Intensive Personalised Employment Support (IPES) Programme Evaluation

Question 1

1. How to read this report

Accepted Answer

Please see the Glossary and Abbreviations section in Chapter 4 for full details of the terminology, definitions and acronyms used in this report.

Verbatim quotes have been included in the qualitative section of this report to illustrate and highlight key points and common themes. In order to ensure readability and transparency when taken out of the context of fuller discussion, quotes have been edited for clarity in some instances. Where direct quotes from programme participants are used, these have been anonymised and attributed with the following characteristics:

gender
age
region
self-reported disability or long-term health condition

Where direct quotes from Jobcentre Plus (JCP), third party programme delivery providers and employers are used, these have also been anonymised and attributed with the following characteristics (where relevant):

organisation type
job role
sector

Question 2

2. Executive summary

Accepted Answer

Introduction and methodology

The Intensive Personalised Employment Support (IPES) programme was delivered from December 2019, with a final intake onto the programme in December 2023. The programme offered targeted support for individuals with complex support needs related to health conditions and disabilities, with the aim of helping them to move closer to the labour market.

This report provides findings from a mixed-method evaluation of the programme, incorporating:

Qualitative research: 2 waves of depth interviews with IPES programme participants, IPES delivery providers, JCP staff and IPES employers. The first Wave was conducted in summer 2021 and the second from Autumn 2023 to Spring 2024.
Quantitative research: a baseline online survey with 999 participants (with fieldwork conducted 10 November 2022 and 25 March 2024) and follow-up online survey with 338 IPES programme participants (with fieldwork conducted 11 December 2023 and 28 April 2025).

Because the qualitative and quantitative fieldwork were carried out at different times, their findings are presented separately in this report, with a combined conclusion provided at the end. Please note that the findings of this report are based solely on participant responses given in the online survey and qualitative research and are not intended to represent a direct cause-and-effect relationship.

Overview of programme participants

As of December 2023 when referrals to the IPES programme ended, the programme had supported over 11,000 people across England and Wales.

In terms of participant characteristics, 9 in 10 (89%) in Wave 2 reported at least one health condition, illness or disability that was expected to last for 6 months or more. This proportion is similar to Wave 1 (85%). Regarding length of time unemployed in Wave 2, 12% had been unemployed for less than 6 months and 17% for 7 years or more. At the point of survey completion, 19% of Wave 2 respondents were currently taking part in the IPES programme, 68% had completed it and 14% had withdrawn from the programme before completion.

Key findings

Overall, the programme demonstrated how intensive personalised support successfully led to a number of positive outcomes

The IPES programme aimed to assist those with complex health conditions and disabilities to move closer to the labour market. The programme achieved numerous successful outcomes for these participants.

Positive outcomes included increased confidence and motivation by reducing participant concerns regarding health-related employment challenges. After taking part in IPES, fewer participants said that they were worried people wouldn’t employ them because of their health condition (62% compared to 71% at Wave 1), and fewer participants at Wave 2 reporting that the idea of working made them feel anxious (51% versus 57% at Wave 1). Further, fewer participants said that they were worried their health condition or disability would prevent them from staying in a job (51% compared to 57% at Wave 1).

This coincided with improved attitudes and confidence towards employment which were often highlighted as a barrier to finding work. Quantitative Wave 2 findings showed that 51% of non-working participants expressed confidence in starting a job. These outcomes indicated participants’ progression towards the labour market including those who had not yet entered work post-programme and were supported by findings from providers and JCP staff who also highlighted how improved confidence increased participants’ motivation to find work.

Wave 2 quantitative findings showed that 15% of participants were in paid work after completing the programme. Of those who were in paid work, 47 out of 59 cases felt their confidence had improved, they felt physically safe (46 out of 59 cases) and they felt sufficiently comfortable to express any concerns (44 out of 59 cases). These outcomes were also supported in the qualitative findings in which participants reported how entering paid work had helped them to build a sense of routine and self-worth. Qualitative findings also showed how participants still affected by health barriers when in-work often felt more prepared to have conversations with their employers regarding their health, and any adjustments needed, as a result of their participation in IPES. For participants who were in paid work at Wave 2, almost half (28 out of 59 cases) said their financial situation had improved in the last year, and almost half (26 out of 59 cases) were keeping up with their bills and credit commitments without any difficulty.

Among the participants who had not started paid work since completing or leaving the program, those with a long-term health condition affecting their daily activities were less likely to have been employed (81%) compared to those without such a condition (62%).

For participants who were not in work after leaving or completing the IPES programme, almost 1 in 3 (30%) had taken up volunteering work. Around 1 in 5 (21%) had either gained or were planning to gain a qualification or certificate that would improve their job prospects. Among those not in work, 39% felt that with the right support, work was a realistic goal for them within the next 6 months. A further 16% felt that paid work was a realistic goal even without support, while 24% thought that with the right support paid work was a realistic goal, but not within the next 6 months.

Providers of the IPES programme observed successful delivery and positive participant outcomes. Qualitative findings highlighted the high regard participants and providers had for the personalised and holistic support offered by IPES. Key aspects of this support included CV writing, interview techniques, and addressing health barriers. Wave 2 quantitative findings showed that 46 out of 59 in-work participants received support from employers, though this should be interpreted with caution due to a small base size. Supported by interview data, Key Workers played a vital role in facilitating in-work support, acting as a bridge between participants and employers. They continued to assist participants by maintaining communication, such as texts and phone calls, and providing practical and emotional support. This helped participants to sustain their employment outcomes.

Like IPES providers, JCP staff appreciated the IPES programme for its tailored approach to addressing individual employment barriers. The referral process was positively received, with Work Coaches playing a crucial role in continuity and information sharing. There was, however, some scepticism about referral quality in the Wave 1 qualitative cohort, with a perception that new Work Coaches sometimes lacked detailed understanding of the purpose of IPES which had, and on occasions, led to inappropriate referrals.

Employers generally had positive perceptions of the IPES programme. They valued the consistent support from Key Workers who proactively addressed participant and employer concerns. This aided participant preparation for workplace integration through necessary adjustments with the collaboration facilitating smoother participant transitions into the workforce. However, challenges were noted regarding long-term retention of participants with health conditions, as there were instances of long-term absences or immediate sick leave. Additionally, some employers sought more clarity on their role in supporting IPES participants throughout the employment process.

IPES implementation and delivery highlighted how the way in which support is delivered can have a direct impact on participant experiences and outcomes

Building trusted relationships with Key Workers are key – over 8 in 10 participants (84%) at Wave 2 were satisfied with how often they had contact with their Key Worker. This enabled participants to build trusted relationships with their Key Workers which drove their engagement and satisfaction with the IPES programme. Findings highlighted that the personalised support delivered by Key Workers was crucial in delivering positive outcomes, with over 8 in 10 agreeing that this support was tailored. Key Worker support included practical help with CV writing and job search support (64% received this at Wave 2) as well as addressing health barriers (41% received health condition management at Wave 2).

Personalised support is important – tailored support from Key Workers was crucial, with over 85% of participants finding assistance with practical work-related skills helpful. A significant proportion reported receiving valuable training and support tailored to managing both job-related tasks and their health conditions.

Reducing anxiety around health can have a notable impact on participants’ confidence – the IPES programme effectively reduced participants’ anxieties about their health which in turn positively impacted their employment prospects. Participants expressed a marked decrease in worries about employment barriers and positively their confidence also significantly improved, with 51% of non-working participants feeling ready to start a job.

Even if not entering paid work, participants view better understanding of the sector and type of work they want to go into as a positive outcome – employment outcomes for the IPES customer group with complex needs were moderate, with 15% of participants in paid work post-programme. However, the programme’s ability to foster self-worth through employment highlights its potential in overcoming wider barriers. For participants who did not enter employment, many reported positive impacts of taking part in IPES. These included a better understanding of the sector and type of work they wanted to go into, which they did not know before joining the programme. For example, greater confidence with application processes, improved interview skills, an improved skillset and training experiences and more optimism about finding work after being handed back to the JCP. They also reported greater awareness around the types of adjustments employers could make at work, which reassured participants with physical health conditions.

Clear communication and consistent support to overcome challenges and barriers is needed with employers – employers valued the consistent support from IPES Key Workers and appreciated the assistance in integrating participants into the workforce. However, they sometimes noted concerns over retention due to the health-related workplace adjustments required to meet the needs of programme participants.

Education and training is important to enabling Work Coaches to successfully identify suitable programme participants and undertake successful referral processes – feedback from JCP staff underscored the importance of comprehensive training for Work Coaches to ensure appropriate referrals. Additionally, the importance of connection and clear communication between JCP staff and IPES providers to optimise programme delivery was referenced.

A number of opportunities for learnings to guide, inform and optimise future support delivery programmes

The findings show there is need for a flexible, hybrid model of delivery, combining face-to-face and remote interactions. While in-person meetings excel in establishing trust and rapport between participant and Key Workers, particularly for customers with complex needs, they can be logistically challenging for some. Key Workers report that this is mainly due to high caseloads and geographical dispersal of programme participants. To optimise support delivery, provider staff were keen for future implementations of the IPES programme, or similar employment programmes, to incorporate a participant-centric hybrid model.

The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted gaps in IPES’ adaptability, particularly through processes like ‘warm handovers’. Interviews with JCP and provider staff reflected how embedding resilience and contingency planning into the programme framework is imperative moving forward. Learning from the pandemic, some staff suggested innovative solutions, such as phone or video handovers, could be built into everyday processes to increase efficiency and to offer a multimode approach to communication to suit programme deliverer and participant needs.

Question 3

3. Glossary and abbreviations

Accepted Answer

Term	Definition
Community Provisions Coordinators (CPCs)	CPCs work to ensure different support types meet the needs of every programme participant, managing the quality and effectiveness of provision. They build and maintain strong relationships with local Jobcentre Plus’, referral agencies and local signposting organisations to generate and maximise referrals to the IPES programme.
Contract Package Area (CPA)	A specific geographical region in England and Wales where a provider delivers IPES services. These areas are defined by DWP and are designed to ensure efficient and localised support.
Disability Employment Adviser (DEA)	A specialist within the Jobcentre Plus who aims to provide personalised support for people with disabilities or health conditions to find and keep employment. They can help with employment assessments, job searching and training.
Employer Engagement Consultants (EEC) / Employment Advisers (EA)	An EEC uses commercial engagement and sales and recruitment skills to identify and engage with local employers to generate long term relationships on behalf of the provider. They will also help to source and tailor workplaces and employment opportunities for IPES participants.
Intensive Personalised Employment Support (IPES)	A UK government support programme designed to help individuals with disabilities and long-term health conditions, and complex needs to find employment and sustain work. The voluntary programme offers tailored support for those who are more than 12 months away from the labour market.
Jobcentre Plus (JCP)	A UK government agency that helps people of working age to find employment and administer benefits. It’s part of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and provides various services to both job seekers and employers.
Key Worker	The Key Worker acts as a primary practitioner, providing individualised support and the coordination of services to help participants find and maintain employment. Their responsibilities include building relationships with participants, supporting them in their job search, implementing strategies to overcome barriers, documenting progress and engaging them with other support systems.
Occupational Inclusion Specialist (OIS)	OIS work closely with customers and employers to ensure any adjustments and considerations are implemented to support employment, including offering a tailored health and wellbeing in-work support package. OIS identify and build relationships with employers, advising on how to ensure more occupations are more inclusive and accessible to those with physical and /or mental health conditions. OIS were occasionally brought in from external specialist providers, where required.
Provider	The organisation that delivers the IPES programme.
Work Coach	A DWP professional at the JCP who supports individuals in their employment journey. They aim to provide guidance, advice, and personalised support to help jobseekers find suitable employment.

Question 4

4. Introduction

Accepted Answer

Policy background

The Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) Intensive Personalised Employment Support (IPES) programme started in 2019 in England and Wales to support disabled people (as defined under the Equality Act 2010), with complex barriers to employment. The scheme was voluntary and available to those who were at least 12 months away from entering the workforce. IPES provided 15 months of support and a further 6 months of in-work support. By the end of the referral period in December 2023, the IPES programme had supported over 11,000 participants.

Programme background

Delivery of the IPES programme was disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic, the details of which can be seen in the below timeline (figure 4.1). The programme was launched in December 2019 and in April 2020, following the announcement of a national lockdown in March, certain elements of the programme were disrupted. All three-way warm handover referrals stopped, case conference reviews were paused, and providers were allowed to use digital contact.

By April 2021 following the publication of a roadmap out of lockdown, JCP were allowed to resume face-to-face interventions. In July 2021 the Wave 1 qualitative fieldwork began, lasting until August 2021. In November 2021 a fully blended delivery of the IPES programme was agreed which combined face-to-face and digital delivery.

A year later in October 2022 the three-way warm handovers and the case conference reviews recommenced, and the Wave 2 qualitative fieldwork began (ending in April 2023). The Wave 1 quantitative fieldwork was conducted between November 2022 and March 2024, and in December 2023, the final IPES referral coincided with the beginning of the Wave 2 quantitative fieldwork which ended in April 2025.

Due to the difference in timings that the qualitative and quantitative fieldworks were conducted, the findings from these different methods are discussed separately in this report, with a joint conclusion provided at the end.

Figure 4.1: Timeline of IPES programme delivery and qualitative and quantitative fieldwork

Question 5

5. Wave 1 Qualitative strand

Accepted Answer

5.1 Introduction

This chapter covers the findings for the first Wave of qualitative research which comprised interviews with 48 IPES programme participants and 70 interviews with a mix of IPES programme providers, JCP staff and employers.

Fieldwork for this Wave took place in summer 2021, which meant COVID-19 restrictions and wider impacts of the pandemic shaped delivery and experiences of the programme. COVID-19 restrictions required changes to the IPES delivery model, affecting participants, JCP staff, providers, and employers. Findings reflect participant and delivery providers’ reported experiences of the programme during this time. Where relevant, we note the changes made and their reported impacts.

5.2 Participant background (2021 cohort)

For the Wave 1 Qualitative strand in 2021, Ipsos spoke with 48 IPES programme participants to explore their experiences of the programme and outcomes achieved. The participant sample comprised a mix of characteristics, including Contract Package Area (CPA), type of long-term condition, age and gender. Health conditions varied between physical health conditions, mental health conditions, learning disabilities and others.

Alongside the participant strand, 70 case study interviews were conducted with a mix of IPES programme providers, JCP staff and IPES employers. The interviews were held across each CPA.

5.2.1 Health conditions

Participants in the qualitative research varied widely in their disabilities and health conditions, in the impacts on their daily life, and their ability to work. The type, combination, and severity of conditions meant experiences and challenges were highly individual. Those born with, or living long-term with, a condition faced different challenges from those who developed one in adulthood.

Examples of conditions present from birth or childhood included cerebral palsy, learning disabilities, neurodivergence, severe eczema, thyroid conditions, and mental health conditions such as borderline personality disorder. These participants often also reported anxiety or depression linked to their other conditions.

Conditions developed in adulthood included cancer, sight or hearing loss, arthritis, and physical or mental health issues arising from accidents or events, such as depression, anxiety, PTSD, or reduced mobility. Many who developed physical health conditions in adulthood also described depression or anxiety resulting from the strain of the condition itself or its wider impact, including job loss.

5.2.2 Education and employment history

Participants’ education histories varied widely, with qualifications ranging from school level and apprenticeships to university and professional accreditations. Some had dropped out due to health issues or achieved qualifications they feared would not appeal to employers. These experiences often led to low confidence and negative expectations of work.

Those with degree-level or professional qualifications often worried that available opportunities would not match their skills or aspirations. Some of these participants had been confident about work earlier in life but lost this after leaving work due to ill health.

Employment histories also differed, falling broadly into 3 groups. The first included those who developed disabilities or health conditions in adulthood, sometimes in their 50s, after long periods of employment, often in professional roles. Conditions such as sight loss, reduced mobility, or PTSD prevented them from continuing in their jobs.

