve got transferrable skills, but [not] the detailed experience… If I was in a senior management position in rail, I’d step back in aviation and if there’s some skills I could bring

(Female, 45 to 54, NS JSA, Former Civil Engineer.)

Occasionally, participants spoke of looking for roles with reduced stress, more working from home opportunities and accepting a lower salary as a result. As one Work Coach highlights this is often age dependent:

We get people who are in their late 50’s, early 60’s, they often say ‘I don’t want to go back to that level of stress’ and they’re looking at adapting their CV

(Work Coach, East Midlands.)

Age was commonly viewed as a barrier to employment by participants, who felt that despite having desirable skills their proximity to retirement was off-putting to employers:

I am too qualified for a lot of positions, the positions that I have been doing, I’m too old for really. Nobody wants to employ me when I’ve only got four years left to work. I’m in a bit of a no man’s land. That’s been really difficult to kind of come to terms with.

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Digital Transformation Lead.)

The impact of age on employment was reinforced by Work Coaches who saw it as a clear barrier to NS JSA customers:

Ageism is there, there’s no getting away from it. Indirect ageism, it’s plain to see.

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

Summary

This chapter highlights clear differences in work histories, employer experiences and employment aspirations between NS JSA and NS ESA participants. Prior to claiming benefit, many NS JSA participants had extensive work histories in professional, managerial or skilled technical roles, often at mid – to senior level. Redundancy was the main route out of work. Although these participants were typically confident, motivated, and highly work-focused, many experienced unexpected difficulty securing re-employment commensurate with their skills and experience. Perceived age discrimination, and rejection from more junior roles contributed to frustration and demoralisation. In some cases, this led participants to apply for stopgap roles which would provide financial stability whilst they continued to search for appropriate long-term employment.

By contrast, NS ESA participants more commonly came from frontline, operational and manual roles, including healthcare, security and admin work. Senior professional roles were less prevalent amongst this cohort. Employer relationships played a more central role in participants’ perceptions of work, with experiences ranging from proactive support and reasonable adjustments to disciplinary action and feelings of being undervalued and disbelieved. As ill health rather than job loss drove NS ESA participants exits from employment, health concerns shaped participants’ uncertain attitudes towards future work.

Despite these differences, both groups expressed strong, positive orientations towards work. NS ESA participants often spoke nostalgically about employment, describing pride in long work histories and regret at having to stop due to health. Across both groups, being out of work was associated with negative impacts on mental health and wellbeing, reinforcing that employment was viewed not only as a source of income but also identity, purpose and social connection.

Question 8

Experiences on contributory benefits

Accepted Answer

This section explores participants experiences on contributory benefits, including financial circumstances and concerns, support needs, and any areas for improvement.

Financial Circumstances on Contributory Benefits

Although participants were not directly asked about their finances, discussions of financial circumstances regularly emerged across interviews. Participants described widespread financial anxiety. However, there was considerable variation in their overall financial situations.

Financial insecurity was a prominent concern for most participants. Many spoke of the emotional shock of needing to claim benefits, describing this as an unexpected and difficult transition:

I was in one of the lowest moments in life, seeking help financially, which I never thought I would need to do…

(Female, 35 to 44, NS ESA, Former NHS Clinical Manager.)

Participants described the challenge of adapting to a substantially reduced income. While most had made efforts to cut back, some reported high fixed costs or expenses they felt unable or unwilling to reduce, such as car finance, mortgage repayments or children’s after-school activities.

Money-saving behaviours were common and included being more cautious with fuel use, buying cheaper food, and cancelling TV subscriptions. In a few more severe cases, some NS ESA participants reported re-mortgaging or selling their homes or being unable to afford rent, instead staying temporarily with friends or family. There was frustration about the lack of housing support available to contributory benefit customers, particularly in comparison with Universal Credit (UC) recipients.

Those receiving NS ESA, particularly participants also receiving UC, expressed the highest levels of financial concern. Rising living costs were cited as a significant financial pressure, exacerbated by additional expenses linked to health conditions, such as reliance on a car, increased heating use, and the need for a nutritious diet. Some participants spoke about accumulating debt over time which they felt unable to repay:

I didn’t have any debt, but I’ve had to use credit cards more and more, and now I’m not able to pay them off

(Female, 64 or over, NS ESA, Former Medical Receptionist.)

Despite this anxiety, some participants – more commonly NS JSA – had additional financial resources that provided a degree of stability. These included savings, redundancy payments, home ownership or income from a working partner. However, even in these circumstances, participants remained cautious about spending and expressed concern about depleting their financial reserves.

Savings were the most frequently cited source of additional support:

I’m using a lot of savings. I’m glad I got them because there’s no way I would survive

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Plant Operator.)

While participants expressed relief at having savings, many worried about how quickly these were diminishing. Several highlighted that essential activities, such as travelling to hospital appointments or job interviews, depended on their savings:

My savings pay for fuel, without the savings [I] wouldn’t be able to go to hospital… I’m getting worried though, savings are running down quick

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Plant Operator.)

I’ve had three interviews in London which in total from my current location has cost me in excess of £700…all of that has come straight out of my savings

(Male, 45 to 54, NS JSA and UC, Former Alliances Director.)

