Research and analysis

Summary: Additional Jobcentre Support pilot: qualitative research

Published 29 January 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Policy background

The Additional Jobcentre Support (AJS) pilot focused on providing enhanced engagement with Universal Credit (UC) claimants in the Intensive Work Search regime (IWS).

DWP launched the first phase of the pilot (referred to throughout the report as AJS1) in early 2023 to test how intensive, daily support at specific points in a UC claimant’s journey could help support them into employment or achieve higher earnings. This involved two weeks of daily intensive work-search activity at weeks 14 and 15 of a claim, and again at weeks 27 and 28. Each week included Work Search Reviews and group-based activity.

AJS excluded those in IWS who were Gainfully Self Employed (GSE), awaiting a Work Capability Assessment (WCA), or required to work search for less than 20 hours per week due to personal circumstances. Delayed entry to AJS also applied to certain groups, including young people and claimants aged 50 plus.

Based on evaluation evidence and work coach (WC) feedback the second pilot phase (referred to throughout the report as AJS2) introduced an additional structured week of daily employment support at Week 7 of IWS. AJS2 began in September 2023. This additional week involved daily appointments, including three one-to-one sessions with a WC and two group sessions, focused on employability. The week aimed to ensure each claimant was equipped with the skills to search for and secure work at an earlier point in the claim.

The pilot was discontinued after the 2024 general election. This report therefore presents findings from the intervention up to the point of its discontinuation in June 2024, providing insights into delivery, claimant and staff experiences, and lessons learned for future policy and service design.

Research context

This qualitative study was conducted by professional social researchers within DWP between November 2023 and February 2024. The research aimed to explore claimant and staff experiences of AJS2, assess its perceived effectiveness, and identify lessons for future policy and service design. The study also drew on insights from earlier research on AJS1 to inform interpretation.

AJS2 was introduced in September 2023 across 90 Jobcentres in eight Jobcentre Plus districts. This included all jobcentres that participated in AJS1, plus 30 additional sites. A key change from AJS1 was the introduction of an additional week of intensive support at Week 7, informed by AJS1 findings that earlier intervention might help identify and address barriers (such as skills gaps or CV issues) before the standard intensive support at Weeks 14 and 15.

The study addressed five core research questions:

1. How is AJS2 experienced by claimants and staff?

Exploring perceptions, understanding of purpose, and reactions to this phase of the pilot.

2. What works well in AJS2?

Examining practical delivery, including onboarding, administration, session delivery, daily attendance, sanctions, and use of Work Plan.

3. What are the areas for improvement in AJS2?

Identifying challenges across the same delivery aspects as question 2.

4. What are claimant and staff perceptions of AJS2’s effectiveness?

Assessing whether AJS2 helps claimants become job-ready and overcome perceived barriers to work.

5. What insights from AJS1 and AJS2 can inform future policy and service delivery?

Including comparisons made by work coaches and lessons for design.

All research activities adhered to Government Social Research (GSR) ethical principles, including informed consent, confidentiality, and secure data handling. A structured topic guide and trained interviewers ensured consistency and rigour throughout fieldwork.

Claimants and work coaches were recruited purposively to capture a range of experiences across participating districts. Inclusion criteria focused on claimants engaged in AJS2 and work coaches delivering the intervention. Participation was voluntary, and efforts were made to include claimant diversity in age, gender, and employment background, though findings cannot be generalised due to the qualitative nature and sample size.

Data collection took place across all eight participating districts and included:

• 26 in-depth claimant interviews after the Week 7 employability support and after the two work search weeks (Weeks 14 and 15)
• 20 interviews with five work coaches at four time points in the AJS2 journey
• observations of 30 one-to-one AJS2 sessions and six group sessions at two jobcentres

The research initially focused on the additional Week 7 support before examining later stages of the pilot.

For the analysis, a thematic analysis approach was used. The coding framework applied to the analysis was previously developed from the topic guides and refined after reviewing a subset of interview transcripts. The interview analysis was conducted in NVivo 12. To enhance reliability, coding was reviewed by multiple researchers, and emerging themes were discussed within the team to mitigate bias.

Considerations and limitations

This qualitative study delivered rich understanding of a range of claimant and WC views and experiences of AJS2. However, there are some limitations:

• Although a diverse claimant sample was achieved (by sex, age, district), only 3 claimants in the sample were already in work.
• As 4 interviews per WC were conducted over time, to track attitudinal and behavioural changes, the trade-off was that the sample was small (5 WCs).
• In interviews, participants were asked retrospectively about their experiences, so it is likely that there is some recall bias, although this was not a risk for observations.
• Opt-in approaches for both claimant and WC strands will have resulted in some selection bias, with those who chose to participate potentially having strong views (positive or negative) about the intervention, using the research as an opportunity to raise those opinions.
• Gathering observational data came with challenges, such as obtaining active agreement to participate (rather than passive compliance), lacking information about participant characteristics, and the impact of the presence of the researcher.

Key findings

Understanding of AJS

Work coaches (WCs) generally understood AJS2’s purpose but often relied on local guidance, which may have affected consistency. Initial scepticism gave way to positive views, particularly of Week 7.

Claimants initially resisted daily attendance, partly due to limited awareness of what sessions involved. Once clarified, most engaged positively, seeing the support as helpful. Exceptions included claimants already working, on zero-hour contracts, or with caring responsibilities.

Administration and resourcing

AJS2 was resource-intensive and administratively challenging. WCs suggested it was better suited to larger Jobcentres with dedicated teams. Eligibility checks were time-consuming, and an automated screening system was recommended.

Competing programmes and limited diary slots made scheduling difficult. Facilities were often inadequate for example, open-plan spaces lacked privacy and IT resources were limited.