“It got to the point where I was a danger to myself and others in the office. The quality of my work had become very poor, and I just wasn’t coping. It was very stressful for me.”

Female, 55 plus, North East England, physical condition

The second group had employment experience but struggled to stay in work because of long-term health conditions or disabilities, often present since childhood. The third group had never worked, including those newly out of education and others in their 20s or older unable to find employment due to their condition.

“I’m not what you would call a reliable worker because some days I can be absolutely fine and other days I can be in so much pain, I can’t get out of bed… I had to quit my job because of how unreasonable my boss had been, and I had to go onto Universal Credit.”

Female, 18 to 24, Central England, physical and mental health conditions and neurodivergent

5.2.4 Personal circumstances

Alongside health, employment, and education histories, participants identified other factors affecting their ability to work. As benefits claimants, many worried that employment might leave them worse off financially, particularly if poor health meant they could not sustain a job. This deterred some from pursuing work.

Caring responsibilities were also a barrier, with some participants supporting children, grandchildren, or parents. Combined with their own health conditions, this made flexible work essential but hard to find. Problematic debt was another challenge for some participants. Those with financial difficulties sometimes felt they needed to resolve these before considering employment, rather than viewing work as a solution. Similarly, those in insecure housing, such as hostels, prioritised stability before entering work.

“I want to find somewhere to live and settle in. I don’t want to get a job and not be able to cope because of the housing situation, or vice versa.”

Male, 18 to 24, Wales, mental health condition

5.2.5 Key barriers to work

Participants described multiple, interlinked barriers to work, shaped by health, past experiences, and wider circumstances. These were:

health-related barriers included fluctuating conditions with flare-ups which were often worsened by stress, and concerns that deteriorating conditions such as sight loss would limit long-term employability
work-related barriers were largely attitudinal, based on past experiences such as doubts about finding employers offering sufficient flexibility and support, fears of not finding suitable roles, and concerns that working could worsen their health

Other barriers included low confidence linked to depression, anxiety, or past workplace experiences. This also covered practical issues such as transport, ID, or interview clothing and competing priorities such as caring responsibilities, debt, or housing.

The number and complexity of barriers faced left some participants feeling very distant from employment at the start of the programme. Even if they felt able to move towards work, they wanted assurance it would lead to sustainable, long-term roles rather than short-term jobs.

“Holding a job down, even getting one, is a massive task…but I don’t want to be unemployed forever.”

Male, 35 to 44, Central England, physical and mental health conditions, and learning disability

5.3 Referrals

5.3.1 Participant awareness of IPES

Work Coaches were the main source of information about IPES, though some participants heard about it through family, friends, online sources, or health professionals, leading to self-referrals. Participants who learned of IPES from their Work Coach often struggled to recall what they knew at the point of referral. This was partly due to the time between referral and the research, though some also said their memory was affected by their health conditions.

“I know a JCP advisor told me a little about it, but I struggle to take on information.”

Female, 35 to 44, North East England, physical and mental health conditions, and learning disability

JCP staff explained IPES as a programme offering one-to-one, personalised support tailored to individual barriers. While its overall aim was employment, staff highlighted its holistic approach, including support for health conditions. This matched participants’ early impressions, with most describing the programme as personalised and expressing optimism about what it could offer.

“I heard about it from my last Work Coach. They said it was something new, and that it would be good. I thought they were going to be offering me support back into work…I thought it was going to be good.”

Female, 25 to 34, Southern England, mental health condition

A small number of participants (4 participants) who had found out about IPES through a source other than a Work Coach had self-referred onto the programme. This included participants who had heard about IPES from a health professional, from friends and family who had been referred by a Work Coach, or from social media.

5.3.2 Expectations of IPES

When first hearing about IPES, many participants described being in difficult circumstances and feeling despondent about finding work. For some, the programme offered hope about being able to make progress towards, or into a job. Those who were long term unemployed saw IPES as a step towards employment. They valued its focus on individual circumstances and a supportive rather than punitive approach.

“I got the impression they would listen to what you have to say, that it would be a lot more relaxed. Before I had to have my Mum on the phone with me to Universal Credit because I was scared that I was going to be shouted at or something.”

Female, 18 to 24, Southern England, mental and physical health condition

Participants found reassurance in IPES’s focus on personal barriers without pressure to take jobs they felt were unsuitable. They hoped for practical help (for example ID or driving licence), condition management (for example therapy), and tailored support to explore sustainable employment. The 15-month duration was also appealing, giving time to progress at their own pace. In-work support was viewed as a unique and valued feature, as it was not available through Work Coaches or other JCP programmes. Knowing help would continue once in work reassured participants worried about sustaining employment.

“They advised me that it was too soon to be thinking about, and worrying about, work. I had to look after myself and get myself feeling up to work.”

Female, 55 plus, Wales, physical health condition

However, a small number were sceptical about the programme, often due to negative past experiences or because they felt too far from work to benefit. Others found the offer unclear in terms of what support they would receive but were willing to try.

“I wasn’t sure if it was too good to be true. I didn’t understand what it was. I needed some new strategies…it looked like it was offering potential help in getting a job, maybe being able to have some more in-depth conversations about whether they had new jobs opening up. The leaflet was a bit vague.”

Male, 18 to 24, North East England, learning disability

5.3.3 Referral process

Covid-19 restrictions and wider impacts of the pandemic led to changes to the IPES referral process, affecting participants, JCP staff, and providers in this Wave. The main change was to the Warm Handover: three-way meetings between participants, Work Coaches, and providers were not feasible during this time, so JCP staff instead briefed providers by phone or email, after which providers spoke with participants by telephone before referral. A second change was the suspension of the Random Allocation Tool from April 2020, due to a significant drop in referrals following the introduction of restrictions.

5.3.4 What worked well for IPES

JCP staff and providers were generally positive about the referral process, feeling the right people were referred and cases handled efficiently. Providers across CPAs reported that referrals usually targeted the right group, though quality varied with the knowledge of individual Work Coaches.

Where providers and JCP staff had strong communication links, awareness and knowledge among Work Coaches was higher, leading to better referrals. DEAs were central, acting as a source of information for Work Coaches and as a contact for providers. Examples of a strong provider and JCP relationship included regular contact with DEAs and Work Coaches and case conferencing on referrals, though this was inconsistent and seen as an area for improvement.

Referrals were felt to work well when:

JCP staff considered disabilities, health, employment barriers, and participants’ engagement, as well as their eligibility
providers supported jobcentres with understanding the IPES offer
DEAs were engaged with the provider and with individual referrals
JCP considered all options for potential participants, including other contracted provisions, and specifically programme eligibility, support needs and distance from the labour market
Work Coaches played a role in warm handovers. During this Wave of research, providers reported that Work Coach involvement was often limited, mostly due to changes in process in response to the pandemic

Participants had little to say about the referral process, but most found it quick and straightforward, often starting within weeks. Despite changes to the Warm Handover, which meant that three-way meetings did not take place, participants were generally positive, feeling they received enough information to decide whether to take part.

“She said she was going to help with getting me back into work, anything I needed support with, so I was quite happy really. I didn’t have any concerns as the Shaw Trust pack explained everything.”

Female, 55 plus, London & Home Counties, physical and mental health conditions

Warm Handover calls were also used to collect information on eligibility, barriers, and support needs, including health, lifestyle, living situation, employment history, and support networks. Although recall of specifics was low, participants described the process positively. The focus on their barriers and reassurance they would not be pushed into unsuitable work encouraged engagement. Participants welcomed the possibility of support with their health conditions, including therapies unavailable on the NHS, and practical help such as learning to drive, applying for ID, or covering costs for clothes and transport to interviews or work.

5.3.5 Challenges

Referrals made by Work Coaches were generally described as high quality, but it was less clear how eligibility was assessed for self-referrals for the minority of participants who reported entering the programme through this route. Some of these participants reported having recently been in work or already employed when starting the programme and did not feel they faced significant barriers. For example, one said he had been employed until his charity closed shortly before referral; another joined while already in work and described receiving support to sustain it.

JCP staff reported that the limited number of referrals in some areas created challenges, as they had to make difficult decisions about who to refer. In some CPAs, DEAs were said to manage referrals closely, including waiting lists spanning several months. The use of the control group before the pandemic was also described as creating difficulties with referrals. Work Coaches said it was hard to promote IPES when participants might be allocated to the control group, and repeated allocations discouraged some from making further referrals. Providers agreed and noted that this made promotion of the programme challenging for jobcentres.

“It was just bad luck that it [the Randomised Allocation Tool] always put referrals from one area in the control group. It is difficult for Work Coaches to handle this as they had sold intensive support and then had to tell the customer they were not on the programme. Sometimes there are a lot of conversations about IPES before a referral is made so we supported Work Coaches with how to manage expectations during these.”

JCP staff, IPES coordinator

Providers also reported inconsistent referral quality, particularly in CPAs with many new Work Coaches hired during the pandemic and which had limited training on IPES. This sometimes led to inappropriate referrals, such as participants mistaking IPES for a financial or health service or believing it was compulsory. JCP staff disagreed, suggesting providers had not done enough to raise awareness locally.

“Inappropriate referrals are particularly a problem with new DWP staff taken on since COVID, the differentiation between eligibility and suitability is lost.”

Provider, Service Manager and Project Co-Ordinator

“Sometimes, the JCP refer people who should not be referred. Because, everything I suggest to these customers, they say “No, No, No”…they say, “I am only here because the Jobcentre forced me too…I cannot work because of my health.”

Provider, Key Worker

Both JCP staff and providers acknowledged a tension between providers needing to meet job entry targets and recognising softer programme outcomes such as improved wellbeing and confidence. Some JCP staff felt this meant providers avoided referrals for those furthest from work. Providers pushed back on this point but did agree that their contractual obligations on the programme conflicted with the needs of the IPES group.

“Ultimately, they are paid by results and that result is entry to work. I was surprised there is a 40% [work] entry requirement for IPES. The group are those furthest away, we do not refer them to IPES if they are quick fixes. I would be happy for customers to go on IPES and come back ready for the Work and Health programme, that would be success for many of them.”

JCP staff, third party provision manager

Although participants were generally positive about Warm Handovers, both JCP staff and providers felt the process could be improved. Providers wanted more involvement from Work Coaches to support participant engagement and to provide more information on participants’ circumstances. Without this, providers relied heavily on participants to share information, risking gaps. JCP staff also raised concerns about who handled Warm Handovers. Some questioned why handovers were not with the participant’s intended Key Worker, seeing this as a missed opportunity to build engagement. Others noted delays between referral and Warm Handover Calls, which risked participants losing motivation.

“The ones I have had have not involved the IPES advisor. They have just involved someone in an office somewhere so you don’t get that introduction so the customer knows who he will be speaking to.”

JCP staff, Work Coach

When discussing the Provider Referral and Payment System (PRAP) referral, providers in some CPAs said there had been issues with communication on this with local JCP staff, leading to PRAP referrals being completed before the warm handover had taken place. This was attributed to a lack of knowledge among some JCP staff which was identified and addressed by providers to ensure that the correct process was followed.

“In the early stage, we would make the referral before the warm handover…we’d done it prematurely and we’d have to do it again…We are used to it now, we do the referral afterwards. That is a key point.”

JCP staff, DEA

Participants themselves reported very few issues with referrals. The main example was a missed referral, where a participant did not hear from the provider for months and needed to follow up with his Work Coach for a new referral.

5.4 Delivery and experiences of the programme

5.4.1 How providers tailored the support to address barriers

The programme was described as adapting to individual needs by offering a mix of employment, wellbeing, and health-related support. The focus often shifted over time: many participants said they first needed wellbeing or health support to build confidence before moving to employment activities. Participants, JCP staff, and providers were generally positive about this approach, seeing it as giving those furthest from work the time to make genuine progress.

“There is a strong place for a programme like IPES, where participants go on a long journey. There is always a place in society for a programme like this.”

Provider, Key Worker

Health and wellbeing support was wide ranging. For some, it meant regular check-in calls to provide social connection and build trust. During the pandemic, Key Workers were often described as vital sources of advice and support, helping participants understand restrictions, meet basic needs, and set manageable goals.

“It varies a lot. I had one participant who had no other support at all. I was helping them get their prescriptions, organising their health appointments. Sometimes we are filling the gaps in the health and social care services. I do welfare checks if we don’t hear from them and I have taken a few shopping in the past.”

Provider, Key Worker

Referrals to third-party support were common and tailored to individual needs. For example, participants who were neurodivergent, were often referred to courses to better understand themselves and how to navigate challenges. Some said this was the first support they had received for autism or ADHD.

“The autism course has helped me with basic living skills, budgeting and motivation. I have had some help like this before, but this is better, it’s more practical.”

Male, 18 to 24, North West England, Neurodivergent

Referrals to health services addressed specific barriers, usually through specialist counselling or mental health support. This included therapy for PTSD, support to overcome fear of leaving the house, and access to Mind courses. Other referrals addressed issues such as addiction or debt.

“We talked about my experiences, and he suggested therapy so I could deal with my core issues from which everything else is affected. He looked for a PTSD specialist and it has been amazing. The best prescription I have ever had, and I would never have been able to afford it myself.”

Male, 35 to 44, North East England, mental health condition

Employment support usually followed once health and wellbeing needs had been addressed. This included targeted job searches based on participants’ skills, aspirations, and health requirements. Participants said the extent to which their Key Worker understood these needs strongly influenced their view of the programme.

“Before IPES, I was offered a few courses, but they never really went anywhere, they [JCP] pushed me to get any job, even if it was not suitable for me. IPES has been much better. Now I have a more in-depth understanding of what I want to do and what I need to do to get there.”

Male, 18 to 24, North West England, learning disability

For those with no work history, placements provided experience, confidence, and insight into suitable roles. Other support included CV development, interview skills, and tackling practical barriers such as ID and transport. Key Workers were also described as offering consistent encouragement, helping participants stay motivated and resilient through setbacks such as unsuccessful interviews.

“There would be a general chat about how I have been. And she would ask what I feel like doing this week and she would set me little personal goals for the week such as checking out a website, or a resource for anxiety or about CVs. I cannot emphasise how personally tailored it is. It is very personalised.”

Male, 18 to 24, Wales, mental health condition

Case study: personalised support

Who are they? – The participant is in her fifties and lives with anxiety, depression and chronic pain syndrome. She had worked for her whole life but described her experiences as ‘limping from job to job’, rather than a career.

What they did – The participant described her relationship with her Key Worker as remarkable, highlighting her consistent availability and personalised support. Alongside practical help such as CV writing, the Key Worker supported her anxieties about returning to work, encouraging her to take online Mind courses to improve her mental health.

How did it help? – The participant’s Key Worker supported her lack of confidence and self-esteem by helping her understand her personality in relation to employment, which encouraged her to think more positively about work. She credited improvements in her mental and physical health to this support, which enabled her to move into paid employment.

“[Key Worker] said we have got to get you ready first. Then everything will fall into place. She believed it. She got me to believe it. And it was true.”

Female, 55 plus, Wales, Physical and Mental health conditions

5.4.2 Mode and frequency of contact

For the Wave one qualitative cohort, most support was provided remotely by phone due to COVID-19 restrictions, with a few exceptions for participants with hearing impairments. Some participants said they missed face-to-face contact, but most were happy with phone support. For some, health conditions such as limited mobility, anxiety, or depression made telephone contact easier than meeting in person. Remote support also reduced transport costs and practical barriers for participants.

“Travel is very difficult for me as someone would have to take me. I find the phone easier, I would have said no if it had to be face to face.”

Female, 55 plus, North East England, physical health condition

Providers also reflected on unexpected benefits of this approach, reporting that phone support helped keep some participants engaged and allowed them to manage more cases. However, not all participants and providers were positive about this. Some participants said their condition made it difficult to connect or absorb information by phone, which limited success. Others felt relying on phone support avoided rather than addressed key barriers, such as leaving the house or preparing for in-person interactions.