A small number of participants owned their homes outright and described this as a major source of reassurance:

I’m lucky, I have saved my pennies; I have no mortgage

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Senior Manager.)

Participants who owned their homes reported a greater sense of financial security, which reduced pressure to similar high paying work, instead enabling greater flexibility and willingness to consider lower-paid or lower-level roles:

I am lucky to have my mortgage paid off, I know I can get a job for 30 grand and I’ll be comfortable

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Partner Programmes Manager.)

Many participants were relieved to have a working partner. Partner income was perceived as a safety net should participants be unable to meet household costs independently:

I’m in a position where my husband is a funeral director – he gets paid quite well, we knew that if I was struggling to pay the bills, he would up his contribution

(Female, 65 or over, NS ESA, Former Police Officer.)

A lot of our [NS JSA] customers have capital savings, their partners are working

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

In some cases, partners had taken on additional work or delayed retirement to maintain household income. When reflecting on their financial circumstances, participants often expressed awareness of their relative privilege and concern for others without similar support:

I’m lucky, I would’ve gone spiralling into debt without my husband, and not everyone has a husband [to rely on]

(Female, 35 to 44, NS JSA, Former Teacher.)

These findings highlight the uneven financial circumstances across contributory benefits, with circumstances strongly influenced by access to savings, housing security and partner income. Participants without these buffers appeared particularly vulnerable, with limited scope to absorb rising living costs and sometimes struggling with debt.

Support Needs

Support needs and offers differed considerably between NS JSA and NS ESA participants as well as JCP sites.

NS ESA Support Needs

In general, NS ESA participants felt they had not received support from the DWP, and felt forgotten after initial contact ceased:

I haven’t received any help or support through my NS ESA claim. I feel like I’ve been left on the backburner

{Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA and UC, Former Farm Manager.)

Support Group members are not required to engage in any work-related activity due to the severity of their health condition or disability. Work Coaches confirmed they do not engage with NS ESA Support Group after a WCA decision is made:

If they are in Support Group, there is no contact. They are just people [who] are paid without any contact from us

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

A few participants were content not receiving support as they did not wish to be “badgered” whilst unwell and unable to work. These participants perceived the JCP as a job search service that was not equipped to meet wider support needs or discuss health related support. They also expressed concern over receiving DWP support as they believed there were insufficient resources to provide this and were concerned about a “one size fits all approach”. In these cases, participants viewed the NHS and cancer support charities as a more suitable avenue for support:

With it being personal circumstances, it’s better off being separate support… with DWP there’s a tick box thing, if the answer doesn’t fit it doesn’t go anywhere, whereas with an independent person we can go backwards and forwards and then I can get my point across

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former HGV Driver.)

However, many participants did want support, though some struggled to identify what this support might look like. Three key types of support can be identified – application support, clear signposting to services and opportunities for engagement with DWP.

Firstly, some participants, particularly those with limited digital skills, wanted support at the beginning of the application process with both the initial claim process and the Capability for Work questionnaire (ESA 50 form). The questionnaire was cited as confusing and inflexible:

It would have been helpful to have support completing the health questionnaire… The questions were too narrow. I’m lucky to have the health literacy and understanding of my own condition to be able to explain it, but other people may not

(Female, 35 to 44, NS ESA, Former University Administrator.)

A few participants felt stressed over the time pressure to complete the form as this was perceived as a barrier to seeking support, for instance from the Citizens Advise Bureau.

Secondly, a few NS ESA and UC participants wanted clearer signposting to support services for work, mental health and training. Participants reported feeling in “limbo” and uncertain as to where to receive support.

Thirdly, participants, particularly those in Support Group, wanted opportunities to engage with DWP through check ins rather than regular scheduled appointments:

I would like more check in’s… you go for your interview and that’s going to do you for the next 4 years. They don’t want to check in to see if your support has even changed… I’ve been left for four years

(Male, 35 to 44 , NS ESA and UC, Former Construction Supervisor.)

However, Work Coaches were apprehensive about engaging with NS ESA Support Group customers due to the severity of their health conditions. Some mentioned concern over the length of time some NS ESA participants have been receiving benefits and whether they would be able to make a tangible difference in supporting individuals back to work if appropriate. Many felt they currently lacked the necessary resources, skills or training to engage with these customers in a meaningful way. Work Coaches also emphasised the importance of having “something to offer” rather than engaging with customers without a clear purpose.

It would take a lot of training and skill to [engage] with those customers because some of them are seriously unwell, and others that could go back to work… I’ve been a Work Coach for a long time, and I think I would struggle to turn it around

We need to have something to offer them also

It’s the resources as well. If we’re the only ones doing it in the office, then how [is it going to be] fitted in. That’s our main barrier – the provision and resources

(Work Coaches 1, 2 and a 4 in conversation during Focus Group 2.)

NS JSA Support Needs

NS JSA customers are expected to have regular appointments with their work coaches every 1 to 2 weeks. At these appointments, NS JSA customers must show their work coaches what they have been doing to look for work. The first 13 weeks of a NS JSA claim are characterised by more intensive support with the goal of rapid re-employment.

Work Coaches highlighted the importance of the initial NS JSA interview as an opportunity to explore the attributes and challenges of the new customer. They flagged this initial meeting is a key opportunity to provide support that customers might need.