Daily support and sessions

Daily attendance allowed WCs a deeper look at claimant circumstances and perceived barriers to work, enabling them to provide better support, and improving rapport with claimants. Claimants tended to agree, and they were generally positive, particularly about the one-to-one support they received.

That said, daily attendance meant that there could be insufficient time for claimants to progress actions in the time between appointments, resulting in repetitive one-to-one appointments with little value. In addition, there was variability in one-to-one appointment length, the amount of support given in these, and the use of Work Plans to mandate activity. This meant that claimants will have had different experiences of the support offered on AJS2.

Group sessions varied, for example: interactive sessions covering local issues (for example, transport, major employers) were well-received and sometimes preferred to one-to-one meetings. In contrast, generic presentations were seen as box-ticking and less useful. Furthermore, formats did not suit all claimants, and adjustments for neurodivergent participants were inconsistent.

Effectiveness of AJS2

In general, WCs were positive about the AJS2 Week 7 daily employability support, feeling that it helped to get claimants job-ready earlier in their claim. Claimants tended to agree, and valued the support on CVs, job searching, applications and interview skills. The week 7 intervention identified barriers to employment and enabled support and training, which was viewed positively by claimants. However, there was variation in the length of notice given to claimants that they would need to attend daily, which impacted on claimant experience and their initial engagement. One claimant said they were only told they needed to attend less than the 48 hours notice required.

Attendance was generally good, partly due to the deterrent effect of sanctions, though WCs applied failure-to-attend guidance inconsistently and were sometimes reluctant to sanction. Travel expenses were a barrier for some as reimbursement varied, causing financial strain for some claimants. WCs sought more flexibility to offer virtual appointments, particularly for claimants who would have trouble attending, for example in rural areas.

Claimants felt that the support in AJS2 suited those with little work or job search experience. Those aged over 50 also said that AJS2 motivated them and helped to broaden their job search.

However, claimants and WCs viewed AJS2 as generic, and claimants with substantial work experience and those in work wanted more targeted support. Generally, highly qualified and experienced claimants, or those in work, found AJS2 less useful, and WCs said that engaging self-employed workers was challenging. AJS2 may also be less suited to claimants with complex needs, such as refugees or the homeless, or those with low levels of English.

Considerations for future policy and delivery

Although AJS has been discontinued, the findings in this report highlight lessons that could inform future delivery of the jobs and careers service. The following areas may be particularly relevant for consideration:

Work coach (WC) communications and guidance

• Provide clearer communications regarding future Pilot delivery plans, because staff felt communications in the transition from AJS1 to AJS2 had not been clear enough, with little time to prepare, ensure diary capacity, or produce materials.
• Increase awareness and use of centrally provided guidance, because staff rarely referred to the official intranet guidance, were unaware of further resources and relied on local products or on shadowing colleagues, which could influence delivery and effectiveness of the support.
• Allow time for JCP staff to access the guidance and engage fully, because newer staff struggled to find time to absorb AJS guidance on top of induction materials, and this affected compliance with AJS processes.
• Provide further guidance/communications to DWP staff regarding eligibility and suitability, to increase on-boarding consistency and ensure that those referred to the support are the claimants the programme is designed to support.
• Communicate JCP performance achievements, and consider providing in-work figures, as these could act as a motivator for AJS staff.

Communication to claimants

• Clearly communicate what the support involves. At the on-boarding meeting, ensure WCs provide a plan and make the structure of the support and what will be covered in sessions clear to the claimant, to improve engagement.
• Emphasise the benefits of the support, because there was initial push-back from claimants before they understood how the support could help them.

Design and delivery

• Check staff understand the purpose of the Work Plan, including in relation to the Claimant Commitment, and use it appropriately, because updated Work Plans avoided claimants having to repeat themselves when seeing different WCs and poorly completed Work Plans meant Decision Makers had less context to make decisions, leading to sanctions not being applied consistently.
• Explore how to tailor the support so it is perceived as effective for employed claimants, those highly qualified, or claimants with work experience. This could mean ensuring WCs follow the claimants’ in-work guidance, providing WCs with specific content for these groups (for example, more focus on the STAR technique), shortening or spacing out the one-to-ones, exempting claimants from attending group sessions, or improving the quality of appointments and reducing the quantity.

Delivery of group sessions

• Increase WC awareness of group session exemptions/alternatives and share good practice on delivering alternative formats, to ensure claimants unable to engage (for example, neurodivergent or with a language barrier) are exempt from group sessions but still benefit from the information delivered. For example, by sending the PowerPoint presentation, translated if necessary, and allowing time in one-to-ones to go through any queries.
• Review and further develop available facilities and resources for group sessions, including consideration of:
  • Site facilities – attempt to create an environment within a jobcentre which is appropriate for delivery of group sessions, with suitable rooms, and lifts for accessibility.
  • Access to the tools needed to deliver group sessions, including sufficient availability of working projectors.
  • Staffing – offer training to develop the confidence and skills to deliver group sessions, and recruit staff who enjoy and are skilled in delivery.
  • Supporting materials – ensure staff are aware they should tailor materials to local needs. Work with communications and Human-Centred Design colleagues to develop group session slides. Focus on accessible fonts, Plain English and reduce use of jargon.

Claimant attendance

• Consider more use of alternative channels, such as digital, phone, or video, where appropriate, to increase attendance of those with barriers to physical attendance such as living in rural areas, childcare or work commitments.

Concluding remarks

Overall, AJS2 was generally viewed positively by both claimants and Work Coaches, particularly for those with limited work experience. However, delivery challenges, inconsistent tailoring, and suitability concerns for specific claimant groups suggest that there are concerns around whether the model was equitable, appropriately targeted and sustainable at scale.