“Face-to-face could be helpful for me as I need to get used to getting out of the house, seeing people and managing those types of interactions.”

Male, 18 to 24, North East England, learning disability

Providers and JCP staff agreed telephone support was not suitable for everyone. Key Workers noted that it was harder to build rapport remotely, and some barriers were harder to identify, such as hygiene, body language, or clothing. They were also less able to provide practical help, such as form filling or sitting in on calls. Overall, participants and providers felt that while remote support worked reasonably, it was not appropriate for all, and most agreed that a hybrid model would offer the best balance.

Support frequency ranged from twice weekly to fortnightly. In some cases, frequency was set; in others, participants were asked what they preferred. Flexibility was valued, with participants able to add or skip calls depending on circumstances. Short, regular contact helped those with low confidence to build trust gradually. Some participants took breaks from the programme due to health or personal reasons and described Key Workers as supportive, often keeping in touch during these periods.

“I have paused things until I understand how my condition is changing and what that might mean for me.”

Female, 55 plus, North East England, physical health condition

5.4.3 Key Worker relationship

The quality of relationship between participant and Key Worker was described as the most important factor in achieving positive outcomes from the programme. While referrals to third-party support were often life changing, participants said it was their Key Worker who identified needs, encouraged engagement, and provided ongoing support.

“It feels as if she is going with me, rather than pushing me beyond my comfort zone.”

Female, 55 plus, Wales, mental health condition

Participants generally contrasted Key Worker support with their experiences of JCP Work Coaches, describing it as more personal. A few likened the role to a “professional friend,” combining employment support with regular check-ins. For those who felt isolated, simply having someone to talk to was highly valued.

“The [Key Worker] mentor is like having a friend, but with a level of professionalism. I can talk about whatever is worrying me. I can talk about not having a job and she helps me to think about things in different ways in a non-patronising way.”

Male, 18 to 24, Wales, mental health condition

Good relationships were said to depend on rapport, trust, and understanding, rather than factors like age or gender. While experience of a participant’s disability could be beneficial, the personal connection was described as more important.

“[The most helpful thing is] the kindness, availability and guidance from my Key Worker.”

Female, 35 to 44, London and Home Counties, physical and mental health conditions

Some participants valued Key Workers they perceived as peers, with similar ages or backgrounds, but this was not universal. Older participants also reported positive experiences with much younger Key Workers. Continuity was highlighted as particularly important: those who had the same Key Worker throughout the programme reported stronger rapport and greater progress. Participants with multiple Key Workers often felt less positive, describing difficulties in building trust or planning steps towards employment.

“I don’t really know [whether the support is personalised] because I have not been with any of the IPES Work Coaches long enough to find out. But they are always asking me what I need. When I feel I am getting somewhere, I feel I have to start all over again and they have to get to know me as well - they can’t really know me by looking at a file. I feel as if I have been having to try to build up a rapport, all the time”.

Female, 35 to 44, Wales, physical and mental health conditions, and learning disability

Providers also emphasised the importance of strong relationships, saying these worked best when Key Workers were matched to participants based on specific needs. Some providers matched according to disability or condition (for example mental health, neurodivergence), while others matched geographically to ensure Key Workers had knowledge of local services and employers.

“The Key Worker is decided based on health conditions and barriers. I let the participant know the different teams we have…I ask which they think would be best for them and sometimes they ask me to choose, and I’m happy to give advice, but it’s important they are involved.”

Provider, Admin team

Case study: positive Key Worker experience

Who are they? – The participant, in her fifties, had worked in financial services for many years but left her job after a cancer diagnosis. Since then, further traumatic events had affected her mental and physical health, and she was also recently diagnosed with hyperthyroidism.

What they did – The participant described being very happy with her experiences on IPES, emphasising that the key factor was her relationship with her Key Worker. She described this relationship as one of peers, saying her Key Worker was relatable and understood her life stage and experiences. She felt inspired by her Key Worker’s enthusiasm and adaptability and said the example set had given her new vigour.

How did it help? – The strength of the relationship helped her to address difficulties with trust and speaking openly to others. Although she had not moved into paid work, her Key Worker supported her to take up a voluntary role, which she viewed as a positive step forward.

“We have a good relationship. For me, it was important that my Key Worker was about 10 years older than me. I could relate to her as a peer and it inspired me as I was feeling a bit past it!”

Female, 55 plus, Central England, Physical and Mental health conditions

Case study: negative Key Worker experience

Who are they? – The participant has multiple physical and mental health conditions. She is also dyslexic and has ADHD. Her most recent job was as a temporary worker 3 years ago, and she last worked full-time 13 years ago.

What they did – The participant has had 7 different Key Workers during her time on the programme due to high turnover at the provider. She said this left her feeling she was constantly starting over. On one occasion, a Key Worker left before ever contacting her, leaving her uncertain about what was happening. She also described one Key Worker as unprofessional, saying he would hang up before she could answer or talk about his personal life rather than focusing on her barriers or job search. Although she was reassigned, her next Key Worker also left after only a few weeks.

How did this impact the participant? – While some Key Workers did provide personalised support with her job search, her overall opinion of IPES was overshadowed by the lack of continuity and regular support. As a result, she reported losing confidence in the programme and disengaging.

“I think JCP back these programmes because they just want somewhere to send people like me. People can benefit from them, I did when I had the right person but it’s all down to who you get and when it’s not working, it feels like no one wants to know.”

Female, 55 plus, Central England, Physical and Mental health conditions, Neurodivergent and Learning Disability

5.4.4 The value of IPES relationships and their effectiveness in delivering the support

Overall, participants were very positive about their experiences on the programme, and the main factors in this were:

strong relationships with Key Workers, who listened and understood them
time taken to recognise and accept their barriers before suggesting jobs
accepting that some barriers must be worked around rather than removed
a gentle, supportive approach that encouraged progress without pressure
flexibility in frequency of contact, and where possible, meeting mode

“The fact that there’s not the pressure that you need to get into a job as soon as you can. It’s at a pace that suits me, so I don’t get stressed or overwhelmed.”

Female, 18 to 24, Southern England, physical and mental health conditions

For JCP staff and providers, the emphasis was on their working relationship and how well they collaborated to support participants. Good practice included regular contact between Key Workers and Work Coaches to resolve issues such as non-attendance. Providers valued support from Work Coaches, particularly where they avoided giving contradictory information or expectations.

Work Coaches said they valued updates on participant progress, whether from Key Workers or participants themselves. Some reported staying in touch with participants during the programme to provide encouragement and support when needed.

5.4.5 Challenges

For participants, poor experiences on the programme generally stemmed from a poor Key Worker relationship. This included feeling:

their Key Worker did not understand their disability or health condition, leading to unsuitable suggestions
mismatched with their Key Worker, or disrupted by multiple changes, making rapport difficult
pressured to take any job quickly
lacking choice, flexibility, or control over the support they received

“She suggests things with some reasonable logic based on what we have discussed but with no understanding of my specific condition, the suggestions are normally not suitable. For example, she suggested a job on reception, and I had to explain that I struggle to dress correctly and am often mismatched, I am not well presented and do not have good attention to detail. These aren’t motivation or attitude issues, I just can’t see.”

Female, 55 plus, North East England, physical health condition

Providers also described challenges in managing these relationships. While they aimed to match participants to Key Workers, the range and complexity of cases, coupled with difficulties recruiting and retaining staff, made this hard. Recruitment and retention were seen as major issues, as other programmes, particularly those launched during the pandemic, offered higher salaries, drawing staff away from IPES.

“The real challenge with recruitment is the pay. Restart are paying £4k more and we cannot offer more unless we exceed our targets to the point where we can fund the increase. We are losing Key Workers to Restart because the pay is just better.”

Provider, Operations/Business Manager

The relationship between JCP and providers was also described as challenging. Both Work Coaches and Key Workers said they wanted more frequent contact but were unsure of each other’s expectations. Providers and JCP staff both reported uncertainty about Jobcentre Plus’s role once participants had been referred, and said clearer communication could have supported participants better.

“I think it would be good if we could have not necessarily weekly feedback, at least monthly feedback. If our customers stopped engaging, we need to know, pretty quick, so we can find out what’s happening, if there’s a problem…So monthly feedback, but if they’re not engaging, quite a quick heads up that something doesn’t seem to be going so well.”

JCP staff, DEA

Both groups said that the easements made in response the COVID-19 meant that Case Conferencing Reviews were not taking place in most cases. This lack of communication between jobcentres and providers was felt to have a negative impact on participant experience and outcomes. In some areas, providers said they did not even have contact details for participants’ Work Coaches, making contact very challenging.

“There is no communication unless we call. I would like more two-way communication and have that link with the Work Coaches to ensure we are working together. It can be hard for me to give accurate advice to a participant if I don’t know all the details, for example whether they have a claimant commitment or not can have an impact on them, I don’t want to give them bad advice.”

Provider, Key Worker

5.4.6 In-work support

The offer of 6 months of in-work support was described as an appealing feature of IPES, particularly for participants more concerned about sustaining employment than securing a job. As with pre-employment support, experiences of in-work support were closely tied to the Key Worker relationship. A positive relationship allowed participants to discuss concerns openly, agree on solutions, and receive additional help such as Key Workers liaising with employers to smooth their entry into work.

“It is a fantastic scheme. The most important thing is continuity. I have transitioned from my depression into a job - and I still have that support. And I know I can always contact her.”

Female, 55 plus, Wales, Mental health condition

Examples of in-work support included practical help with photo ID, transport, or opening a bank account. Some participants were provided with clothing or equipment, such as work boots. Key Workers also helped participants plan daily routines to ensure they arrived at work on time and prepared.

Key Workers were further valued for ensuring participants had the support and adjustments they needed at work, raising concerns with employers when required. They also provided regular emotional support, which participants with negative past experiences of work said was essential for building confidence and feeling supported.

As in other areas of the programme, COVID-19 restrictions created challenges. Both participants and providers said the lack of in-person contact limited opportunities to build workplace social skills and meant Key Workers could not provide face-to-face support at participants’ workplaces.

5.4.7 Employers experience

Employer engagement was a key aspect of the programme and was led by specialist Employment Engagement Consultants or Key Workers within the providers. Connections with local employers were described as valuable in creating opportunities such as shadowing and work placements, particularly for participants for whom traditional interviews were unsuitable.

“No matter how much support and preparation you do with some of the participants, they are never going to shine in an interview, so employer engagement is really important. I make sure I speak to them before and after an interview or trial and present what I think the participant has to offer. I try to secure work trials as much as possible as I find that works for this group and I tend to get good results.”

Provider, Key Worker

Providers reported seeking out employers suited to participants’ needs and aspirations, supporting more sustainable employment. Approaches varied across CPAs: some areas described limited opportunities due to local labour markets or the impact of COVID-19 , while others emphasised an individualised approach, tailoring job searches to each participant rather than relying on a small pool of employers.

“Because it is individualised obviously, we have to maybe take the reverse marketing approach as well. So rather than just, you know, link with big organisations that will have various job opportunities. We may have to focus on a customer and then find what employers could be contacted for that person to make sure that the role that they’re going towards is something they definitely want and not just a big company that has lots of vacancies.”

Provider, Key Worker

Employers varied in size and type. Some had ongoing engagement with IPES, offering multiple placements or jobs, while others recruited for a single individual role identified by the Key Worker. In some cases, employers were unaware of the programme until a participant applied directly through open recruitment.

Employers said they valued ongoing provider support once participants started, particularly with issues such as punctuality or attendance and they were generally positive about participants and described IPES as a good recruitment channel.

“Absolutely superb. I would always use them again, if I needed any roles filing in the future. J received so much support, it was fantastic to see – because of the support and the visits he is growing, he’s a different person now to the day I met him.”

Employer

When discussing challenges, employers said they wanted more clarity on their role in supporting recruits, and reassurance that provider support would continue. Some described uncertainty created by Key Worker handovers and said clearer expectations would help.

“My main concern is that we don’t become carers in the workplace.”

Employer

Employers also emphasised the need for Key Workers to communicate participants’ barriers and needs more clearly, including the impact of health conditions or other important information, such as prior convictions, to help them prepare adjustments or training.

5.5 Warm Hand Backs (WHBs)

5.5.1 Efficiency of WHB

There was reported to be a lack of consistency in Warm Hand Backs, both within and across CPAs. This included uncertainty over whether and how they should work, and limited clarity on what was actually happening during this period. The confusion was attributed to COVID-19 easements, which meant Case Conferencing Reviews and other meetings between JCP staff and providers were not taking place in most cases.

Some JCP staff and providers described the intended process: a meeting a few weeks before the participant’s 15 months ended, involving the Work Coach, Key Worker, and participant to discuss progress. Exit reports were also mentioned, completed by providers and in some areas by participants, to update Work Coaches on the support given and outcomes.

“At the end of the programme there’s a meeting between myself, the person from IPES, and the customer, and I’ll get their outcome report.”

JCP staff, DEA

Those who were aware of the process generally saw it as a sensible and helpful way to close a participant’s time on the programme and prepare the Work Coach to continue support. However, many JCP staff, particularly Work Coaches, reported little or no awareness of a warm hand back process, with some unsure whether one existed at all.

5.5.2 What is working well

Where warm hand backs took place and involved the Work Coach, Key Worker, and participant, they were described as working well. Work Coaches valued receiving a detailed update on the participant to guide continued support, especially where the Work Coach had changed during the programme and was starting the relationship at this point.

“We do a warm hand back…it can be telephone, or virtual or face to face. As much as possible we do a three-way meeting in person…you can achieve more when you are there together.”

Provider, Key Worker

5.5.3 What could be better

In CPAs where JCP staff and providers reported that warm hand backs consistently involved all 3 parties, the system was described as working well, with no changes suggested. However, this was not the case in most CPAs, and both groups highlighted areas for improvement.

The first issue was clarity. Many Work Coaches said they were unaware of a formal process, had not experienced hand backs, or described inconsistent practice, from detailed reports and meetings in some cases, to no feedback at all in others. One Work Coach described clients simply reappearing when their time on IPES ended. Others said it was difficult to keep track of programme end dates due to limited use of Case Conferencing Reviews, high turnover, and changes in caseloads. Some also reported limited understanding of IPES more generally.

“It’s difficult to comment on as in our roles as Work Coaches our position can change, we don’t always see the same customers…Not seeing the same customers makes it difficult to know .”

JCP staff, Work Coach

Providers agreed that greater clarity was needed for Work Coaches. Some described Work Coaches as unresponsive, with meeting requests for warm hand backs often declined. In one CPA, the provider reported JCP attendance at only 30% of scheduled meetings, attributing this to lack of awareness and high workloads for JCP staff during this period.

“We are supposed do them, but sometimes they don’t happen, it’s similar to case conferences…but I do provide detailed notes on what they have done on IPES and if they are in employment. That really helps them and us understand what has worked well.”

Provider, Key Worker

JCP staff workloads were felt to be a key factor in this during Wave one, as well as challenges in finding a time that they, the participants and the Work Coach could all make. Providers also acknowledged that sometimes they just made mistakes which meant that meetings were not scheduled correctly. Some suggested greater automation and clearer guidance for all parties would improve consistency.

“There are some things that tend to go wrong with this process, it’s very difficult. Eight weeks before a customer is due to go back to the JCP, we will send a request for an appointment to look through the achievements on the action plan and talk through those next steps… that’s what is supposed to happen… sometimes it happens sometimes it doesn’t… sometimes the participant doesn’t turn up, sometimes the Work Coach doesn’t have time, sometimes my Key Worker doesn’t book it right. An automated process would be better. Rather than relying on the provider to book this is, the Work Coaches don’t always respond or have time.”