All NS JSA participants had fortnightly or monthly telephone or in-person meetings with their work coaches. Many attributed their slightly less frequent work coach contact to the fact that their work coaches were aware they were capable of, and motivated to, return to work. Work coaches acknowledged that they often saw NS JSA customers slightly less due to limited resources. In many cases, work coaches reflected that they were the only person in their Jobcentre working with NS benefit claims and therefore felt they needed to prioritise new claims and 13-week reviews over regular meetings with self-motivated customers. Work coaches saw telephone meetings as a more convenient form of engagement for themselves and the customer.

Similarly, most participants often appreciated telephone appointments as they were more convenient, private and spared them Jobcentre attendance which was viewed as austere and embarrassing.

Beyond regular meetings with their work coaches, NS JSA participants received mixed levels of support. Some reported receiving no support beyond the NS JSA payment and work coach meetings. Some participants suggested that NS JSA support was not worth investing as it was only 6 months:

With Jobseeker’s Allowance, because it’s just temporary – 6 months – you don’t get that much support because they know you’re going to be off it after six months. So, I don’t really get any support apart from the financial aspect of it

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Partner Programmes Manager.)

However, other participants received CV reviews, training, and National Careers Advisor meetings.

Some of those who had engaged with careers advisors felt that it was valuable:

The careers advisor was brilliant to be honest, because I haven’t been out of work since I was 14… she’s emailed me with some tips and a course to do with a college

(Male, 35 to 44, NS JSA, Former Local Government Officer.)

By contrast, though some NS JSA participants found the CV support service useful, many felt it was too basic, and was something they had done independently well before coming to the Jobcentre:

It’s like how do I park my car in a port, the port isn’t ready for cars. There was nothing in the system to support really, other than checking my CV was well written, and that was taken care of long before I got to the [Jobcentre]. Unfortunately, there is no value to me in any of this

(Male, 45 to 54, NS JSA and UC, Former Alliances Director.)

The low value of much of the JCP support was emulated by Work Coaches who felt as though the support that was offered was far below the needs of NS JSA participants given their previous employment histories:

The customers that come to us are from high level occupations, they do not need any help. [They’re] at a level that’s so far beyond what we can do here that we couldn’t actually help them anyway. They’ve got contacts, they’ve got links… professional organisations supporting them

(Work Coach, East Midlands.)

In these circumstances, Work Coaches often reported feeling redundant and unable to offer sufficient support. They reflected that often meetings with NS JSA participants felt like a “waste of time for both parties” and was just an “opportunity to check they still wanted to receive the benefit” rather than providing accountability or advice on job seeking. Work Coaches particularly criticised the intensive weekly work reviews in the first 13 weeks of a NS JSA claim. They felt it was “pointless” as NS JSA participants were highly motivated and perceived the check in as a distraction from work searching.

However, Work Coaches did express a belief that those NS JSA participants who wanted and needed help would receive it.

Yet this research shows that many NS JSA participants feel lost within the benefits system and would like more support than they currently receive but are unsure of how to receive it.

Specifically, NS JSA participants identified four key areas where support would be valuable. Firstly, during the pre-application stage. Participants recalled being unaware of what benefits they were entitled to and in many cases that contributory benefits existed at all. Secondly, similarly to NS ESA participants, NS JSA participants wished for improved signposting towards support networks. Specifically, some participants wanted a support group where they could talk to people going through similar experiences to them:

For people like me, who have had a career and have been working all their lives, it would be nice to have a support group, that you could sit and talk about your experiences and what you are going to do next

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Digital Transformation Lead.)

Thirdly, participants wanted a holistic conversation with advisors about their career prospects and skillsets:

It would have been good for someone to sit down with me and have a conversation [to] help me list my skillset, help me decide what sector I should or could target, [or] see maybe what I could retrain in… I feel like I’m at a loose end, I’m applying and not getting anywhere

(Female, 45 to 54, NS JSA and UC, Former Administrative Lead.)

Participants in this circumstance felt that an in-depth discussion about their skills would help them with motivation and future work direction.

Finally, participants wanted support in building back their confidence after redundancy. Whilst some acknowledged that the Jobcentre might not be the most appropriate space for this type of support, others felt that Work Coaches should provide a bolstering, supportive role particularly in the early days of NS JSA to prevent despondency:

I needed the warmth of someone saying it’s going to be okay. You can do this. We are here to help. These are the things we can offer you

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Partner Programmes Manager.)

The biggest thing for me is confidence, [I’m] feeling a bit broken and out of the loop [with work]

(Female, 45 to 54, NS JSA, Former Medical Receptionist.)

Work coaches expressed similar views:

Some people aren’t as bothered about the amount, particularly the ones with savings and partners working, it’s more they want someone to help them and hold their hand and get them back into work, so they come into the Jobcentre requesting support and guidance, like ‘what do I do with my life now?’ Someone to tell them they need something to drive them.

(Work Coach, East Midlands.)

Whilst not mentioned by participants, Work Coaches highlighted the importance of providing support to NS JSA customers toward the end of the benefit – talking customer through credit only claims and UC, as well as ensuring they have the support they need for their next steps within the benefit system or elsewhere. Work Coaches highlighted that these conversations were more typical with older NS JSA claimants who tend to struggle more with returning to employment.

