Research and analysis

Summary: Restart Scheme extension qualitative research

Published 28 May 2026

Contents 

This report contains the findings of qualitative research on the extension of the Restart Scheme, resulting from interviews with Jobcentre Plus (JCP) staff and provider staff. The report provides supplementary evidence to the report from the commissioned evaluation of the Restart Scheme, published in May 2024.

Background

The Restart Scheme was launched by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in June 2021, as part of the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic through the ‘Plan for Jobs’. The programme was designed to provide intensive support for up to 12 months to long-term unemployed people, delivered through contracted employment providers. Covering England and Wales only, eight providers were commissioned to deliver across 12 contract package areas (CPAs). Contracted providers were responsible for offering coaching and support tailored to the needs of individual participants and the local area. Participants are referred to the scheme through their JCP Work Coach, and it is a mandatory programme.  

Initially, eligibility for referral to the scheme included those who had been on Universal Credit in the Intensive Work Search (IWS) regime for between 12 and 18 months at the point of being referred and had not spent any time in the last six assessment periods in Working Enough or Light Touch - In Work groups. The eligibility criteria were later widened to all customers who had spent 9 months on Universal Credit and in the Intensive Work Search regime.  

The Restart Scheme was scheduled to run until August 2025, with final referrals in June 2024. However, referrals to the scheme were extended by two years to June 2026, with the last participants completing in August 2027. Along with extension of the scheme some changes to eligibility and processes were introduced. These include:   

• the eligibility criteria were expanded to those claiming Universal Credit for six months and in the Intensive Work Search regime at the point of referral  
• the extension involved the introduction of Completer Summaries, which were intended to share more in-depth information from Providers on participants’ progress and remaining barriers to inform the Claimant Commitment review at 18 months

Research Aims 

DWP commissioned an independent evaluation of the Restart Scheme, as it existed before the extension, which was published in May 2024. This new in-house research is intended to supplement the evidence in that report with respect to the changes made as part of the extension and further insights into the delivery of the programme. 

This research aimed to explore the views of JCP staff and provider staff on several topics around the Restart Scheme since the extension, including: 

• what has been the impact of the change in eligibility from 9 months to 6 months Universal Credit and in the Intensive Work Search regime? 

• what are the characteristics and barriers of Restart participants and have these changed since the extension? 

• is the length of the programme and frequency of participant engagement appropriate? 

• what changes to the support offer have providers made? 

• How well does the Completer Summary process work and how useful is it? 

• what works well and where could improvements be made to the handover process for participants returning to JCP from the provider? 

• how effective are the relationships between JCP and providers? 

• how effective is the Restart Scheme in addressing need in the local area? 

• is the Restart Scheme able to produce sustained job outcomes for participants? 

Methodology

This research consisted of two waves of qualitative, semi-structured interviews with Job Centre Plus staff and staff employed by providers contracted to deliver the Restart Scheme. Interview participants with experience of working with the Restart Scheme were recruited from four distinct local areas in four different Contract Package Areas (CPAs).

Wave 1 fieldwork took place in October 2024, around four months after the start of the extension, and comprised interviews with 14 provider staff and 12 JCP staff. Wave 2 fieldwork was conducted in June and July 2025, around a year after the extension, with 12 provider staff and 11 JCP staff interviews. Six participants (four JCP staff and two provider staff) interviewed in Wave 1 also took part in Wave 2, meaning the research gained the views of 43 individuals in total. 

The report findings were produced using thematic analysis of the interview notes, undertaken by members of the research team. 

Main Findings

Referral eligibility and suitability

The JCP staff and provider staff interviewed were aware of the change in eligibility for participants to be referred to the Restart Scheme, from those on UC IWS for 9-months reduced to 6-months and felt that the referral criteria were clear. Overall, respondents thought that this change in eligibility was positive, emphasising the benefits of offering support to claimants earlier while they are closer to the labour market. Some interviewees said that they would like the criteria to be widened further for claimants to be eligible at the 3-month point and to be able to offer the scheme to those who are working but in low-paid or part-time jobs but may benefit from similar support.