Provider, admin/co-ordinator

Where face-to-face meetings did not take place, providers said they often submitted written reports to Work Coaches outlining progress, achievements, and support needs. However, JCP staff said the detail and quality of these reports varied considerably and in some cases were not provided at all.

Finally, providers highlighted the need for a formal process to share information where participants had moved into work. In one case, a participant and their employer did not want to engage with the Work Coach at hand back, leaving the Work Coach uncertain how to proceed and making unwanted contact with the employer.

5.6 Outcomes

5.6.1 Impacts of the programme for participants

The main outcome reported by participants, JCP staff, and providers was improved wellbeing. Wellbeing was almost always mentioned first when discussing achievements for individuals and for the IPES group overall.

Reported outcomes included greater self-confidence, improved mental health, and stronger social networks. While many participants did not move into work during the programme, they felt these improvements brought them closer to employment. JCP staff and providers also said tackling wellbeing barriers was essential for finding sustainable work.

Greater self-confidence included feeling more comfortable speaking to others, making eye contact, or managing phone calls. Improved mental health was reported by participants who accessed specialist therapy or online courses for anxiety and depression. They said this helped them cope with their condition and improved their day-to-day lives.

“No doctor has ever discussed or offered therapy; they just offer pills. The therapy [Key Worker] arranged has been life-changing for me.”

Male, 35 to 44, North East England, mental health condition

Referrals also helped some participants expand social networks, such as joining support groups. Employers reported noticing increased social confidence at work, for example, participants socialising with colleagues. Stronger networks were said to reinforce self-confidence and self-esteem.

Participants who did not report wellbeing improvements often attributed this to factors outside the programme, such as bereavement or deteriorating health. In these cases, participants tended to pause engagement but still valued Key Worker support.

“Up and down to be honest, it really all depends on how I feel on the day, but I am getting better with help. It will take time, but I will get better. I am trying to put myself back together.”

Female, 45 to 54, North East England, physical health condition and learning disability

Where participants reported no wellbeing gains due to the programme, this was typically linked to poor or inconsistent Key Worker relationships. They said unsuitable support left them unable to tackle barriers, or even further from work due to feeling unheard.

“It is hard to properly judge the programme when I have not had the full benefit from it [because of the lack of continuity].”

Female, 35 to 44, Wales, physical and mental health conditions and learning disability

Employment-related outcomes were mixed. Participants reported moving into work, feeling closer to work, or no progress at all. The most common outcome was feeling closer to work, attributed to improved wellbeing and practical support from Key Workers. Increased confidence and self-esteem made participants more willing to consider employment. Providers also reported shifts in mindset, with participants more motivated and focused on work as a realistic goal.

“It does not cure your fear of work straight off but it eases you into things and makes you realise that work is not a big barrier, that it is do-able.”

Male, 18 to 24

Participants and providers also highlighted targeted job searches, relevant training, CV support, interview preparation, and work placements as important in making work feel achievable. Participants often credited Key Workers’ consistent and encouraging approach.

“I’ve been able to get a more interviews than I thought would get. I’ve been prepared for them nicely. A couple of jobs that I did apply for, like the trial at the dog groomers. It leaves an impression on people that I am someone they should definitely consider. It’s not all on my shoulder. It’s about having someone to help me along.”

Male, 18 to 24, Southern England, mental health condition

Some participants did move into work while on IPES. For some, Key Workers found opportunities and supported applications; for others, Key Workers were credited with building the confidence needed to apply independently.

Others were not ready to move into work, often due to worsening health or difficult personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities. These participants hoped to progress in future, while a smaller group felt no closer to work, either due to negative programme experiences or a belief that their health barriers were insurmountable.

5.6.2 Experiences of those who entered employment

Participants who entered work during the programme said the support helped them find roles suited to their needs, which they felt were likely to be sustainable. While some secured jobs independently, they still typically credited their Key Worker with being instrumental in the process. Key Worker support included identifying opportunities, liaising with employers about health conditions and adjustments, and arranging alternative assessments such as trial placements for those unable to perform well in standard interviews.

Providers said the length of the programme allowed Key Workers to understand participants’ strengths and present them effectively to employers. Some expressed surprise at the outcomes achieved.

“There are some amazing news stories of customers getting into sustained employment where they never felt that they ever would. Some customers with far reaching learning difficulties going into the world of work now … it’s just been absolutely great.”

Provider, Delivery Manager

Going into the programme, many participants said that barriers to staying in work were often more of a concern than being able to get a job, and so in-work support was of huge importance to those who secured employment.

“It is a fantastic scheme. The most important thing is continuity. I have transitioned from my depression into a job - and I still have that support. And I know I can always contact her.”

Female, 55 plus

In-work support was valued by both participants and employers. Some participants said it enabled them to keep their job, while providers gave examples of Key Workers helping with transport and punctuality issues, preventing conflict with employers. Key Workers also provided practical support, such as arranging adjustments, visual aids, or specialist clothing needed for work.

“I’ve got a better CV, more attuned to my way of thinking now and I’ve got employment and doing what I wanted to do. I’m finding a lot of pleasure in being useful and I know I owe it to the person helped me put CV together and who listened to me and incorporated a lot of what I said into the CV and the description at the top about me.”

Male, 55 plus, Southern England, mental health condition and learning disability

5.6.4 Experiences of those who did not enter employment

While most participants in the qualitative research did not enter employment during the programme, many reported feeling closer to work. This was linked to wellbeing improvements and practical support in finding suitable jobs. Those who gained confidence said they now felt more capable and willing to consider work. They also described being better equipped for future job searches through support with identifying roles, writing CVs, and developing interview skills.

“I don’t think I can go to work yet, but I can see the path of me going to work is getting shorter…now it’s about the right job coming along.”

Female, 45 to 54, Southern England, physical and mental health conditions

Participants who did not report employment outcomes said this was mainly due to deteriorating health or feeling the support offered was not useful or appropriate. For those who paused their involvement due to worsening conditions, both wellbeing and employment outcomes were limited. Some remained hopeful about work in the future, while others felt sustainable employment was unrealistic regardless of support.

“I wouldn’t be any good in a job.”

Male 45 to 54 Wales, mental health condition

Case study: no employment outcomes

Who are they? – The participant is 43 and had been out of work since 2019 due to PTSD developed after a traumatic event.

What they did – His Work Coach referred him for specialist PTSD therapy, which had a significant impact on his mental health and wellbeing. This support helped him to understand, manage, and reduce the effects of PTSD in his daily life. Although he did not enter employment during the programme, he said that before IPES he was not seriously considering work, but he now feels able to look forward to being ready.

How did it help? – Both he and his Key Worker agreed that improving his mental health and wellbeing was essential before considering employment. By building this foundation, the programme has put him in a position where he can now begin to plan for sustainable work suited to his health needs and aspirations.

“To be honest, I did not want to go back to work, I wanted to be on UC because of my mental health issues, I was open with my Work Coach, and she challenged me and suggest IPES, I’m so glad she did. I feel differently now, I’m super looking forward to the day I can get a job and IPES has given me the hope I can do that.”

Male, 43, Mental health condition

5.6.6 Impacts for those who entered work versus those who didn’t

JCP and provider staff highlighted challenges in delivering IPES, particularly balancing support for those furthest from work with achieving employment outcomes. Some described these 2 aims as being at odds, noting that employment was not a realistic goal for all participants given the number and severity of barriers they faced.

Some JCP staff also felt the payment-by-results system created unintended consequences, encouraging providers to focus resources on those closer to work. They noted that some participants, especially self-referrals, did not appear to meet eligibility criteria and faced fewer barriers, yet were more likely to achieve employment outcomes.

Providers attributed differing outcomes to 2 main factors: the severity of health-related barriers and participants’ mindset. They reported that many participants with significant barriers still made strong progress in overcoming or working around them, even if they did not move into work. However, they also stressed that mindset was key, noting that a small number of participants did not engage with the programme as they had been fully informed of the work focussed nature of the programme prior to enrolling and were not interested in working.

“Some of them do not understand that IPES is an employability programme. They will say to me, ‘Someone at the Jobcentre said to me that if I go on IPES, I won’t have any problems with my benefits for 15 months’. So it can be really difficult to support someone who does not want to engage with the programme.”

Provider, Key Worker

5.6.7 Improvements

Overall, participants in the qualitative cohort, JCP staff, providers, and employers were highly positive about the IPES programme. Suggested improvements focused on strengthening communication and clarity for JCP staff and providers, and on ensuring Key Workers could be recruited, retained, and effectively matched with participants.

Improved communication between JCP staff and providers was seen as essential for appropriate participant selection and high-quality support. This could be supported through greater involvement of both Key Workers and Work Coaches at warm handovers, clearer expectations for communication throughout the programme, and the reintroduction of mandatory case conferencing. Raising awareness of the programme among Work Coaches, particularly those new to the role, was also recommended to ensure appropriate referrals.

Some staff described a tension between the dual aims of supporting those furthest from work and meeting employment targets. Greater clarity on how these aims align was seen as important for effective delivery by both JCP and providers.

Retention of Key Workers was identified as critical for continuity and strong participant relationships, though competition from other programmes was said to make this difficult. Matching participants and Key Workers was also seen as essential for positive outcomes. While there was no consensus on what constituted a good match, participants felt they should be able to request a new Key Worker if the fit was poor.

Question 6

6. Wave 2 Qualitative strand

Accepted Answer

6.1 Introduction

This chapter covers findings from the second Wave of qualitative research which comprised interviews with 26 IPES programme participants and 53 IPES programme providers, JCP staff and employers. The participants involved in this cohort were not involved in the 2021 qualitative cohort.

In contrast to the first Wave of qualitative research which took place in the summer of 2021, during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and found significant impacts on programme experiences and delivery, fieldwork for the second Wave took place January-February 2023. During this time the UK was not in periods of lockdown or major COVID-19 related restrictions, however ongoing impacts of the pandemic were still evident and found to be affecting IPES programme delivery. Findings reflect participant and delivery providers’ reported experiences of the programme during this time, where relevant noting how this differed to those experienced by the 2021 cohort and the impact of this.

6.2 Participant background (2023 cohort)

The 2023 participant sample comprised a mix of characteristics, including Contract Package Area (CPA), type of long-term condition, age and gender. Health conditions varied between physical health conditions, mental health conditions, learning disabilities and others.

Alongside the participant strand, 53 case study interviews (comprised of a mix of IPES programme providers, JCP staff and IPES employers across each CPA) took place between October 2022 to April 2023. Please note, employer numbers were small (5 interviews), so findings for this group should be interpreted with caution.

6.3 Delivery and experiences of the programme

From the 26 interviews with participants, 6 were currently receiving support offered through IPES, and 20 had previously received support through IPES in the past. For these 20 individuals, there were varied explanations as to why they were no longer receiving the support. For example, some had found employment whilst on the programme, and others had finished their time on the programme.

All participants had either one or multiple of the following long-term conditions:

physical health condition, such as arthritis, hypermobility, sciatica or mobility issues
mental health condition, such as depression or anxiety
learning difficulties, such as dyspraxia
neurological/Autism Spectrum Disorder conditions

6.3.1 Barriers to delivering support

As seen in the first Wave of qualitative research, providers typically encountered programme participants with multiple barriers and complex support needs looking for employment. Programme participants were commonly affected by at least one, though in most cases a number, of barriers, across 3 broad and interrelated categories. These groups were health related, work related or circumstantial/situational. In response to these barriers, providers tailored and adapted the support offered, depending on the severity and complexity of the participants’ barriers or needs.

Health related barriers centred around the day to day and long-term management of a physical or mental health condition. Participants often felt that managing or overcoming others’ perceptions of, or the perceived stigma around, their long-term health condition was a barrier to finding work. For example, they feared being viewed differently by a potential employer or colleagues or not being seen as equal to other candidates. In some cases, this deterred them from applying for jobs. Additionally, some participants spoke about negative experiences in previous employment regarding their treatment by an employer. These experiences made them anxious to find work again, in case similar situations were repeated. Furthermore, some participants felt that their health condition limited their ability to do certain types of work, work certain hours or travel.

Where participants felt a health condition was preventing them from finding work, providers tended to signpost to available local support. This included GP or specialist services, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Other support types, such as occupational health assessments and working with employers, were also offered to build disability confidence. It also helped to identify any reasonable adjustments on behalf of the participant, for example during the interviewing stage or when completing application forms.

“[We] help with access to work applications and do occupational health assessments through access to work, prior to job offer…and suggest equipment that might be useful. One of the most recent examples is a customer who used crutches to go around, they arranged an assessment of the work place via Access to work and through the employer. So, someone went into work to access the work and made suggestions to see if there was equipment useful for that individual. That was a call centre role, that person started there and has now passed his probation period.”

Employment Engagement Coordinator, IPES

Where participants felt barriers to employment were work-related, most lacked relevant or up to date skills and capabilities or lacked relevant work experience. For example, older participants felt their skillset lacked the technological and digital skills often required in the modern workplace. This meant they often felt ‘left behind’ and unable to position their existing skillset to appeal to employers. In these cases, providers offered support with writing applications, creating a CV, and interview techniques. To build experience, participants were encouraged by providers to access volunteering or placement opportunities in the community. This was not only to gain updated experience, but to familiarise the participants with the workplace and, where relevant, working alongside others.

“It’s very much tailored… it depends on the barriers of that individual. We expect CV [writing skills] as a minimum…then digital skills are improved, with courses and [added] confidence. Advocating for employers to spend that time talking to customers that we don’t have.”

Disability Employment Advisor, JCP

Additionally, those who had been out of work for some time felt they struggled to explain during interviews why they had an employment gap, particularly if it was due to poor health or other sensitive issues. In such instances, participants were encouraged by providers to sign up to workshops, online courses or training opportunities. Amongst this participant group, a recurring theme was having a lack of confidence in finding employment, particularly work that suited their needs. This absence of self-belief tied in with low motivation, meaning some had felt there was little hope in finding work. Providers recognised that low self-esteem did not always have an immediate fix and solution, but they ensured regular and frequent contact, to build communication skills and confidence.

“The confidence, honestly, they are like different people. I remember, this one lady, she requested a female adviser and she cried through her first appointment. She had been in a domestic abuse situation. We recommended counselling and she started going out on her own and 13 months on she is ready for work. She has never been to a Jobcentre before. Last week she went in there for the first time and she is speaking to her adviser there.”

Key Worker, IPES

Other barriers to work reported by participants were circumstantial related, such as caring responsibilities, childcare needs, (perceived) barriers relating to age and lack of available transportation. This group mostly found it difficult to find a job role that would be appropriate for their needs, such as flexible working hours or hybrid working. Where participants were facing situational barriers, providers would communicate with the participant to ensure the support was tailored to their specific needs. For example, the programme was able to offer practical support and advice on housing issues, such as applications to move and support around tenancy agreements. Another group facing more circumstantial barriers included non-native English speakers, who found navigating the application process a challenge. To overcome this, participants were offered access to ESOL learning and English courses, alongside support to complete visa documentation where needed. Providers were also able to support with, or signpost to, advice on debt, finances and available benefits, and advocate/secure flexible working arrangements.

Both the type of support and frequency with which it was delivered was tailored to individual participant need, with successful wellbeing outcomes across these seen as a pre-requisite to entering employment. Participants spoke of the inclusive nature of staff, discussions of reasonable adjustments with employers and the nature of tailored support.

6.3.2 Enablers to delivering support

Overall, successful programme delivery was reliant upon participant and provider engagement and availability. The holistic nature of the programme meant that participants who were far from the labour market felt less pressure than they had from previous employment programmes or processes, such as Restart, JCP or the Jobcentre Plus Offer This fostered trust and high engagement among this group with their Key Worker. Amongst participants who engaged, the flexibility of support and funding helped them to address barriers to accessing work, such as issues with housing or transport. Participants appreciated how the support from IPES felt ‘joined up’ and not focused solely on finding work. This helped the programme to feel cohesive, which led to customers feeling more engaged.