Dual Claimants Support Needs

In most cases, dual claim participants echoed the support requests of their NS ESA or NS JSA counterparts. The only area of unique support they requested was having specific work coaches who understood their situation.

Participants with dual claims frequently spoke about feeling stuck between the contributory and UC system and as though it was “nobody’s job” to support them. Many described situations where their queries were passed between UC and New Style work coach teams which was frustrating, especially in cases where the additional amount received from UC was low:

An improvement would be having one person who knew sufficient things about both [NS JSA and UC] to be able to advise and put the right information in the right place rather than having to duplicate things and … organise entirely separate meetings, given that UC was paying me £1.30 and it was costing me £6 to get there and back…

(Male, 45 to 54, JSA and UC, Former Alliances Director.)

Summary

This chapter highlights that participants’ experiences on contributory benefits were shaped by their financial circumstances and access to non-financial support. Although finances were not directly asked about during interviews, financial anxiety emerged as a consistent concern. Participants described the transition onto contributory benefits as unexpected and stressful due to a sharp fall in income and the need to adapt spending habits. While most reported efforts to economise, some had costs that they were unwilling or unable to reduce such as mortgage repayments, car finance, and children’s activities.

Clearly participants’ financial circumstances were highly uneven. Access to savings, home ownership and partner income acted as critical support for some, providing relative stability and reassurance. By contrast, others without these forms of financial support appeared particularly vulnerable. Indeed, rising living costs and health-related expenditure were a particular concern for NS ESA participants, some of whom reported accumulating debt and experiencing housing insecurity.

Experiences of non-financial support varied markedly by benefit type and JCP site. NS ESA participants, particularly those in the Support Group, often felt overlooked as they received little to no contact after the WCA. While some welcomed this, many desired support throughout the NS ESA journey, from help with applications, signposting to support services and opportunities for informal check-ins. By contrast, NS JSA participants had regular contact with the Jobcentre, but some felt that the support offered was poorly matched to their experience and needs. NS JSA equally wanted support throughout their journey from clearer public information about contribution and benefit entitlement to holistic careers guidance and opportunities to rebuild confidence post redundancy.

Overall, the findings highlight substantial variation in both financial resilience and access to meaningful support amongst contributory benefit customers, providing clear opportunity to improve for the future.

Question 9

Perspectives on Current and Hypothetical Policy Principles

Accepted Answer

This section explores participants’ attitudes to current and hypothetical policy principles regarding the contributory principle, financial value and duration of contributory benefits and the relative importance of having health related and non-health related unemployment benefits.

Participants were first asked a series of baseline questions to understand their existing views on benefit value, duration, health related elements and awareness of the contributory principle. They were then presented with a series of hypothetical questions to explore attitudes toward policy principles, such as ‘do you think it is important to distinguish between health and non-health related unemployment benefits?’

Attitudes and awareness of the contributory principle

Both NS ESA and NS JSA are contributory benefits. This research found that whilst most participants were unfamiliar with the term ‘the contributory principle’, almost all supported the idea of ‘something for something’ within the welfare benefit system. Participants frequently described this idea as “positive”, “fair” and “good”.

Experience of the contributory principle in practice

In practice, some participants, more often NS ESA, expressed gratitude and reassurance that the welfare system reflected a ‘something for something’ approach where past contributions were recognised:

It’s positive to know that there is something out there for people like me who have worked most of their adult life, [but] now unfortunately my health has taken a turn to the point I can’t work, but there is something because I have made that contribution

(Male, 45 to 54, NS ESA and UC, Former Security Officer.)

However, despite this appreciation, most participants were frustrated with the current system perceiving an unfairness between ‘contributors’ and ‘non-contributors’:

In the grand scheme of things, no [it’s not something for something] because you can see what people who haven’t contributed to the system get

(Male, 45 to 54 NS ESA and UC, Former Social Housing Officer.)

Participants felt that individuals who had not worked or contributed into the system received greater support compared to those who had paid in. This was particularly frustrating for those who had firsthand experience with long term unemployed benefit recipients, as participants viewed this lifestyle as a choice, whilst their benefit receipt was something that had ‘happened to them’ either due to illness or redundancy:

I know people that have never worked and they’ve claimed benefits all their life and seems to be that they are doing a lot better than what I am doing with the moment situation… they’ve got new cars, they’ve… been on holidays… I can’t even go to the hospital without putting my savings in for fuel

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA and UC, Former Plant Operator.)

In comparison to those in receipt of means tested benefits, participants felt that they were being penalised for having “done the right thing” - having worked hard, had a career, and had savings. Whilst participants acknowledged the logic of receiving a lower value benefit as they had access to savings or partner income, they still felt frustrated that they were not eligible to receive support with rent, prescriptions or childcare like those on UC do. Overall, this was felt to undermine the perceived fairness of the ‘something for something’ principle, as greater contribution did not translate to more support:

Some people seem just to live their life on benefits, whilst others are contributing into the system and are told, when they do need support, well you can get it, but only for 6 months, which isn’t a long time

(Female, 45 to 54, NS JSA and UC, Former Typist.)

