Small Employer Offer evaluation

Question 1

Executive summary

Accepted Answer

Introduction

This report presents findings from an evaluation of the Small Employer Offer (SEO), a policy delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) between June 2017 and March 2019, to help people with disabilities and long-term health conditions move towards and into work. A key part of the SEO was the creation of Small Employer Adviser (SEA) roles, who worked with small employers to identify and fill work placements and job opportunities suitable for claimants with a disability or health condition.

The SEO evaluation consisted of qualitative in-depth interviews with SEAs, other Jobcentre Plus (JCP) staff, small employers and claimants with health conditions or disabilities who had been referred to, or started, an SEO work opportunity.

Academics in the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University undertook a literature review as part of this study to set out the broader context for this research.

Key findings

Existing literature suggests that a joined up approach to employment support, including a focus on employers, is crucial in helping move more disabled people towards and into work. The literature also notes that careful job matching tailored to an individual’s circumstances with on-going support for employers and claimants is a key driver for ensuring placements are successful for both parties.

The SEO policy design reflects many of the lessons learnt from existing literature. The SEO was successful in identifying a large number of work opportunities from employers. However, the initiative was less successful in filling these opportunities because there were limited numbers of ‘work ready’ eligible claimants.

The qualitative research found that employers with prior experience of working with people with health conditions and disabilities, felt that doing so was a positive practice. These employers felt confident accommodating and supporting people with a long-term health condition or disability.

For private sector employers it was important that any employee was motivated and understood the social norms of a working environment such as good time-keeping and showing initiative. Third sector employers were more likely to feel they could accommodate work placements from claimants who lacked awareness of the social norms of work and help them to learn these.

Private sector employers with no experience of hiring or working with candidates with a long-term health condition or disability were less likely to be confident about doing so in the future. These employers tended to have a narrow view of disability as a physical condition and found it more difficult to see how they could accommodate this.

Positive employer experiences of SEO starts were characterised by a perceived high standard of job-matching and when the claimant was viewed as completing the work to a high standard. Less successful SEO starts for private sector employers were characterised by claimants being unwilling or unable to complete tasks, placements being too short for the claimant to make a meaningful contribution to the organisation and claimants needing more support than the employer felt able to provide or was available from the SEA.

The qualitative research found that claimants’ health conditions or disabilities influenced the type of work they felt able to do or whether they felt able to work at all. It also led to indirect barriers, such as anxiety about re-entering the labour market due to extended time out of work, which could result in a lack of awareness and understanding of the social norms of a workplace, such as showing initiative and good time keeping.

Claimants reported that the SEO was most successful for them when they received intensive support from JCP staff tailored to their personal circumstances and health condition.

Positive effects reported by claimants who took up an opportunity through SEO included a sense of achievement, establishing a routine and improvements in confidence and soft skills such as communication and time-keeping.

The SEO experience also helped motivate claimants to look for more work and to develop a clearer idea of the type of roles they would like to pursue.

Question 2

Acknowledgements

Accepted Answer

The authors wish to thank all those who gave their time to participate in this research and Janet Allaker from the DWP Disability Analysis Division, ESA Research Team for her help and support throughout the research process.

Question 3

The authors

Accepted Answer

The authors of this report are:

Joanna Crossfield, Research Director, Ipsos MORI
Kelly Finnerty, Senior Research Executive, Ipsos MORI
Katie Hughes, Research Executive, Ipsos MORI
Professor Christina Beatty, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University
Dr Tony Gore, Research Fellow, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University
Catherine Harris, Research Associate, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University

Question 4

Glossary

Accepted Answer

Access to Work (AtW)

A publicly funded employment support programme that aims to help people with a disability or health condition enter or stay in work. It can provide practical and financial support for people who have a disability or health condition. Support can be provided where someone needs help or adaptations in the workplace beyond the reasonable adjustments employers are required to make.

Community Partners (CP)

A specialist role within Jobcentre Plus at the time of the research. The role involved driving cultural change and challenging misconceptions, stereotypes and language about disability within Jobcentre Plus and upskilling and increasing capability of other Jobcentre Plus staff and employers.