Most JCP staff and provider staff had experience of customers who were eligible but whom they deemed unsuitable for referral to the programme, although estimates of the frequency with which this happened were mixed. Some JCP staff reported that they deemed eligible claimants unsuitable infrequently while others said this was common, and while most said that this had not changed since the extension, others said it had increased. Meanwhile, Provider staff also gave mixed estimates of the frequency with which they saw participants that they deemed to be unsuitable, and most said that the frequency had increased since the extension. The most common reason for unsuitability cited by JCP staff was due to health condition while providers said the most common reasons were health conditions, English as a Second Language (ESOL) needs, and the participant nearing retirement.

Characteristics of Restart participants

JCP staff and provider staff reported little noticeable change in the barriers and characteristics of participants since the extension. Although, some interviewees thought there was an increase in participants with health conditions and some provider staff thought that those referred at the 6-month point had more motivation and confidence than those referred at 9-months.

Several interviewees mentioned that participants were more likely to be awaiting an outcome of their Work Capability Assessment at the 6-month point. This was seen to complicate referral decisions, as it may result in participants dropping out of the Restart Scheme as the outcome may result in the participant leaving the programme. Participants usually remain on programme for the remainder of their time left on Restart, making it difficult for Providers to move them to outcome as they are not obliged to undertake any work related activities and anything they may choose to do is voluntary.

JCP staff and provider staff suggested the Restart Scheme was less effective for participants with significant work barriers such as health conditions and participants with English as a Second Language (ESOL) requirements, while being more suited to those participants without significant work barriers who are closer to the labour market.

Providers changes to support

Most provider staff reported that their organisation had made changes to their Restart support offer, as the support offer was frequently evolving to include new courses and sessions. Some provider staff mentioned that an increase in available resources had allowed for more tailored support and increased provision. Several provider staff mentioned the addition of support tailored for specific groups, such as sessions for specific age groups and provision for high skilled participants. Additionally, several respondents cited increased provision for ESOL participants. Some provider staff expressed an eagerness to expand their offer further.

Duration of programme and frequency of appointments

Overall, most respondents said that the 12-month duration was appropriate for the majority of participants. However, it was suggested by several interviewees that some participants with certain barriers to work, such as health conditions or ESOL, would benefit from a longer programme.

Provider staff reported that appointments with participants were held either weekly or fortnightly and that this frequency varied to account for participants’ circumstances. JCP staff felt that the frequency of the appointments between participants and their provider advisor was appropriate and that regular appointments were good for accountability. However, some JCP staff said that increasing the number of these appointments that being held face-to-face, rather than phone appointments, would be preferable.

Frequency of Work Search Reviews

Most JCP staff were positive about the change to reduce the frequency of Work Search Reviews (WSRs) with participants from fortnightly to monthly, as the Restart provider served as the main point of contact for the participant and it allowed participants more time to focus on their Restart activities. However, some respondents said that fortnightly was preferable to ensure participants were sufficiently supported and to address issues around attendance or engagement, and some respondents noted that their site had reverted to fortnightly as standard. Several JCP staff said that WSR frequency was best set according to the needs of the individual participant.

Some JCP staff felt that in this context, monthly WSR meetings had no effect on Restart participants’ progress or rates of movement into work. One JCP staff member mentioned progression and movement into work is dependent on the individual’s mindset and their desire to engage rather than frequency of WSRs. 

Completer Summary

Most JCP staff and provider staff were aware of the Completer Summary and its purpose. However, experience with the Completer Summary varied, with some JCP staff having little experience (particularly in Wave 1) and others having more, while most provider staff had some experience of completing Completer Summaries with participants.

Most respondents felt that the Completer Summary, or the concept of the Completer Summary, was useful as a way to share information to guide further support required for the participant. However, doubts were raised as to whether the process was working well in practice. Several JCP staff noted that the number of participants who were able to produce their Completer Summaries when asked was low. Meanwhile, several provider staff mentioned that participant engagement with the Completer Summary process was poor and some also expressed doubts as to whether Work Coaches were receiving the Completer Summaries and if they were being utilised when they did.