Participants expressed dissatisfaction both with the amount and, particularly for NS JSA, the duration of their benefit, which they felt did not adequately reflect the rate or length of their prior contributions. There was a strong sense that benefits were insufficient given how much, or how long, an individual had paid into the system for. The primacy was typically placed on duration of contributions, with participants frequently highlighting how long they had been working and paying into the system for:

The way I look at it, you’ve paid into the system, you’ve participated in the system. The required assistance from the system should be equivalent to what you have paid in. I don’t mean monetary wise; I mean the length of time you’ve paid in. I have paid national insurance for 47 years which should provide me, when I can’t work, with a standard of living

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former HGV Driver.)

However, for some high earners, the amount that they had contributed was seen as more important than duration in determining what they felt they were entitled to within a ‘something for something’ system:

I was a higher rate taxpayer, so no I don’t feel the system provides something for something. It’s one system to treat everybody, it’s not fair

(Male, 45 to 54, NS JSA and UC, Former Alliances Director.)

Most Work Coaches reflected participants’ frustration and spoke of the embarrassment they felt explaining to NS JSA participants what they were entitled to, and how unfair they perceived this to be:

Why should someone who is claiming an income-based benefit, who has never worked be able to claim continuously with no cut off point whilst those who have worked for 30 years only get 6 months? It’s not fair

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

However, a few Work Coaches disagreed, highlighting that those on NS JSA who have received high salaries should be able to support themselves, especially when the value of NS JSA is small in comparison to working salaries:

If someone has been really well paid, they should’ve looked after themselves for times of need…the £92.05 a week is crumbs to them

(Work Coach, East Midlands.)

Attitudes to finances

Customers on NS JSA receive up to £95.55 per week, whilst those on the highest rate of NS ESA receive up to £140 per week. Customers may also receive UC, which is reduced pound-for-pound by any NS ESA/ NS JSA received. Customers with health conditions may also receive PIP. As PIP covers daily living or mobility costs, rather than providing income replacement, it is not deducted from NS ESA/NS JSA.

When asked about the financial value of their benefit, nearly all participants expressed dissatisfaction. Those on NS JSA were more vocal in their discontent.

It doesn’t give you enough to live on. It is woefully inadequate

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Digital Transformation Lead.)

Conversations around finances were inextricably intertwined with discussions of contribution. It was not simply that participants felt their benefit was not sufficient to live on, but that it was completely insufficient given their contribution into the welfare system.

Work coaches also reflected these concerns around NS JSA pay, feeling that the value was too low and almost a “kick in the teeth” for those who had contributed. However, they did not express such concern about the value of NS ESA.

When asked how changing the value of a benefit would impact their lives, NS JSA participants spoke of a reduction in day-to-day financial stress and a feeling that they could be more selective in their job seeking:

If I received more, I could be more selective and less desperate to get the first job

(Male, 35 to 44, NS JSA, Former University Lecturer.)

It would let me think about what career I could pursue rather than thinking about finances

(Female, 45 to 54, NS JSA, Former Medical Receptionist.)

Similarly, NS ESA participants felt increasing benefit income would reduce financial stress. However, in this case the extra income would support with cost of living and transport costs to allow them to engage with the community more and improve their health rather than supporting them back into work like NS JSA participants.

When discussing hypothetical scenarios around changing the values of contributory benefits, work coaches were concerned around the impact this may have on customer behaviour.

They acknowledged that increasing the value of NS JSA may support those who have been made redundant to have a quick return to employment. However, they cautioned a significant increase in the amount received on NS JSA as they were aware of the perverse impacts this may have:

The problem is, if you give too much, you are giving people the bravery to walk away from a job… the lower rate… deters people from unemployment. But if you offer more people may think ‘this isn’t too bad. I can manage on this’, and it would also encourage people to stay on it longer

(Work Coach, East Midlands.)

Most work coaches did not see the need to increase the value of NS ESA, particularly for those in the support group. Indeed, some felt the discrepancy between the amount received on NS ESA compared to NS JSA was unfair:

Why would people on NS ESA deserve more money than those on NS JSA?

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

Others acknowledged the potential extra costs of a health condition:

I think there should be a distinction because some health conditions can cost more if you have to adapt things. If you’re having to pay for extra help… there [are] a lot more costs with health conditions

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

Currently, the New Style benefit system comprises two separate benefits: NS ESA and NS JSA – divided based on health or non-health related unemployment. Participants were asked whether they believed the distinction between health and non-health related unemployment benefits was important.

Both participants and work coaches expressed a strong view that this distinction was necessary. The primary reason given was that poor health can represent a significant barrier to returning to work, and therefore individuals should receive support appropriate to their needs. For instance, those who have just been forced to leave work due to ill health should not be targeted for work-related support:

If I didn’t have health issues, I could go back to work and if I couldn’t get work, I could look for work. When you are sick, you can’t work, you’ve been signed off work, they don’t want you back. I think that’s important to remember

(Male, 55 to 64, NS ESA, Former Plant Operator.)

However, there was no consensus between participants or work coaches as to whether those on health-related unemployment benefits should necessarily receive more financial support than those on non-health related unemployment benefits. Rather, most suggests a tiered approach to payments whereby only those with significant additional costs related to their health would receive extra financial support.

If somebody has a health issue and they can’t work we need to support them, but I feel it should be tiered

(Female, 45 to 54, NS JSA, Former Bank Teller.)