Disability Confident (DC)

A scheme designed to help employers recruit and retain disabled people and people with health conditions for their skills and talent.

Disability Employment Adviser (DEA)

A role at Jobcentre Plus which aims to support DWP colleagues by developing their skills to understand the interaction between individuals, their health and disability and employment, to help to provide more personalised support, tailored to each claimant’s individual needs.

Employer Adviser (EA)

A role in Jobcentre Plus that involves engaging with employers to identify opportunities for claimants and promote DWP initiatives such as Disability Confident and the Small Employer Offer.

Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)

A type of benefit offering financial support to people who are out of work due to long-term illness or disability.

Personal Independence Payment (PIP)

A type of benefit offering financial support to help people aged 16 to 64 with some of the extra costs caused by long-term ill-health or disability (e.g. mobility and/or daily living costs). It is available to those in and out of work.

Reverse job-matching

A process of finding a suitable role for a claimant, by approaching employers about them, rather than presenting a claimant with a list of available roles.

Small Employer Adviser (SEA)

Jobcentre Plus employees who worked with small employers (those with fewer 25 employees) to identify and fill opportunities suitable for claimants with a disability or health condition as part of the Small Employer Offer.

Small Employer Payment (SEP)

A £500 payment given to employers in some areas who employed an eligible claimant through SEO for 12 weeks or longer, for 16 hours or more per week.

Work Coach (WC)

A role in JCP which works with claimants on a one-to-one basis to help them overcome work barriers.

Work Experience

A DWP initiative for claimants who do not have a recent history of work. Claimants volunteer for placements lasting between two and eight weeks and continue to receive benefits.

Work Psychologist (WP)

A role in JCP which provides specialist advice on the implications of specific health conditions or disabilities. Work psychologists provide support to both JCP staff and directly to claimants.

Work Trial

A DWP initiative which offers claimants unpaid work trials that are linked to a paid job vacancy. The potential employee undertakes the job for up to 30 days (duration agreed in advance, typically one week) and continues to receive their benefits. The claimant must meet eligibility conditions and volunteer to take part.

Question 5

Abbreviations

Accepted Answer

Abbreviation	Explanation
AtW	Access to Work
CP	Community Partner
DC	Disability Confident
DEA	Disability Employment Adviser
EA	Employer Adviser
ESA	Employment and Support Allowance
JCP	Jobcentre Plus
JSA	Job Seekers Allowance
PIP	Personal Independence Payment
SEA	Small Employer Adviser
SEP	Small Employer Payment
SME	Small and medium-sized enterprise
UC	Universal Credit
WC	Work Coach
WCA	Work Capability Assessment
WP	Work Psychologist

Question 6

Summary

Accepted Answer

Introduction

This report presents findings from an evaluation of the Small Employer Offer (SEO), a policy delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) between June 2017 and March 2019, to help claimants with disabilities and long-term health conditions move towards and into work. A key part of the SEO was the creation of Small Employer Adviser (SEA) roles, who worked with small employers to identify work placements and job opportunities suitable for claimants with a long-term health condition or disability.

The SEO was part of a more personalised and holistic DWP approach to providing employment support for employers as well as claimants. This initiative aimed to increase engagement activities with small employers, to raise awareness of disability and support businesses to take on claimants with long-term health conditions or disabilities. Reverse job matching was a key element of SEO; SEAs worked with employers to identify jobs, work placements and work trials that were suitable to individual claimants’ needs.

The SEO evaluation consisted of a literature review and primary research; composed of qualitative, in-depth interviews conducted by telephone with Small Employer Advisers (SEAs), other Jobcentre Plus (JCP) staff, small employers (those with fewer than 25 staff) and claimants with health conditions or disabilities, who had been referred to, or started an SEO work opportunity. All employers interviewed had been involved with the SEO.