“It’s not a one size fits all model…We meet the participant, we treat them as an individual, we slowly build trust with them…We help them with important life decisions…I take time to get to know my participants…The way we determine support is, when they are initially onboarded, I ask each one of them, ‘What do you want from the programme? What are your goals and barriers to meet them?’. I look at any disabilities and the extent of them…I gauge what experience and skills they already have, then provide a person centre approach. Support is based on what they need.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

However, Key Workers having responsibility over wide geographical areas and large caseloads meant it wasn’t always feasible for them to meet participants in person. This was a barrier because Key Workers preferred having face to face interactions with participants. When in person, Key Workers could read body language and felt they could get to know the customer better. This felt a more personable approach, where a positive relationship was more likely to be fostered. Most programme participants agreed that this was a better approach too, particularly when building rapport during the early stages of meeting one another.

“Getting them here can be a problem… a lot of customers on IPES don’t like face to face, compared to other programmes like Restart or Work and Health, they have more needs than customers on other programmes… Because of this there was a lot of no shows and missing of appointments.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

In some instances, participants reported that they initially enrolled on IPES programme with no specific intention of entering or pursuing work and instead accepted the referral to prevent being ‘hassled’ by their Work Coach, despite being informed about the voluntary nature of the programme. Although this was not common, their low levels of engagement during the beginning stages were challenging for Key Workers. However, once their relationship had developed and they were given an opportunity to talk about their situation, their engagement often increased.

Providers discussed how some external support services, particularly those relating to mental health support, were over-subscribed. This meant that referrals from the Key Worker often resulted in joining long waiting lists, thus preventing participants from being able to progress and access support.

6.3.3 Approaches to support: a provider case study

“I think it’s about having that personable approach so speaking to somebody in a way that’s not authoritative and putting the demands on that person and really trying to empathise and understand what their situation is.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

6.3.4 Relationships with Key Workers

The consistency of Key Workers was linked to participant perceptions of receiving a personalised programme of support. Participants appreciated the tailored nature of the provision provided through IPES, noting it as essential for the programmes’ smooth running. Additionally, participants also valued the ability to build a long-term relationship with their Key Worker. For participants that had previously felt let down by DWP provision, it was this aspect that made the IPES programme unique.

“IPES were a lot more understanding towards my health stuff than the Universal credit people (JCP). The people at Universal Credit did not understand how my heath was affecting me…I remember when I told her (Key Worker) about all my conditions, she didn’t know much about them…but she went away and researched them to really understand how they affected me…This really made me feel heard and validated.”

Participant, Female, 18 to 24, Mental and Physical Health Condition, Southern England

As observed in Wave One of the study, consistency of a Key Worker was essential to participant overall satisfaction. However, a consistent relationship was also vital to whether customers thought their support felt personalised or not. For example, participants that developed a long-lasting relationship with a Key Worker, reported feeling a higher sense of satisfaction as well as more successful programme progression and outcomes. Conversely, participants that disengaged from the programme, or reported poor experiences during their time on IPES, often reported inconsistent Key Worker relationships. They also felt that the provision was not specific to their individual needs.

6.3.5 Staffing challenges

Programme providers reported a variety of staffing challenges. These included the following:

challenges in recruiting Key Workers persisted post pandemic and resulted in vacant Key Worker roles
lack of staff in some CPA’s meant that Key Workers were forced to prioritise pre-employment support over in-work support to meet programme targets. This meant that some customers felt they were not fulfilling their potential at work due to a lack of support.
one CPA reported a high number of staff taking long periods of sick leave, which caused capacity issues for the remaining working staff

JCP staff also reported challenges with staffing. For example:

JCP staff were aware of staff shortages in some CPAs, which made them reluctant to refer potential participants to the programme, due to a lack of confidence in the provision being delivered
due to limited staff, Warm Hand Backs were difficult to coordinate
miscommunications around policy and eligibility regarding the IPES programme
due to the pandemic, a culture of remote work was established, which made transitioning back to face-to-face interactions challenging. This affected customer engagement, as face-to-face interactions were deemed more effective. This reflects Wave 1 qualitative findings.

“We’ve had issues with recruitment, maintaining staff and also people being off sick for long periods of time.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

Work Coaches also reported high workloads and caseloads reaching, or, in some instances, exceeding capacity. They, along with DEAs, reported that it was sometimes difficult to find the time for warm hand overs and hand backs among their busy workloads. This meant that some programme participants were not receiving the support to its highest potential.

“I have 30 [cases] at the moment and even that I feel is high. It has been even higher and sometimes lower before…it all depends on if there is an inflex of exits. It is really hard to give customers the required support and spend time with customers if you have too many on your caseload.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

Additionally, a high turnover of Work Coaches meant that staff were not always aware of the provisions available through the IPES programme and were therefore reluctant to refer participants. To mitigate this, providers found that running sessions with groups of providers within JCP helped.

“I work smartly…. what I tend to do is do group sessions in locations for people who live near each other. These are face-to face sessions, where I invite a group of people to do interview practice…we will do mock interviews and then as a group we talk about what was good and what could be improved. They learn through their peers.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

Programme providers felt that Work Coaches did not always have the time to fully engage with the programme and would de-prioritise IPES in order to manage their workloads. This meant that some providers would be tactical in their interaction with Work Coaches to ensure maximum engagement when they did get in touch.

6.3.6 Utilising existing employer relationships

Liaison between providers and employers were either led by the Key Worker, Employer Engagement Consultants (who were employed by the IPES provider) or Occupational Inclusion Specialists (OISs). The latter of the 2 were occasionally brought from external specialist providers, where required. Providers spoke positively of their relationships with employers and reflected on the strong communication between the 2 parties. Providers conducted regular meetings with employers to discuss participant integration and support needs. Participants were included in these conversations and general communication with employers, to foster relationships and ensure participants’ needs were understood.

Providers had existing networks of employers that they used across their contracts. In some instances, they were able to use these contacts to source placements or opportunities for IPES participants.

“I work with some employers…these tend to be those employers that I keep in touch with because they have some of my customer in work there…I can e-mail them about vacancies and try and guarantee an interview…I have been working in the industry for 20 years, so I know a lot of employers that I can approach.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

Lack of work experience, as previously mentioned in Section 6.3.1 was a barrier to participants accessing the labour market. Particularly since the Covid-19 pandemic, organisations were offering fewer work placements. To overcome this, providers used their existing employer relationships, such as with large supermarkets and retail brands, to offer temporary work in a range of departments. This allowed participants to gain work experience, expand their CV and build confidence in the workplace.

“We work with a lot of recruitment agencies who ‘would take anybody on’ because of labour shortages post-COVID. Now that they [the agencies] have more choice, they’re less willing to take on IPES participants.”

Team Leader, IPES Programme Provider

Although using existing employer relationships was important, establishing correspondence with new employers was also key. The high level of support needed by some IPES participants, such as complex mental health conditions, meant that programme providers sought to establish new employer relationships. This was to specifically cater to these complex needs where they were unlikely to be met among existing employer networks.

Linking with participants needs, those with communication difficulties benefitted from Key Worker’s prior communication with employers before the participant made an application. This also meant that employers were more understanding, and participants could feel more reassured that their needs were being listened to by both their Key Worker and employer.

6.3.7 Employer relationships: a provider case study

Who are they? – A Key Worker who supported customers throughout their journey with IPES. They also deal with the financial aspects of IPES, such as paying for travel, interview clothes and processing invoices.

How did the provider explain their relationship with employers? – One provider discussed how the Key Workers relationship with employers varied depending on the customer’s needs.

If a customer was about to move into work, or had moved into work, the provider spoke to employers about the specific needs of that customer. For example, if they had a health need or barrier, this would be discussed with the employer beforehand.

The provider used an example with a customer who had learning difficulties and started a job in a kitchen. To help this customer, the provider completed a few shifts with them, which enabled the customer to settle in to a new environment.

How did it help? – Created a positive relationship between provider and employer, which helped to strengthen the likelihood of a customer getting a job.

The employer understood the customer’s needs.

“There was this one person with learning disabilities who started a job in a kitchen, as a kitchen porter…and I actually did a few shifts with him… he had never worked before so was really nervous…It was reassuring for him to be there with him.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

6.4 In-work support

6.4.1 Experiences of the In-work support process

Similar to the support offered when not in employment, in-work support was adjusted to meet individual participant needs. This ranged from brief phone calls to daily communication or in-person meetings if required.

Key Workers maintained contact with programme participants once they had entered work, offering greater levels of support if, and when, required. Key Workers offered practical support for participants to enter employment. For example, financial support to travel to work by other means was appreciated by participants who were unable to rely on public transport due to a lack of accessibility. Where participants required adaptive equipment or adjustments, such as chairs for mobility issues, Key Workers would offer support with applications for a grant through Access to Work.

In-work support, such as having the IPES Key Worker prior to entering employment and maintaining regular contact with said person, helped to reassure participants who were anxious about being in the workplace.

“Before the programme, they had no hope. They feel they can’t work because of their disability, no hope… I make them realise that through Access to work, employers can make reasonable adjustments…We had this one customer, he had learning disabilities. We found someone to support him in work…they met him at home, got on the taxi with him and went with him to work, and stayed at work and supported him…that was a part time retail job.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

Once participants had entered the workplace, Key Workers helped them to build their relationship with the new employer. This was mainly through the communication of concerns or challenges from both parties (participant and employer). In instances where participants were at risk of leaving or losing their job, Key Workers stepped in to resolve any challenges before they escalated. For example, one participant had recently started work in hospitality, but the organisation soon closed. This issue was identified in the in-work support call with the participant, who returned back to IPES and started looking for new work.

Alongside the practical and relationship building support, encouragement and wellbeing was also paramount to a participant’s experience. Key Workers maintained contact with participants, via call or text messages, once they had entered work. Most Key Workers offered regular check-ins with the participant on a weekly basis to begin with, then most likely reduced to fortnightly or monthly. This was based on the participants needs and pace of settling into employment. Check-ins involved discussing any work-related issues and ensuring a smooth transition into the working environment. This ongoing contact gave participants the opportunity to communicate any concerns they had, and Key Workers the opportunity to encourage participants. It was also reassuring for participants to have the Key Worker available for a chat if needed.

“It’s really good that we have contact with the customer when they start work…we can iron out any issues and we can also build a relationship with that employer, so that they can approach us if there is a problem too…there was this one customer, who really was not coping well with her cleaning job. In conversation with both the employer and her, we knew that she was not ready for work…she was eventually let go of by the employer….but we referred her on to Realise futures to support her with her learning difficulties and dyslexia.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

There were some challenges noted by Key Workers in delivering the in-work support. With their newfound working pattern, Key Workers found it difficult to get in contact with participants. Aligning engagement activities and support with the work schedules of participants was a significant challenge, particularly when participants worked irregular hours or shifts. To overcome and adapt to this, some Key Workers offered evening sessions to connect with full-time working participants. Some Key Workers reported having to manage their time and resource efficiently to provide support outside of standard working hours. This was seen as too taxing given the simultaneous need to assist multiple participants.

“There is this new expectation by DWP to shift 80% of our customer meetings to face-to-face… this is hard when you have a large caseload, and you have to travel 1 hour to meet someone.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

“[It has been] difficult to contact customers who work full-time during the day. This has been overcome by working one evening a week to dedicate to in-work support.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

6.4.2 Employers’ readiness to employ IPES participants

Though some employers reported that they were initially cautious about employing people with disabilities or health conditions, reassurance from Key Workers and a clear offer of regular support helped encourage them to employ IPES participants. Regular conversations with Key Workers and the ability to contact them freely with concerns was appreciated by employers who were anxious that challenges may emerge. It was also valued by employers in instances where they had not previously employed someone with a disability.

“We had a number of meetings with her (Key Worker) which was really useful as we had never worked with someone who was registered blind, so we had no idea about the level of support they required, software, hardware needed, where to purchase…She was able to advise on that and get us funding (through Access to Work) for the [business] to purchase.”

Employer, Health and Social Care

From the employer’s perspective, they were willing to make reasonable adjustments for employees and utilise provider support. However, they expressed concerns about long-term retention. For example, some employers faced difficulties with retaining staff with health conditions, often encountering long-term absences or immediate sick leave, thus affecting workforce management.

“The problems are more with staying [than recruiting]. We have had a few people go off on long term sick or start a job and go on sick leave shortly afterwards.”

Employer, Retail

Despite this, employers positively shared experiences of adapting job roles to accommodate physical disabilities. For example, one employer had hired an IPES participant with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). They discussed what would help them to relax whilst at work and reassured the participant. The employer gave the participant extra breaks, allowed shorter breaks for walks and allowed the participant to stand during meetings.

Employers also valued having Key Workers readily available to provide advice and facilitate communication. Employers noted that Key Workers were easily contactable via phone or email and were quick to respond to queries and requests. Ensuring this communication was regular helped to maintain a positive and productive relationship, with employers acknowledging that this open line of communication contributed to the relationship’s success. Additionally, Key Workers actively established what employers wanted from an employee and sought to match them with a suitable candidate. Therefore, demonstrating a tailored approach to meeting employer needs.

“It’s that personal touch with IPES… they (Key Worker) seem more proactive…you can call them…they are there at the end of an e-mail…it’s that human touch. They find you the suitable people for the job.”

Employer, Domestic Sector

Employers found the responsiveness and assistance from IPES Key Workers superior to past experiences of advertising on other platforms, such as the DWP website. These avenues often resulted in fewer or less suitable applications.

“When we have advertised job vacancies on the DWP website before, we did not have any candidates apply”.

Employer, Retail

Because of these positive relationships and their experiences with IPES, employers reported that they would hire people with disabilities in the future. One employer mentioned that they intended to contact their IPES contact again when they had future vacancies. Another employer mentioned that they were happy to continue employing through IPES, due to the proactiveness of Key Workers. This employer reported a positive experience of hiring through IPES, where they had successfully recruited 3 candidates.

6.5 Warm Hand Backs

Before a participant is scheduled to finish the programme, a meeting is arranged between a Work Coach, programme provider and participant. This meeting is a discussion between the 3 parties to explore the participant’s journey on the programme, their achievements and any future support needs. The customer will then be ‘handed back’ to JCP who will use the Warm Hand Back to understand the most suitable next steps for that individual.

Some JCP staff and providers felt confident about the process and had been involved in multiple Warm Hand Backs. They thought Warm Hand Backs were useful for discussing a participant’s journey, reflecting on their achievements and tracking progress over time.

Warm Hand Backs were conducted face to face, rather than virtually, as Key Workers found this an easier way to engage with the customer. Being in-person meant they could read the customer’s body language and generally perceived these conversations as more fruitful. Exit reports were also found to be useful for discussing the participant’s journey. These reports were completed when the participant was exiting the programme and comprised the customer’s achievements, any barriers that still existed, recommendations for future support and next steps. The case conference reviews (CCRs) conducted at 3 months, 9 months and 15 months helped to monitor the customers progress during their time on the programme and contributed to the conversations in their final exit review. The Warm Hand Back, or the 15 month review, used the information and agreed actions gathered at the previous 2 CCRs to help inform the participants next steps once their IPES journey had ended.

“We do a warm hand back…it can be telephone, virtual, or face to face… As much as possible we do a 3-way meeting in person…you can achieve more when you are there together.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

Where there was an existing positive relationship between JCP and providers, the Warm Hand Back was felt to be a smooth and streamlined process. The triangulation between customer, provider and JCP staff were seen as beneficial in aligning support efforts. It also ensures that all parties are informed about the participant’s progress and needs.