Work Coaches were aware of the impact that being on benefits could have on individuals’ mental health and felt that only those with extra costs due to a severe health conditions should be able to receive additional financial support to prevent people being ‘rewarded’ for a decline in mental health:

Being unemployed in itself can lower a person’s mental health, particularly over a long period of time. They’re obviously going to get depression and anxiety, and a lack of self-esteem need to turn around, important that only people with very dire health should get premium

(Work Coach, East Midlands.)

Work coaches highlighted that a tiering system may not be the most effective method of providing support as it can be confusing for users, and there were concerns about fraud risk, particularly within the context of online forums explaining how to receive maximum points on PIP and not wanting this emulated in the contributory benefits space.

Attitudes to benefit duration

Currently, the length of time a customer can receive a New Style benefit depends upon their health status. NS JSA customers can receive the benefit for up to 6 months, whilst NS ESA customers in the WRAG may receive payments for up to 12 months. Those placed in the NS ESA Support Group can continue to receive the benefit until they reach State Pension age.

Participants were asked whether they felt the current duration of their benefit was appropriate. Many on NS ESA and over a third on NS JSA, were uncertain how long their benefit would last. This lack of awareness suggests improvements around communication of the duration of benefits is needed.

Once participants were informed of how long their benefit would last, all NS ESA participants felt that the duration was appropriate for both WRAG and Support Group as they felt it reflected the nature of different health conditions and wouldn’t opt to change it.

Nearly all work coaches also felt that NS ESA system was appropriate as it gave flexibility to adjust the benefit duration to the duration of health conditions:

The current [NS] ESA system is appropriate because we’ve got the opportunity to give some 12 months, and some indefinite dependent on their health condition

(Work Coach, London.)

However, a small number felt that Support Group being effectively indefinite was inappropriate, especially given the limited engagement with the DWP after the WCA. In these cases, work coaches were concerned that this led to long term unemployment that would be extremely difficult to return from if an individual’s health condition were to improve.

When thinking about hypothetical changes to NS ESA, the majority of work coaches did not support a blanket 12-month duration as they felt it was unfair and did not reflect the severe nature of Support Group customers health conditions and how this impacts them long term.

All work coaches agreed that NS ESA and NS JSA participants required different support and therefore their benefits should not be the same duration.

By contrast, many NS JSA participants felt that 6 months was insufficient, particularly within the current job market climate and in the context of seasonal variation, citing that opportunities were particularly poor over the Christmas period. Some reflected that when they were employed, they would have felt 6 months would be sufficient to get another job but in their current situation they no longer believe this to be true. Most suggested that 12 months would be a more appropriate duration to allow the necessary headspace to think about future career plans, have opportunities to retrain and reduce the pressure on multi-stage interviews.

In a buoyant job market, a few participants felt this would be too long, though they reflected this was not the case now:

It depends on the job market. Twelve months would be too long if the job market is fine, but currently I don’t think it is fine

(Female, 45 to 54, NS JSA and UC, Former Admin Lead.)

Many linked the duration of their benefit to the amount they had contributed to the system, and felt in this context, 6 months was unfair, particularly when income-related benefits are not time limited:

Make it longer than 6 months. It just feels unfair that people who don’t have savings, they can get support and much more than people who have savings

(Female, 55 to 64, NS JSA, Former Partner Programmes Manager.)

A small portion of participants felt NS JSA should be available until the individual returned to employment, and didn’t understand the purpose of time-limiting, seeing it as counterproductive to the goal of returning to work.

Most work coaches felt that NS JSA should remain at 6 months, rather than increasing to a hypothetical 12-month option. Work coaches gave four reasons why NS JSA should not be extended.

Firstly, the majority of the NS JSA customers they engaged with had returned to employment within the first 6 months:

Most of our customers are super self-sufficient, so they’ve returned to work well before those 6 months exhausts

(Work Coach, Scotland.)

Secondly, work coaches were concerned that extending NS JSA to 12 months would push individuals into long term unemployment, making it harder for them to return to work rather than supporting them with more time to find good employment:

For NS JSA, we are talking about people getting back into work. You’ve got more chance of getting a job within 6 months than in 12 months, because then you become long term unemployed don’t you?

Work Coach, West Midlands

Thirdly, there was concern that extending NS JSA to 12 months would reduce the speed of customer turnover, making it harder to manage from a JCP perspective, given the frequency of NS JSA engagement.

Finally, work coaches were anxious that if NS JSA were increased beyond 12 months, it could become an avenue for early retirement.

However, most acknowledged that the contributory system felt unfair in comparison to UC, given the relative lack of support compared to level of contribution. In some cases, work coaches used this as a justification for increasing NS JSA to 12 months:

I would do 12 months for NS JSA because we are back at the scenario of you’ve paid in, why should you be penalised and just get 6 months when UC claims can carry on forever

(Work Coach, Yorkshire and the Humber.)

Overall, work coaches agreed that NS JSA should be between 6 and 12 months. Any shorter was seen as unfair, and restrictive. Any longer was seen as unnecessary or counterproductive. Nearly all work coaches felt that NS ESA and NS JSA should not be the same duration given that these customer groups have very different needs resulting from their different pathways out of work – ill health compared to redundancy.