Due to the low number of participants who are able to produce the summary when asked, several JCP staff and provider staff suggested that having the Completer Summary directly to the Work Coach from the provider, or allowing Work Coaches digital access to it, would improve the process.

Two JCP staff said that they would prefer regular updates throughout the programme over receiving the Completer Summary at the end. Some provider staff mentioned that they would like more feedback from Work Coaches on the Completer Summaries they received.

Handover process from provider back to JCP

Several JCP staff and provider staff mentioned that they would like a meeting or phone call between the provider advisor and the Work Coach, some suggested including the participant and others without. It was suggested this would improve information sharing and be beneficial for the participant to transition back to JCP. However, some provider staff said that this would be impractical due to the workload time constraints.

Some JCP staff said that more regular communication across the 12-month programme would help information sharing. Also, some provider staff commented that they did not receive any information from Work Coaches after the handover but that this feedback would be useful.

Local area

Most JCP staff and provider staff felt that the Restart Scheme was working well in their local area, in particular due to good availability of local support and opportunities. However, some JCP staff in sites where Restart was being delivered by more than one provider suggested that some delivered better support than others. Respondents said that better communication between JCP and providers, and greater consistency of the support offered across all providers would be possible improvements to delivery.

A few respondents from the same area said that Restart was not delivered well in their area due to the programme being delivered through an outreach site, whereby support and services are made available in a premises away from the main delivery site and for limited hours (one day per week for the area in question). Whilst this mode of delivery offers access to participants who may not be able to travel to the main site, respondents felt that these participants were not able to receive the same level of support as those who attend the main site.

JCP staff and providers in Wave 2 (only) were asked to identify employment challenges present in their local area. Some of the barriers were mentioned by interviewees across more than one geographical location, such as childcare requirements, problems with public transport and high ESOL needs, while others were mentioned only by respondents in one location, for example seasonal work and high generational unemployment. Most JCP staff felt that the Restart Scheme was able to meet the local needs that they had identified.

Most provider staff reported that tailoring was done according to the individual participant’s needs more than for the local area, giving examples of individual tailoring such as support for mental health, support for substance addiction, or funding for training for a niche job. However, two provider staff did provide evidence of support tailored according to the local area, with one respondent stating that support was tailored for the local area as much as possible. As examples, these respondents mentioned their engagement with local services, such as housing officers and local foodbanks to assist homeless participants, a local library scheme for provision of laptops, and an employer offering job opportunities to prison leavers.

Relationship between providers and JCP

Most JCP staff were positive about the relationships between JCP and providers, although some noted that relationships varied depending on JCP site and provider. A positive attitude from provider staff, face-to-face meetings with provider staff and co-locating to provide services were said to help build relationships. Several JCP staff suggested having provider staff working from JCP sites or more regular visits more often would help to improve relationships, although a few provider staff mentioned that they did not have the time to make visits to JCP sites.

Provider staff gave more mixed views on the quality of relationships between their provider and JCP sites, with several indicating that some sites were keener to engage than others. Some provider staff said that they would like more direct communication with Work Coaches to allow for improved information sharing.

Sustainable Job outcomes

Most JCP staff felt that Restart was effective in obtaining sustainable job outcomes for participants, although a few said that the scheme was not effective or could be improved. Several respondents commented that, even if participation did not result in a job outcome, the scheme was effective at moving participants closer to work. Suggestions to improve sustainable job outcomes included increasing engagement between providers and employers; closer alignment between JCP and providers; and an increase in support focussed on certain participant groups.

Provider staff identified several challenges to securing sustainable job outcomes. Several respondents mentioned that a high proportion of available vacancies were in irregular or insecure jobs, although these jobs were seen by some as a useful step towards obtaining a more sustainable job. Several provider staff said that challenges were often specific to the individual participant and that addressing these was key to obtaining sustainable employment, and a few respondents highlighted that providers were unable to address more complex barriers faced by some participants, for example homelessness or addiction problems.