Despite this, there were some challenges with the Warm Hand Back process. A high turnover of Work Coaches put pressure on capacity and often led to inconsistent relationships. Providers felt that this led to instances of JCP staff not attending arranged Warm Hand Backs, thus delivering a lower quality of service to the customer. It may also lead to a loss of momentum, where participants who have developed a strong rapport with their Key Workers lose confidence when transitioning back to JCP support. This is due to it being inconsistent and less intensive. In some instances, providers found challenges with arranging Warm Hand Backs, attributed to difficulty co-ordinating diaries and poor communication between Key Workers and Work Coaches.

“There are some things that tend to go wrong with this process, it’s very difficult. Sometimes the participant doesn’t turn up, sometimes the Work Coach doesn’t have time, sometimes my Key Worker doesn’t book it right. An automated process would be better.”

Team Leader, IPES Programme Provider

A lack of understanding about the participant’s journey and IPES itself among JCP staff was also seen as challenging for providers, especially when providing a review of progress. For example, from the provider’s perspective, Work Coaches often displayed a lack of understanding of the IPES programme and, in relation to Warm Hand Backs, the programme’s structure and goals. Providers found that this insufficient level of knowledge impacted the quality of handovers and support provided, and thus the journey outcomes for participants.

“[There] have been instances when DEA’s do not know their customer, there’s a lack of knowledge amongst JCP colleagues.”

IPES Programme Provider

“They [JCP staff] don’t really understand our contract or what we are aiming to do. Jobcentres don’t look at provider guidance in enough detail, and inappropriate referrals happen because JCP doesn’t know their own provision.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

Some interviewees with relevant responsibility at both jobcentres and programme providers were unaware of the Warm Hand Back process. For example, one Key Worker reported that they were not aware of a hand back process. However, they did complete progress and exit reports to provide the JCP Work Coach with information about customer’s progress on IPES. Responses from both parties varied from not being involved at all, to having the responsibility for setting up the three-way call but facing challenges. In some instances, providers and JCP who did know about the process, were not practicing it due to time constraints.

“There are time constraints and times when we haven’t been able to see the customer as often as is necessary. For example, one customer during their exit report has been on the programme for 15 months but had only been seen 8 times. Sometimes it is the customer who’s failed to show for appointments”.

DEA, JCP

6.6 Outcomes

Participants, providers and JCP staff reported a wide range of soft outcomes because of being on the IPES programme. These outcomes were seen to bring IPES participants closer to the labour market, even if they did not enter employment. For example:

improved confidence eased social anxiety, enabling participants to engage with potential employers and colleagues
increased awareness of jobs suited to their needs made participants more open to seeking employment
improved ability to manage poor mental health reduced the barrier it posed to work
improving participant’s confidence and ability to engage socially in both their personal and professional lives
reduced sense of being overwhelmed when job hunting
increasing participant’s motivation to work and considering how employment could benefit them
enabling participants to meaningfully engage with lighter touch DWP support for the first time and
strengthening CVs, particularly regarding digital skills and work experience

Participant interviews reflected these outcomes, reporting increased confidence and self-assurance and a better knowledge of the types of job roles that suited their needs. The opportunity to develop a successful relationship with their Key Workers helped participants to realise their own social capabilities. This contributed to improved confidence and an easing of social anxiety, enabling participants to engage with potential employers and colleagues.

“The programme does help as they have the opportunity to form a relationship with the Work Coach so improves social skills. Learning different skills can be good for improving self-esteem and opinions about themselves e.g. are capable of doing something different.”

DEA, JCP

Participants also felt listened to during their time on the programme and felt that Key Workers understood their needs and trusted their recommendations for job roles. This increased awareness of jobs which were suitable for their needs made participants more open to seeking employment.

“I can give you an example of one of our IPES customers, who was struggling with anxiety and communication. He also has Autism and had never worked before. He did a work placement in a chocolate factory…We spoke to the employer, or manager, I think it was and explained his situation… we organised a buddy within the company for him to go to if he needed anything…we also created a schedule of duties for him… he also was able to try different departments and it quickly became clear that he was suited to a quieter, more repetitive environment. So, he moved to the packing area which was much better for him…He was then taken on permanently and he has now been working there permanently…He got to test the water and now has a job…his confidence has also been boosted.”

Employment Engagement Coordinator, IPES Programme Provider

Providers and JCP staff also highlighted how improved confidence increased participants motivation to find work. For example, participants that began the programme concerned about the implications of coming off benefits, or unsure if employment would benefit them financially, were reassured by Key Workers whose advice they felt able to trust. This increased the participant’s motivation to work and considering how employment could benefit them.

“I think really the main success is that we are working with people who might not have found employment before. Or reduced barriers like lack of motivation…The Key Worker really provides that support to reduce those barriers and build confidence. Build communication skills and then referred to us to help them find employment.”

IPES Programme Provider

This improved confidence and openness to work stood out as the most reported outcomes. For participants that had been out of work for some time, the opportunity to develop a trusting relationship with a single advisor had been key to increasing their confidence. This was sometimes due to the emotional impact of frequent contact and sustained support provided. Participants responded well to this encouragement from advisors that they felt understood their condition and circumstances. This was considered to be particularly helpful for participants with mental health conditions. Additionally, employers had also reported increased confidence and improved aptitude for work amongst the IPES participants they employed.

“She [Key Worker] found out that I like being outside and doing outdoorsy things…So she was like, ‘What about working in a garden centre or maybe as a groundsman?’…I hadn’t even thought of that.”

Male, 18 to 24, Learning disability, Southern England

Employers also reported outcomes for their organisation as a result of hiring IPES programme participants. For example, where training had been provided, participants had also boosted their skills and strengthened their CV, building a better skilled workforce. As shown in the quote below, employers also reported how IPES employees were confident and loyal in their approach to working. This strengthened their position as an employee and built a stronger relationship with their employer.

“For me. it’s really opened my eyes, the whole confidence piece and loyalty and how just putting trust in someone and giving them a chance could actually transform their lives. That’s the bit that for me, I wasn’t really conscious of before.”

Employer, Hospitality

6.7 Experiences of those who entered employment

Participants that entered employment reported improved mental health and wellbeing as key outcomes. Those participants that reported positive mental health outcomes because of entering work, attributed these to increased confidence and self-worth. Additionally, the introduction of a routine that being in work provides gave them a greater sense of stability in their lives. Being surrounded by a supportive workplace and friendly colleagues also contributed to increased confidence, along with the sense of accomplishment derived from work.

“It’s given me routine. I am better at getting up in the morning early now.”

Female, 25 to 34, Physical health condition, North West

Participants reported that the positive feedback given by their employers had a particularly strong positive impact on their self-worth. It also helped to motivate them to continue going to work, especially if they were experiencing a difficult mental health day. The personalised support provided by Key Workers, including tailored job searches and an understanding of the participants strengths and weaknesses, bolstered self-esteem. The ongoing support from their Key Worker provided a reassurance and a sense of not being alone in navigating life and job market challenges.

Provider staff suggested that a high number of participants enter low paid, part-time work but are motivated and rewarded by the other positive aspects that employment has on them and their wellbeing.

“A lot of them realise that they can work…‘I can actually do it!’. Then, they are a lot more confident. It’s a big thing for them…I have this one guy who calls me every day after work, I don’t mind, telling me how great his day at work was…he tells me he is getting lots of positive feedback…it’s so encouraging for him.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

6.7.1 Outcomes: Employed participant case study

Who are they? – A mother with 2 young children. She was diagnosed with depression after the death of her partner 3 years ago and closed the business they had previously run together.

Experience of being on the IPES programme – Despite her previous experience of work, she was rejected from ‘hundreds of jobs’. In her view, this caused her depression to worsen and her motivation to continue to apply for jobs suffered.

Her Key Workers changed frequently when she was first referred on to IPES. This prevented her from developing a stable relationship with any of them and she did not feel the programme would help her. However, her fifth and final Key Worker remained in the role throughout the programme, and they were able to develop a good relationship.

The Key Worker helped her secure an interview for a job by contacting the employer on her behalf. She bolstered her confidence prior to the interview by reminding her of her relevant experience and value she could offer.

How did it help? – She is now employed in a role relevant to her skills. She attributed this to the confidence the Key Worker gave her prior to the interview and the help securing the interview.

6.8 Experiences of those who did not enter employment

6.8.1 Positive impacts for those who did not enter employment

Participants that did not enter employment had mixed experiences of completing the programme. For those that reported positive impact, interviews with participants and JCP staff found that they had:

improved motivation and confidence to find work, attributing this to the final exit review and the list of achievements (as part of the Warm Hand Back) discussed with their Key Worker
better understanding of the sector and type of work they wanted to go into, which they did not know before joining the programme
greater awareness around the types of adjustments employers could make at work reassured participants with physical health conditions
more confidence with application processes, interview skills, an improved skillset and training experiences
more optimism about finding work after being handed back to the JCP

“It’s about keeping that momentum going because hopefully when someone does finish, they will feel more independent in job searching, applying for jobs, sending their CV to an employer, even picking up the phone to someone…By having that warm hand back, the Work Coach can keep that going.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

6.8.2 Negative impacts for those who did not enter employment

Despite these positive outcomes, some participants reported negative impacts of being on the programme. They were as follows:

a small number of participants returned from the IPES programme feeling deflated, with a lack of motivation to find work
some had developed a negative attitude towards support provided by DWP, because they believe it won’t work for them or isn’t suited to their needs
some customers reported reduced confidence after finishing the programme without entering work
not finding work over a prolonged period of time caused some customers to lose stamina and momentum in their employment search

“I don’t feel that I can physically earn that much with my health condition to pay the rent. I just can’t do it.”

Male, 18 to 24, Physical and Mental health condition, London Home Counties

6.8.3 Barriers for participants who didn’t enter employment

Participants who had not entered employment at the end of the programme felt that some of their barriers had not been addressed. They noted that the challenges posed by their disability or health condition remained in place after the programme had finished. Despite this, they typically reported that they had a better understanding of how to manage their disability or condition in the workplace. They also felt more comfortable with communicating their condition effectively with employers and colleagues. Their experience of taking part in the IPES programme also resulted in them specifically targeting and applying to disability confident employers.

“People might still be looking for work - mental health can take a while to sort out. You need time for that…I hope that the Jobcentre picks these barriers up from the exit report.”

Key Worker, IPES Programme Provider

Some participants that didn’t enter work before the end of the programme also reported that the lack of motivation they experienced after this negatively impacted their mental health. A sentiment that was echoed by some Work Coaches.

“I feel they have gone backwards to be honest, they’ve gone from feeling excited about the course and the thought of having help and support, to retreating into themselves, because of the lack of continuity.”

Work Coach, JCP

Location could also be an ongoing barrier for those in particularly rural locations. For example, one participant was living in a rural area with limited access to public transport and a poor network connection which made attending interviews (both face to face and virtually) challenging without the additional support they had been receiving via IPES. Additionally, some JCP staff stated that they saw increased levels of disengagement from customers after leaving the programme. As JCP support isn’t as comprehensive or personally tailored as Key Worker support, participants were felt to lose momentum over time.

Some providers also discussed how IPES may not have been suitable for all customer types. For example, customers with severe mental health conditions and/or deteriorating health condition(s). Specifically, some providers mentioned challenges such as inappropriate referrals, which could encompass referrals for individuals who may not benefit from the programme due to their health condition(s).

6.9 Post-programme support

Most participants received some form of support after finishing the programme. A number of programme participants were referred to other employability programmes, such as Restart and the Work and Health programme. For those who had been signposted and referred to other support types, they felt that IPES was more tailored to their needs. Where participants had been referred to the JCP, general support included seeing a Work Coach, researching available training courses, job searching and making applications. The frequency of these meetings with their Work Coach was determined by the participant’s needs.

“I had a phone call with them both. My Work Coach went through everything I needed help with…You just talk about everything that you need help [with]. One of the things I needed help with was looking for work and getting back into work…I thought it was useful… there was someone there that I could talk to.”

Female, 25 to 34, Mental health condition, North West

Some participants however did not recall receiving any ongoing support from JCP since leaving the IPES programme. One participant who had a positive experience with IPES, but had not received any support since, felt alone during this time and let down by the JCP. Other participants noted that a lack of consistency with Work Coaches meant appointments with different people, resulting in difficulty building trust and establishing rapport.

“I wish it [IPES] had gone on longer…so when my health conditions are finally sorted and I know where I am with that, I could get more help with getting a job.”

Female, 18 to 24, Mental and Physical health condition, Southern England

“I was disappointed when the support ended. I liked receiving the weekly phone calls. It was helpful and I would have liked it to continue.”

Male, 25 to 34, Learning disability, North West

6.9.1 Post-programme support: participant case study

The participant initially felt disappointed when his IPES support came to an end. He really liked the staff providing the support and reported that appointments felt informal and like talking to a friend. He would have liked to have continued receiving the support until he had successfully found work.

He recalled receiving a warm hand back via telephone and found the conversation really useful. During the call, he discussed the most useful steps he and his Work Coach could take next to make sure he felt supported.

His Work Coach suggested the Restart programme could continue to provide support finding work and, since finishing IPES, he has been referred to Restart.

The participant felt confident about finding work and, as a result of conversations with his Work Coach, had a better idea of the job and work environment he wants to look for.

Male, 18 to 24, Learning disability, North East.

Question 7

7. Quantitative survey

Accepted Answer

This chapter summaries the methodology and contains the quantitative findings from a two-Wave longitudinal survey.

7.1 Methodology

The following section outlines the quantitative methodology used in this study.

7.1.1 Sample

DWP provided a total sample of 4,191 IPES customers for the quantitative survey. The sample was divided into 6 batches based on the customers’ enrolment date in the IPES programme, starting in June 2022. Customers were contacted in their batches.

The sample included details of names and email addresses, and some phone numbers, as well as their IPES start date and recorded health condition.

7.1.2 Fieldwork

Ipsos conducted Wave 1 fieldwork between 10 November 2022 and 25 March 2024, (including a soft live launch). Following the soft launch the questionnaire length was reduced to bring it back in line with a 20-minute survey length, to reduce participant burden and enhance response rates. Additionally, throughout fieldwork regular reminders were sent out to also boost participation.

The survey was conducted as a mixed-mode push-to-web survey with CATI (computer-assisted telephone interviewing) follow-up interviews to target those who had not completed the survey online. The CATI component aimed to boost the representativeness of the sample against the sample frame, ensuring the participation of those who are less digitally confident. This was particularly important as a lack of digital confidence may have been a barrier to some claiming Universal Credit (UC). Ipsos sent advance letters and emails with a short URL for the online survey and opt-out details to the selected sample. Participants were sent 3 reminders via post or email during each Wave of fieldwork.

In total 999 participants took part in Wave 1, 279 online and 720 on the telephone. Participants were recontacted approximately 14 months after completing the Wave 1 survey. Follow-up Wave 2 fieldwork with participants who took part in Wave 1 took place between 11 December 2023 and 28 April 2025. During Wave 2, 338 participants took part, 29 of whom were online and 309 were on the telephone.

7.1.3 Data analysis

This report measures statistical significance at the 95% confidence level. Only statistically significant differences are commented on throughout the report and on charts, these are indicated by a green or red arrow.

Where figures in charts do not add to 100%, or to an associated net score^{[footnote 1]}, this is due to rounding, exclusion of ‘don’t know’ or ‘refused’ responses, or because the questions allowed more than one response. Where base sizes were less than 100 but greater than 30, figures as numbers were reported instead of percentages.

This chapter presents the data results from Wave 2 and where appropriate, it also shows the comparison to the Wave 1 data.

The data in this report was not weighted.

7.2 Profiles of survey participants

This section examines the profiles of survey participants including their health, education, caring responsibilities and accommodation statuses.

7.2.1 Health conditions

Overall, 9 in 10 participants (89%) in Wave 2 reported at least one health condition, illness or disability that was expected to last for 6 months or more. This proportion is similar to Wave 1 (85%).^{[footnote 2]}^{[footnote 3]}

The types of health conditions participants had at Waves 1 and 2 are shown below in Figure 7.1. At Wave 2, the most commonly reported health conditions were mental health (19% compared to 20% at Wave 1), learning difficulties/cognitive disorders (17% compared to 25% at Wave 1) and musculo-skeletal/physical injury (15% compared to 14% at Wave 1). Around 6 in 10 participants (63%) reported more than one health condition and 16% said that they had no main health condition.