Summary

This chapter highlights that although most participants were unfamiliar with the term ‘contributory principle’, there was strong support for reciprocity within the welfare benefit system. However, participants did not feel that the contributory principle was effectively operating in practice in the current welfare benefit system.

The financial value of contributory benefits, particularly NS JSA, was seen as insufficient, especially in comparison to prior contribution. Attitudes toward the duration of contributory benefits diverged. In general, the duration of NS ESA was viewed as appropriate by participants, though some work coaches were concerned about the duration of Support Group given the lack of engagement with the Jobcentre. By contrast, NS JSA participants felt 6 months was too short given their previous contributions and a challenging job market. Instead, 12 months was viewed as appropriate. Work coaches acknowledged NS JSA customers’ frustration at duration and agreed that the duration should sit between 6 and 12 months.

There was strong agreement that a distinction between health and non-health related unemployment benefits is necessary given the differences in circumstances, work aspirations and support needs between those who leave employment due to health and those that do not. However, participants did not feel that health-related benefits should automatically pay customers a higher rate, rather participants and work coaches felt that any additional financial support should be targeted to those with the most severe conditions.

Question 10

Conclusion

Accepted Answer

This qualitative research explored customer experiences of contributory benefits, focusing on customer journeys, work attitudes, support needs and attitudes to hypothetical policy principles. It explored the complex and often uneven experiences of individuals claiming contributory benefits, shaped by differing routes into unemployment, varied work histories, and contrasting needs from the welfare benefit system.

Participants’ journeys onto contributory benefits were often the result of ill health or redundancy but triggered by financial anxieties. Awareness of contributory benefits was generally low prior to claiming. Delays in claiming – particularly amongst NS JSA participants – were driven by limited awareness, stigma, and optimism about returning to work. This suggests that people tended to understand contributory benefits only when they needed them, rather than thinking of them before claiming as something they had earned and were entitled to.

Overall, the application process for contributory benefits was viewed positively, especially when compared with UC. Simplicity and clarity emerged as key strengths, however, frustrations around communication delays and perceived complexity of dual claims were areas for improvement.

Financial support was the primary motivation for claiming a contributory benefit. This ranged from acting as a short-term safety net to mitigating acute financial stress. A noticeable contrast emerged between customer perspectives and those of work coaches, with the latter emphasising the importance of National Insurance contribution continuity – an aspect that was rarely raised by participants themselves.

Participants’ extensive employment histories strongly shaped their sense of self and attitudes toward work. NS JSA participants, often from professional or skilled backgrounds, remained work-oriented but increasingly disheartened by labour market conditions, age-related barriers and repeated rejection. Whilst work coaches accepted that these barriers exist, they highlighted that many other NS JSA customers leave the benefit rapidly as a result of re-employment. We were unable to capture these participants in our sample. By contrast, many NS ESA participants viewed work nostalgically, emphasizing their pride at previous work duration but feeling that employment was unlikely for them in the future. Despite contrasting future work aspirations, there was a shared recognition of work as a key contributor to financial security, mental wellbeing, and a sense of community.

Experiences while on contributory benefits revealed persistent financial anxiety, even among those with relative security. Many participants were altruistic, expressing gratitude for their circumstances and concern for those without similar financial buffers (e.g. partner, savings, house). In terms of non-financial support, NS ESA participants, particularly those in the Support Group, felt forgotten. By contrast, NS JSA participants expressed more mixed views, with some valuing current available support, but calling for improvements to awareness and signposting and provision of holistic career conversations, and support rebuilding confidence post redundancy.

Attitudes toward the contributory principle were positive, despite limited familiarity with the term itself. Participants strongly supported the notion of reciprocity – “something for something” – yet questioned whether this principle was meaningfully reflected in current policy design. Dissatisfaction with benefit value and duration, particularly among NS JSA participants, was closely linked to perceptions of fairness relative to past contributions and comparisons with UC. While there was broad support for maintaining a distinction between health and non-health related unemployment benefits, participants and work coaches alike favoured targeting any additional support towards those with the most severe health conditions.

Taken together, these findings suggest a tension between the perceived fairness of the contributory principle and the limited generosity, visibility and support offer of contributory benefits. Improving awareness of the contributory principle amongst the general public, strengthening communication and support during claims, and more clearly aligning benefit and duration with contribution histories could improve customer satisfaction and strengthen the integrity of the contributory principle. Ultimately, contributory benefits were valued by participants and work coaches not only for their financial function, but for what they symbolise: recognition of prior work and contributions, as well as support during periods of vulnerability.

Question 11

Annex 1: Further Methodological Considerations

Accepted Answer

Sampling strategy

Purposive sampling was used to recruit contributory customers. Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling technique where researchers intentionally select participants based on their specific characteristics to answer a research question. Contributory customers were recruited across four strands. These were:

NS ESA only customers: Consisted of people who only received NS ESA. They did not receive means-tested benefits, but they may have received PIP.
NS ESA and UC customers: Consisted of people who receive or have recently received both NS ESA and UC. They may also have previously received other means-tested benefits or PIP.
NS JSA only customers: Consisted of people who only received NS JSA. They did not receive means-tested benefits, though they may have received these in the past.
NS JSA and UC customers: Consisted of people who receive or have recently received both NS JSA and UC. They may also have previously receive other means-tested benefits.