Figure 7.1: Types of health conditions at Waves 1 and 2

Base: W1 All participants with a health condition or disability (854); W2 All participants (338)

As shown in Figure 7.2, nearly 3 quarters of participants with a long-term health condition at Wave 2 (74%) said that this reduced their ability to carry out day-to-day activities to varying degrees.

Figure 7.2: Whether long term health condition reduced ability to carry out day-to-day activities

Base: All W2 participants (338). ‘Yes NET’ is comprised of ‘Yes (a lot)’ and ‘Yes (a little)’ combined.

7.2.2 Education

The majority of participants (85%) reported holding at least one qualification – just 10% reported no qualifications (Figure 7.3). In terms of their highest level of attainment, similar proportions of participants held qualifications at level 2 (20%), level 1 (19%) and level 3 (18%).

Figure 7.3: Highest level of qualification

Base: All W2 participants (338)

7.2.3 Children and caring responsibilities

Around 9 in 10 participants (87%) had no dependent children. 6% had one child and 3% had 2 or more children.

Eight in 10 participants (82%) reported having no caring responsibilities or only caring for dependent children. 12% were caring for parents, 4% were caring for another family member and 2% were caring for a spouse or partner. These figures are shown below in Figure 7.4.

Figure 7.4 Caring responsibilities (outside of childcare)

Base: All W2 participants (338)

7.2.4 Accommodation

As shown in Figure 7.5, 2 in 3 participants (66%) were renting their accommodation, either directly from a private landlord or council / local authority / housing association, or by paying rent to a family member or friend.

Figure 7.5: Accommodation status

Base: All W2 participants (338). ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Prefer not to say’ responses not shown.

7.2.5 Ethnicity

Nearly all participants (86%) in Wave 2 were from a white ethnic background, 5% were from Asian/Asian British ethnic background, 3% from Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnic background, 2% from mixed or multiple ethnic groups, and 2% from an ‘other ethnic group’. This represents the profile seen in Wave 1.

7.3 Current circumstances at Wave 2

This section details participants status within the IPES programme at the time of the Wave 2 fieldwork. It includes the working status of participants who have completed or have left the programme.

7.3.1 Programme status

Figure 7.6 shows where participants were at the time of the Wave 2 survey. Over two-thirds of participants (68%) had completed the IPES programme, 19% were still taking part and 14% had withdrawn before completing the programme.

Figure 7.6: Programme status

Base: All W2 participants (338)

Participants who experienced a change to their health condition at Wave 2 were less likely to have completed the IPES programme (57% versus 73% of those who did not experience such a change) and were more likely to have withdrawn from IPES (24% versus 9%).

Participants were asked why they withdrew from the IPES programme. Please note this proportion of participants is very small (46 participants). Nineteen of these participants did so due to a change in their health condition/illness/disability. Around 3 in 10 mentioned issues connected to the unsuitability of the programme for their needs, for example: the programme was not relevant to them (14 participants), the programme did not help to address their barriers to work (13 participants), and the programme did not help improve their confidence in getting back to work (12 participants). A quarter (11 participants) mentioned that the support offered by their Key Worker was not useful.

7.3.2 Work status since completing or leaving IPES

At Wave 1, participants were asked for their reasons for taking part in the programme and around two-thirds of participants (66%) said they were motivated to take part in IPES to help them secure employment. Given the complex employment barriers facing this group, the high proportion who were motivated to find employment is noteworthy.

Other reasons for taking part in the IPES programme included following advice from a Work Coach (37%) and wider support such as to help with confidence and wellbeing (27%).

Figure 7.8: Reasons for taking part in IPES at Wave 1

Base: All W1 participants (999)

By Wave 2, a minority of participants who had completed or withdrawn from the IPES programme (15%) were in paid work. Nearly 8 in 10 participants (78%) had not been in paid work since completing/leaving the programme, while 7% had been in paid work but were no longer by the time of the survey. These figures are shown below in Figure 7.9. The activities of those out of work are discussed in section 7.3.4.

Figure 7.9: Work status since completing or leaving IPES

Base: All W2 participants who have completed or withdrew from the programme (275)

Of those who were not in paid work after completing or withdrawing from the IPES programme, almost 1 in 3 (30%) had taken up volunteering work and around 1 in 5 (21%) had gained or were planning to gain a qualification or certificate that would improve their job prospects.

Further analysis revealed that participants with a long-term health condition that affected their day-to-day activities were less likely to have been in paid work since completing or leaving the programme, compared with those who did not have a limiting condition (81% versus 62% respectively).

Overall, given the complex barriers to work that IPES participants experience and the detrimental impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on the Labour Market as a whole, the relatively low proportion of participants currently in work is not surprising.

7.3.3 Job characteristics of those in work

Focussing on the small group of participants who were (or had been) in work (n=59), 46 were working full or part time while 11 were working on a flexible or zero hours basis.

Among participants that were working full or part time, most (34) had a permanent contract, 7 had a fixed-term contract and 5 had a temporary employment contract.

7.3.4 Non-working participants

Most participants (61%) who had completed or left IPES and were out of work were looking for work at the time of the Wave 2 survey. Participants who completed IPES were more likely to be looking for work compared with those who had withdrawn from the programme (68% versus 28% respectively). These figures are shown below in Figure 7.12.

Figure 7.12: Whether looking for work – those who completed and withdrew from IPES

Base: All W2 participants who have completed or withdrew from the programme and were not working at the time of the Wave 2 survey (234)

Time since last in paid work

When asked how long it had been since they were last in paid work, 18% of Wave 2 participants reported that they had never been in paid work. 18% had been out of work for 12 months or less, while 31% had been out of work for between 1 and 5 years and 28% reported being out for work for 5 years or more. These figures are shown below in Figure 7.13.

Figure 7.13: Time since last in paid work

Base: All W2 participants not in paid work (297).

Routes to employment

Participants who had completed or withdrawn from the programme and were not currently working were asked whether they had taken up other ‘route to employment’ activities. The results are shown in Figure 7.14 and were split: 3 in 10 (30%) had done voluntary work and 22% had gained (or would gain) a qualification/certificate that would improve their job prospects, but just over half (53%) had taken neither of these actions.

Figure 7.14: ‘Route to employment’ actions taken since being on the IPES programme

Base: All W2 participants who have completed or withdrew from the programme and not currently working (234)

7.3.5 DWP support

Jobcentre Plus and other DWP initiatives

Participants were asked if they were receiving any support from JCP, such as frequent meetings with a Work Coach and/or Disability Employment Advisor, work experience opportunities, or other local provision suggested by a Work Coach and paid for from the flexible support fund. At the time of the Wave 2 survey, over half of participants (53%) were not receiving such support.

Further analysis shows that participants with a health condition that did not affect their day-to-day life were more likely to be receiving support from JCP (58% versus 41% of those with a condition that did limit their daily life). Those with musculo-skeletal/physical injuries and chronic/systemic/progressive conditions were more likely to not be receiving support from JCP (61% and 62% respectively) compared with those experiencing learning difficulties and cognitive disorders (49%).

Participants were also asked if they were involved in any other DWP initiatives such as ‘RESTART’ ‘Access to work’ and ‘work and health programme’. The majority (88%) were not involved in any of the listed initiatives, and this was more likely among those with a mental health condition (93%) and those whose health condition affected their day-to-day life (92%).

Receipt of benefits/tax credits

At the point of referral to IPES, 3 quarters of participants (74%) were receiving Universal Credit and 44% were in receipt of Personal Independence Payments. A quarter (25%) were receiving Housing or Council Tax benefit. Only 1% were not receiving any kind of DWP support.

Figure 7.15: Receipt of benefits/tax credits at point of referral to IPES

Base: All W2 participants (338)

7.4 Experiences during IPES

This section describes participants’ experiences of support and interactions they had whilst on the IPES programme.

7.4.1 Warm handover

At Wave 1, nearly 9 in 10 participants (86%) reported that when they were referred to IPES they had a telephone call or meeting with their Jobcentre Work Coach and someone from the IPES programme.

Figure 7.16: Experienced warm handover from JCP Work Coach to IPES programme at Wave 1

Base: All W1 participants (999)

7.4.2 Contact with Key Workers

Most participants had contact with their Key Worker via telephone calls (87%) or face to face meetings (85%). Around 6 in 10 mentioned email (62%) and text messages (61%).

The types of contact have shifted between Waves. Wave 2 participants are more likely to report contact via telephone (87% versus 82% at Wave 1) and video technology (33% versus 23% at Wave 1), but less likely to report contact via email (62% versus 69% at Wave 1).

Figure 7.17: Methods of contact with IPES Key Worker

Base: All W2 participants (338)

At Wave 2, those with a chronic/systemic/progressive health condition and those with a mental health condition were more likely to have received support through telephone calls (93% and 91%) compared to participants overall (87%).

While half of participants (50%) met their IPES Key Worker once every 2 weeks, 7 in 10 (71%) had contact at least fortnightly. Compared with the last Wave, a smaller proportion of Wave 2 participants reported contact at least fortnightly (71% versus 77% at Wave 1).

Figure 7.18: Frequency of scheduled meetings/calls with IPES Key Worker (in person or over telephone)

Base: All W2 participants who received a warm handover (337)

Participants with a mental health condition were more likely to have had meetings once a week or every 2 weeks (76%) than those with musculo-skeletal/physical injuries (67%) and those with sensory impairment and communication problems (66%).

7.4.3 Support from Key Workers

In terms of the most common types of support received from IPES Key Workers, support and training around finding and/or getting a job was cited by around 2 in 3 participants (65%), followed by support managing physical or mental health conditions (41%) and work-related support (36%).

Compared to Wave 1, participants in Wave 2 reported receiving significantly more support from their Key Workers across several areas, but particularly in terms of managing health conditions and work-related support. A possible reason for this was that programme participants who had continued to receive support by Wave 2 had greater support needs related to their health conditions. Indeed, significantly less participants at Wave 2 mention receiving none of the types of support explored in the survey (14% versus 19% at Wave 1).

Figure 7.19 Types of support received from IPES Key Worker

Base: All participants who have had contact with their Key Workers: W1 (995), W2 (337). (Note: mentions of 5% or more at W2 shown). Arrows indicate significant differences.

At Wave 2, participants were very positive about several aspects of interactions with Key Workers and these responses are shown in Figure 7.20. Over 8 in 10 (84%) agreed it was easy to contact the Key Worker and 84% agreed they were satisfied with how often they had contact with the Key Worker. Seven in 10 participants (71%) agreed that the support offered by their Key Worker was tailored to their needs and personal situation.

Participants were less likely to agree that the key worker had increased their confidence in managing everyday tasks (54%) and 47% agreed that the key worker had helped them manage their health condition or disability.

This pattern of response is in line to that seen in Wave 1.

Figure 7.20: Extent to which participant agree with statements about interactions with Key Worker (% agree)

Base: All W2 participants who had contact with their IPES Key Workers (337)

As a general trend, those with a health condition that did not affect their day-to-day life tended to be more likely to agree with these statements than those without a limiting condition.

Over 7 in 10 participants agreed that various aspects of support were ‘helpful’. The highest levels of agreement related to support with work related skills (85%), support with practical difficulties getting into work (84%), support with physical or mental health conditions (84%) and support with training to find a new job (82%).

The levels of agreement were in line with those reported at Wave 1.

Figure 7.21: Extent to which participants agreed that types of support were helpful (% agree)

Base: W2 Participants who received Support with using digital technology/internet (81)*; Participants who received Support with practical difficulties to getting into work (82)*; Participants who received Support managing physical or mental health condition (137); Participants who received support around Meeting other organisations (81); Participants who received Support and training around finding/getting a new job (219); Participants who received Support with work-related skills (122); Participants who received Support with other non-disability related challenges to getting in to work (84); Participants who received Support to manage other caring responsibilities (20)* (Note: *denotes a base size of less than 100 but greater than 30).

7.4.4 Progress monitoring and warm hand back

Two in 3 participants (66%) reported having meetings with their Key Worker and JCP Work Coach to discuss their progress and support needs during the programme. This was more likely among participants who did not have a health condition that limited their day-to-day activities (80% versus 61% of those with a limiting condition).

Figure 7.22: Attended regular meetings with Key Worker and Jobcentre Work Coach to discuss progress and support needs while on IPES

Base: All W2 participants (338)

Despite the prevalence of progress monitoring during the programme, nearly half of participants (48%) said that they did not have a warm hand back meeting between their IPES Key Worker and JCP Work Coach after completing the programme.

Figure 7.23: Incidence of warm hand back meeting with IPES Key Worker and Jobcentre Work Coach at end of programme

Base: All W2 participants who completed IPES (229)

Among those that did have a warm hand back meeting, the vast majority (85%) found this useful and 12% said it was not useful. These figures are shown in Figure 7.24.

Figure 7.24: Usefulness of telephone call/meeting with Key Worker and Jobcentre Work Coach

Base: All W2 participants who completed IPES and had a warm hand back (110)

7.5 Challenges and barriers

7.5.1 Challenges during programme

The main challenges Wave 2 participants faced while on the programme were finding a job that was appropriate for their health conditions/disability/illness (20%), issues with their Key Worker (18%), issues around appointments (13%), and issues with support provided by their Key Worker (13%).

Participants were less likely to mention several challenges when compared with the findings at Wave 1^{[footnote 4]}, namely: the need to prioritise their health rather than looking for work (12% versus 32% at Wave 1), worries about communicating their health condition (8% versus 23%), issues with appointments (13% versus 21%), changes in their health condition (10% versus 20%), difficulties doing the required activities (8% versus 16%), difficulty accessing or using digital technology (6% versus 16%), and difficulty attending appointments (9% versus 15%). These results are shown below in Figure 7.25.

The decreases in certain challenges faced by participants between Waves 1 and 2 may be partly explained by the maturing of the IPES programme, and also by the impact of the end of the Covid-19 Pandemic and the reduction of restrictions. The IPES programme was designed to have face to face engagement as a key element with the opportunity for individuals who were furthest from the labour market engaging with both Work Coaches and allocated Key Workers. Once restrictions were lifted and face to face appointments became the norm satisfaction levels with the programme increased.

Figure 7.25: Challenges faced when taking part in IPES

Base: All participants: W1 (999), W2 (338). (Note * denotes asked at W2 only). Arrows denote significant differences. The addition of a new response category at W2 may have partially impacted the wave on wave differences.

Further analysis shows that participants with a health condition that affected their day-to-day life were more likely than participants overall to say that they needed to prioritise their health rather than looking for work at Wave 2 (14% versus 12%).

Participants with mental health conditions (40%), musculo-skeletal/physical injuries (39%), chronic/systemic/progressive (39%) were most likely to say that they needed to prioritise their health rather than looking for work.

7.5.2 Barriers to finding or staying in work

The overwhelming barrier to finding work was the participant’s physical or mental health condition/disability/illness, mentioned by over half (53%).

At Wave 2, participants were more likely than those at Wave 1 to identify their health condition or disability (53% versus 33%) and their reduced ability to travel (7% versus 4%) as barriers to finding work.

Figure 7.26: Main barrier preventing participant from finding work

Base: All participants with more than one barrier: W1 (872), W2 (232) Arrows denote significant differences.

Participants were asked about how supported they felt in overcoming the main barrier to finding work they had identified. Two in 3 (64%) of those who identified their health condition or disability as a barrier felt supported. The base sizes for the other barriers identified were too small to report (fewer than 30 people answering the question).