All participants were recruited via a DWP sample. The sample were sent correspondence inviting them to opt-in to the study. Those participants who opted in were subsequently contacted via telephone for interview. Those who opted out were not contacted again.

A snowball sampling approach was used to recruit work coaches. Snowball sampling is a non-probability technique where the initial contact refers researchers to other potential participants. To be selected for the study, work coaches needed current experience working with NS ESA or NS JSA customers, though many reported being both an NS ESA and NS JSA work coach, often the only one in their Jobcentre.

Research Ethics

Steps were taken to ensure participants clearly understood the purpose of the study and were able to provide informed consent at each stage. During initial recruitment correspondence, participants were provided with an information sheet detailing the purpose of the research, how to contact the research team and how participant data would be handled. Customers were assured that their participation in the study would not influence their benefit claim nor their dealings with the DWP now or in the future. Study purpose, data protection and anonymity was reiterated verbally during telephone recruitment. At the start of each interview, participants were reminded of their rights, including the option to pause the interview and skip any questions they wished without providing reason to the interviewer. As a gesture of thanks, contributory benefit customers were offered a £20 Love2Shop e-voucher.

Interviews were carried out by a team of experienced DWP social researchers with expertise working with vulnerable groups. The team received a full briefing, including information on trauma-informed research and DWP safeguarding procedures such as six-point plan guidance.

Participant anonymity was maintained throughout the project through the use of pseudonyms, secure password protected files, and strict adherence to DWP’s internal data security protocols.

Analytical approach and reporting

Thematic Analysis

A thematic analysis approach, following Bruan and Clarke’s (2006) six phase framework, was used to analyse the data. The analysis was inductive with codes emerging from the data and themes being decided subsequently. The analysis was conducted in Nvivo 15 using interview notes. Double coding was used to quality assure outputs with coding queries and feedback discussed to refine the coding approach.

Presentation of reporting

The findings in this report aim to show a range of experiences and views related to contributory benefits and dual UC claims. Quotes have only been included where we consider there to be no risk of identifying individuals and are shown in quotation marks. Where quotation marks are used, we are confident of accuracy, due to the following measures taken when interviewing:

For all interviews conducted with claimants and work coaches, an interviewer and note-taker were present. Most interviews were auto transcribed using MS Teams.
Work Coach focus groups were auto-transcribed using MS Teams, to supplement the note-taker’s notes.

Participant Characteristics

Participant characteristics are reported below. While the research aimed to recruit across a range of participant characteristics, it did not aim for a representative sample. The sample focused on more recent benefit customers, and participants were spread across England, Scotland and Wales. Overall, the sample is slightly older than the general caseload of NS ESA and NS JSA.

Table 1: Total customer participants by benefit group

Benefit Group	Number of Participants
New Style Employment and Support Allowance	12
New Style Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit	10
New Style Jobseekers Allowance	12
New Style Jobseekers Allowance and Universal Credit	10
Total	44

Table 2: Total customer participants by age group

Age Group	Number of Participants
18 to 24	1
25 to 34	2
35 to 44	8
45 to 54	12
55 to 64	18
65 or over	3
Total	44

Table 3: Total customer participants by gender

Gender	Number of Participants
Male	17
Female	27
Total	44

Cookies on GOV.UK

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Executive summary

Main Findings

Customer journeys

Work Histories, Aspirations and Barriers

Support on contributory benefits

Attitudes to potential policy principles

Authors

Glossary

Jobcentre Plus

National Insurance Contributions

New Style Employment and Support Allowance

New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance

New Style Work Coaches

Occupational Sick Pay

Personal Independence Payment

Statutory Sick Pay

Support Group

Universal Credit

Universal Credit Health Element

Work Capability Assessment

Work Related Activity Group

Work Coach

Abbreviations

Introduction

Policy Context

Research Methods

Research design and research questions

Sampling strategy

Overview of research activities

Research Considerations

Journeys onto Contributory Benefits

Pathways onto contributory benefits

NS ESA Pathways

NS JSA Pathways

Awareness of contributory benefits

Main reasons for claiming a contributory benefit

Financial Support

Financial support as a safety net

Financial support as a way to reduce debt

Financial support as income replacement

Entitlement and NICs

Experience of application

NS ESA application experience

NS JSA application experience

Dual Claimants’ application experience

Experiences with other benefits

Previous experiences on benefits

Attitudes to PIP

Summary

Work Histories, Aspirations and Barriers

Work Histories

NS JSA Work Histories

NS ESA Work Histories

Employer Relations

Work Attitudes and Aspirations

NS ESA Work Attitudes and Aspirations

NS JSA Work Attitudes and Aspirations

Summary

Experiences on contributory benefits

Financial Circumstances on Contributory Benefits

Support Needs

NS ESA Support Needs

NS JSA Support Needs

Dual Claimants Support Needs

Summary

Perspectives on Current and Hypothetical Policy Principles

Attitudes and awareness of the contributory principle

Experience of the contributory principle in practice

Attitudes to finances

Attitudes to Health and non-Health Related Benefits

Attitudes to benefit duration

Summary

Conclusion

Annex 1: Further Methodological Considerations

Sampling strategy

Research Ethics

Analytical approach and reporting

Thematic Analysis