Participants at both Waves were asked if they had concerns about their work readiness. Encouragingly, participants at Wave 2 were significantly less likely to be worried that:

they would not gain employment due to their health condition/disability (62% versus 71% at Wave 1)
their health condition would prevent them from staying in a job (62% versus 70%)

Wave 2 participants were also less likely to say that the idea of working made them feel anxious (51% versus 57% at Wave 1).

Figure 7.27: Extent to which agree with statements about finding work (% agree)

Base: All participants who had a physical or mental health condition, disability or illness on Wave 1 and no change): W1 (854), W2 (338). Arrows indicate significant differences.

7.6 Outcomes

7.6.1 Overall satisfaction with IPES

At Wave 2, 70% of participants were very or fairly satisfied with the support they received through the IPES programme, which is slightly lower than that recorded at Wave 1 (77%). 18% expressed some degree of dissatisfaction with the support they received; this was significantly higher than the level of dissatisfaction registered at Wave 1 (12%).

Figure 7.28: Overall satisfaction with support received through the IPES programme

Base: All participants: W1 (999), W2 (338)

Participants who withdrew from IPES were more likely to be dissatisfied (28%) compared with those who completed the programme (15%)[5].

7.6.2 Confidence outcomes

When participants who were not in paid work were asked how confident they felt about starting a job, just over half of participants (51%) expressed confidence and this figure was in line with the findings at Wave 1.

Figure 7.29: Level of confidence regarding starting a job

Base: All participants not currently in paid work: W1 (944), W2 (298)

Participants with a mental health condition at Wave 2 were more likely to not feel confident about starting a job (62%) compared to participants overall (47%) and compared to those with different health conditions (those with: learning difficulties and cognitive disorders 46%, musculoskeletal/physical injury 48%, sensory impairment and communication problems 41%, and other conditions or disabilities 47%).

All participants were asked what might help them get into work (or stay in work, if they were already working). Around a quarter (24%) reported that none of the support areas presented in the survey would help them get into work, and this was a significant increase on the proportion mentioning this at Wave 1 (9%).

At Wave 2, the areas of potential support cited by one in 10 or more participants were support to manage a physical or mental health conditions (16%), tailored support and training around finding/getting a new job (12%), the accommodation of additional needs (12%) and support with confidence/socialising (10%).

Comparing the findings with those reported at Wave 1, while a significantly higher proportion of participants wanted support with confidence/socialising (10% versus 5%), significantly lower proportions wanted help with tailored support and training around finding/getting a new job (12% versus 22% at Wave 1), flexible working (6% versus 17%) and greater employer/colleague understanding (7% versus 11%).

Figure 7.30: Potential areas of support to help participant get into or stay in work

Base: All participants: W1 (999), W2 (338). Arrows indicate significant differences.

Further analysis reveals that those with a health condition affecting their day-to-day life were more likely to want accommodation of additional needs (14% versus of 12% of participants overall).

Participants who were not in paid work were also asked which statement, out of a list of 4, best described their current situation. Four in 10 (39%) felt that with the right support work was a realistic goal for them within the next 6 months and a further 16% felt that paid work was a realistic goal even without support. A quarter (24%) thought that with the right support paid work was a realistic goal, but not within the next 6 months.

For 13%, paid work was not a realistic goal, even with the right support in place.

Figure 7.31: Statement which best describes situation of non-working participants

Base: All W2 participants not currently in paid work (298)

Further analysis shows that participants with a mental health condition were more likely to say that, even with the right support, paid work was not realistic for them in the next 6 months (31% versus 24% overall). Participants with a musculo-skeletal/physical injury were more likely to say that even with the right support, paid work was not a realistic goal (19% versus 13% overall).

7.6.3 Employment support and adjustments ^{[footnote 6]}

A minority of participants (59) were in (or had been in) paid work at the time of the Wave 2 survey. Of the 59 participants who had been or were in work, 33 received support with specific job skills and 31 with managing their health conditions.

Of those who received support from their employers, the majority (40 out of 46 cases) found it helpful.

Overall, most participants (42 out of 59) who had experienced work felt that their employer had made suitable adjustments to support their needs at work (for example, providing flexible working hours, ensuring areas are accessible, providing accessible materials etc.)

Additionally, most participants who had experienced work felt their confidence had improved (47 out of 59 cases), they felt physically safe (46 out of 59 cases) and they felt sufficiently comfortable to express any concerns (44 out of 59 cases).

Future employment

Among the participants who were in work at the time of the Wave 2 survey, the vast majority (34 out of 40) felt they were likely to still be in paid work in a year’s time.

Among participants who were working at the time of the Wave 2 survey, 4 in 10 (16 out of 40 cases) said that there was nothing that would cause them to stop working or reduce their hours in the following 6 months. The most commonly mentioned issues that may result in a cessation of employment or reduced hours were a health condition affecting work (cited by 12 out of 40 cases) and work affecting the participant’s health (12 out of 40 cases).

7.7 Financial outcomes

Participants who were in paid work (or had been in paid work) at the time of the Wave 2 survey were asked about whether their financial situation had changed over the past year. Almost half (28 out of 59 cases) said that their financial situation had improved in the last year.

The same group were asked how well they were managing their financial commitments. Four in 10 (26 out of 59 cases) were keeping up with their bills and credit commitments without any difficulty, while a further 18 were keeping up though it was a struggle from time to time. One in 10 (7 out of 59 cases) were constantly struggling with financial commitments or were in real financial difficulty and falling behind with some payments.

Question 8

8. Conclusions – Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative findings

Accepted Answer

Although fieldwork for both the qualitative and quantitative research strands of the evaluation was conducted during very different timeframes, and therefore very difficult to draw direct comparisons between the 2, the conclusion of this report aims to highlight key patterns and consistencies in the findings between the 2 strands. These are outlined below according to the experiences and perceptions of IPES participants as well as Jobcentre Plus staff, IPES providers and employers.

Participant experience of IPES

Understanding participants’ experiences of the programme and their outcomes were central to this research. The objective of the IPES programme was to bring those with complex health conditions and disabilities who were considered to be more than 12 months away from starting work closer to the labour market. It aimed to do this by giving participants the tools to manage their health conditions and disabilities and helping to improve employment-related skills as well as soft skills.

Findings from this report have shown that aspects of the IPES programme delivered successful outcomes for participants. These include the contact participants had with the Work Coaches, the tailored support they received, and the support delivered whilst in work for the small proportion who moved into employment. Successful outcomes for participants included decreased worry and anxiety regarding their health condition or disability, and increased confidence and motivation regarding looking for and applying for work.

Contact with Work Coaches

Quantitative findings from Wave 2 showed that over 8 in 10 (84%) of participants felt that it was easy to contact their Key Worker and the same proportion were satisfied with how often they had contact with the Work Coach. The qualitative Wave 2 findings also showed that where IPES participants had consistent and accessible Key Workers, participants were able to create well-established and trusted relationships. This trusted, consistent contact with a Key Worker was key in driving participant engagement and satisfaction.

Tailored support

Both research strands show that the personalised support offer from a key worker directly contributed to positive outcomes for participants and highlighted the importance of a personalised approach to support. Quantitative findings at Wave 2 showed an increase in the kinds of support IPES participants had received since Wave 1. At Wave 2, participants were more likely to say that they had received support and training around finding or getting a new job (64% compared to 58%), support managing their physical or mental health condition (41% compared to 31%), and work-related support overall (36% compared to 27%). At Wave 2, over 8 in 10 participants said that they found the support they received with practical difficulties getting into work (85%) and support with work-related skills (85%) helpful.

Soft outcomes and overcoming barriers

A number of soft outcomes of the IPES programme were identified in both the quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative findings at Wave 2 showed that fewer participants worried about their health condition or disability impacting employment or how they felt about working. As a result of participation in the programme fewer participants said that they were worried people wouldn’t employ them because of their health condition (62% down from 71% at Wave 1), fewer participants also said that they were worried their health condition or disability would prevent them from staying in a job ( 51% down from 57% at Wave 1) and additionally fewer participants said that the idea of working made them feel anxious (51% versus 57% at Wave 1). The qualitative findings from Waves 1 and 2 showed that participants generally had improved attitudes towards employment and greater confidence, as well as an improved ability to manage barriers. These decreased barriers, such as reduced concern about moving into employment and feeling more comfortable with communicating needs to an employer, and improved confidence meant that even those who had not entered employment after IPES were likely to be considerably closer to achieving this as a result of participating in the programme.

Participant confidence and motivation

Overall, both strands of the research illustrated confidence as a critical factor to entering the workforce, with success dependent on the extent to which the support they received was personalised to their needs. Quantitative findings showed that 51% of non-working participants felt confident in starting a job. This was supported by the qualitative findings, which showed that confidence building was crucial for a participant moving closer to the labour market.

Aligning with the quantitative findings, the interviews found that confidence was recurrently highlighted as a barrier to finding employment. Participants often lacked confidence due to previous employment failures or mental health issues (Section 6.3.1), but reported improved confidence and motivation due to the programme support (Section 6.6).

Employment Outcomes

A key objective for the IPES programme was to assist in bringing those with complex health needs closer to the labour market. While both strands acknowledged limited employment outcomes, they did demonstrate the potential for participant progression. For example, quantitative findings showed that 15% of participants were in paid work post-programme support (Figure 3.9), with many citing health barriers. Strengthening this, qualitative findings reported how positive employment outcomes included creating a routine and exploring self-worth through employment (Section 6.7).

In-work support

The findings from both the qualitative and quantitative findings suggest a powerful combination of the types of in-work support participants were receiving. The quantitative data reveals that amongst the small proportion of participants in work during Wave 2 of the quantitative research (46 out of the 59 participants in work) the majority received support from their employer, and that this support was overwhelmingly considered helpful.

The types of support included help with job-specific skills, managing a physical or mental health condition, support with digital technology and support to manage other caring responsibilities. Of those participants who had received support most (40 out of 46 participants) also said that they found this employer support helpful.

Provider experiences of IPES

Providers of IPES observed successful delivery of the programme and outcomes for participants.

Qualitative Wave 2 findings showed that both participants and programme providers spoke highly of the unique and tailored support delivered through IPES, and the extent to which a personalised support offer, directly contributed to positive outcomes for the participant. Support such as CV writing, interview techniques and addressing mental health barriers was integral to programme delivery.

The qualitative research also added context to the quantitative finding that 46 out of 59 in-work participants received in-work support from their employers. It showed that IPES Key Workers often facilitated this in-work support by helping participants build strong relationships with their new employers, providing a vital bridge that contributed to sustainable employment. They provided in-work support by maintaining contact with participants via texts and calls and offering both practical and emotional support as they entered the workforce.

Jobcentre Plus staff (Work Coach) experiences of IPES

JCP staff appreciated that the IPES programme offered personalised and holistic support, tailored to an individual’s barriers to accessing employment. During Wave 2 interviews, staff were generally positive about the IPES referral process, feeling that, in most cases, referrals were accurately made, and cases were handled efficiently. The involvement of Work Coaches during this stage, and the Warm Handovers, was crucial for the continuity of support and information sharing.

Despite the positive perception of IPES, some JCP staff experienced challenges. They acknowledged issues related to staffing shortages and high workloads, leading to concerns about delivering the programme to its highest standard. Additionally, staff interviewed during Wave 1 were more sceptical about referrals made to the programme. This was particularly true where new Work Coaches had been hired during the pandemic without adequate training on IPES. From the JCP staff perspective, this sometimes resulted in inappropriate referrals being made.

Regarding improvements, JCP staff stressed a need for improved communication and clarity between JCP staff and IPES providers to ensure consistent high-quality support. For example, greater automation of processes and more frequent case conferences. Staff training was also highlighted as an area for development. For example, ensuring new Work Coaches are adequately trained and aware of the IPES programme, and the complex barriers its participants can face, will help to make informed referrals.

Employer experiences of IPES

Overall, employers’ perceptions of the IPES programme were positive. They appreciated the regular support provided by IPES Key Workers, who helped in addressing both participants needs and employer concerns. Key Workers were seen as easily contactable and proactive with employers, contributing to their positive relationship. Additionally, employers valued how Key Workers helped to prepare participants to enter the workforce. This was mostly by making adjustments to suit the participants needs. From the employer’s perspective, this led to a smoother integration into the workplace.

However, employers reported some challenges regarding the IPES programme. They expressed concerns about the long-term retention of participants with health conditions, noting instances of long-term absences or immediate sick leave after employment began. Some employers also desired more clarity regarding their role in supporting IPES participants into employment.

A cumulative metric that combines responses from similar categories into a single percentage. ↩
Among the small group of participants who had reported that they were not living with a health condition at Wave 1 (n=33), most said that this was still the case at Wave 2 (n=25). ↩
Participants who reported a health condition at Wave 1 or said ‘don’t know’ or ‘prefer not to say’ were asked if their health had changed in the past 12 months, 66% reported their health conditions were the same. ↩
Please note differing base sizes between Waves 1 (999) and 2 (338). ↩
Base sizes in this section are small due to small numbers of participants who had taken part in IPES and are currently or were in paid work. Where base sizes are less than 50, numbers are used instead of percentages. ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK

Applies to England and Wales

1. How to read this report

2. Executive summary

Introduction and methodology

Overview of programme participants

Key findings

3. Glossary and abbreviations

4. Introduction

Policy background

Programme background

Figure 4.1: Timeline of IPES programme delivery and qualitative and quantitative fieldwork

5. Wave 1 Qualitative strand

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Participant background (2021 cohort)

5.2.1 Health conditions

5.2.2 Education and employment history

5.2.4 Personal circumstances

5.2.5 Key barriers to work

5.3 Referrals

5.3.1 Participant awareness of IPES

5.3.2 Expectations of IPES

5.3.3 Referral process

5.3.4 What worked well for IPES

5.3.5 Challenges

5.4 Delivery and experiences of the programme

5.4.1 How providers tailored the support to address barriers

Case study: personalised support

5.4.2 Mode and frequency of contact

5.4.3 Key Worker relationship

Case study: positive Key Worker experience

Case study: negative Key Worker experience

5.4.4 The value of IPES relationships and their effectiveness in delivering the support

5.4.5 Challenges

5.4.6 In-work support

5.4.7 Employers experience

5.5 Warm Hand Backs (WHBs)

5.5.1 Efficiency of WHB

5.5.2 What is working well

5.5.3 What could be better

5.6 Outcomes

5.6.1 Impacts of the programme for participants

5.6.2 Experiences of those who entered employment

5.6.4 Experiences of those who did not enter employment

Case study: no employment outcomes

5.6.6 Impacts for those who entered work versus those who didn’t

5.6.7 Improvements

6. Wave 2 Qualitative strand

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Participant background (2023 cohort)

6.3 Delivery and experiences of the programme

6.3.1 Barriers to delivering support

6.3.2 Enablers to delivering support

6.3.3 Approaches to support: a provider case study

6.3.4 Relationships with Key Workers

6.3.5 Staffing challenges

6.3.6 Utilising existing employer relationships

6.3.7 Employer relationships: a provider case study

6.4 In-work support

6.4.1 Experiences of the In-work support process

6.4.2 Employers’ readiness to employ IPES participants

6.5 Warm Hand Backs

6.6 Outcomes

6.7 Experiences of those who entered employment

6.7.1 Outcomes: Employed participant case study

6.8 Experiences of those who did not enter employment

6.8.1 Positive impacts for those who did not enter employment

6.8.2 Negative impacts for those who did not enter employment

6.8.3 Barriers for participants who didn’t enter employment

6.9 Post-programme support

6.9.1 Post-programme support: participant case study

7. Quantitative survey

7.1 Methodology

7.1.1 Sample

7.1.2 Fieldwork

7.1.3 Data analysis

7.2 Profiles of survey participants

7.2.1 Health conditions

Figure 7.1: Types of health conditions at Waves 1 and 2

Figure 7.2: Whether long term health condition reduced ability to carry out day-to-day activities

7.6.3 Employment support and adjustments ^{[footnote 6]}