Academics in the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University undertook a literature review as part of this study. This involved reviewing the existing evidence on: the characteristics and barriers to work for claimants with long-term health conditions or disabilities; previous and current initiatives to support claimants into work; and the attitudes of employers and their role in supporting claimants into work. The evidence is summarised to provide the broader context of the evaluation.

Literature Review

The command paper Improving Lives: The Future of Work, Health and Disability (DWP and Department of Health, 2017) acknowledges that many people with long-term health conditions or disabilities miss out on the opportunity to benefit from the positive outcomes that can be derived from work. Having a more joined up approach to employment support which includes employers is important if the goal of having one million more disabled people in work by the end of 2027 is to be delivered.

The role of employers, as well as individuals and support workers is important. Many employers have very different understandings of the concept of disability and they need support to embed inclusive employment practices. Increasing employers’ awareness of disability may allay some of their fears or misconceptions about employing workers with long-term health conditions or disabilities (Rashid, 2017). Many employers also lack knowledge about relatively simple adaptations or flexible working practices which might be deployed to support workers with health conditions or disabilities to remain in work or take up employment opportunities. In the main, the perceptions of small employers are similar to those seen across all sizes of employers. The overriding concern of most employers is to find someone who they perceive could ‘do the job’ or who was the best person for the job (Davidson, 2011).

However, small employers often worry about the cost implications for their business which might be associated with making adaptations or allowances for an employee with a health condition or disability (Kelly, 2005). Promoting schemes such as Access to Work (AtW) which offers practical advice or financial support to businesses as well as workers may also encourage more small employers to open up job opportunities to people with long-term health conditions or disabilities (Dewson et al., 2009).

The literature review finds supporting evidence that the design of SEO reflected best practice seen in a range of wider initiatives:

the need for individualised support tailored to an individual’s health condition or disability, capabilities and labour market experience
a multi-layered approach, involving a range of specialist professionals working in partnership together, offers a better chance of success
work-trials, work placements and voluntary work are all stepping stones towards entry to paid employment and assist in building confidence in employers as well as clients
finally, careful job matching is key to ensuring that placements for both the client and employer are successful

Key findings

Research with staff

Research with Jobcentre Plus (JCP) staff found that the SEO scheme had been successful in identifying work opportunities from employers but had less success in filling these opportunities because there were limited numbers of work ready eligible claimants.

At the start of the SEO scheme, SEAs focused on employer engagement to generate opportunities. On finding that there were insufficient claimants ready to fill the available opportunities, SEAs increased their focus on helping claimants move closer to the labour market and prepare for work

Their work also included seeking roles to match individual claimants to, a process known as reverse job-matching.

SEAs worked closely with other colleagues to deliver SEO, particularly Employer Advisers (EAs) and Disability Employment Advisers (DEAs).

Research with employers

The research found that employers’ previous experiences of working with someone with a disability or long-term health condition strongly influenced attitudes towards doing so in the future, for the employers interviewed.

Social benefit organisations and charities interviewed were the most positive about recruiting candidates with health conditions or disabilities as this was usually part of their organisational purpose. Their funding models meant they were more likely to provide work placements than paid roles, but they felt able to support those furthest from the labour market to take steps towards paid work.

Employers with experience of working with people with health conditions and disabilities felt that doing so was a positive practice. These employers felt confident accommodating and supporting people with a long-term health condition or disability. However, for private sector employers it was important that any employee was motivated and understood the social norms of a working environment such as good time-keeping and showing initiative. Third sector employers were more likely to feel they could accommodate work placements from claimants who lacked awareness of the social norms of work and help them to learn these.

Private sector employers with no experience of hiring or working with candidates with a long-term health condition or disability were less likely to be confident about doing so in the future. These employers tended to have a narrow view of disability as a physical condition and found it more difficult to see how they could accommodate this.

A lack of experience of hiring someone with a health condition or disability meant it was more effective for JCP to approach this sub-group of employers about a specific candidate than the general concept of hiring someone with a health condition. This focus on a specific candidate helped employers to see how the individual could fit in to their workplace.

Positive employer experiences of SEO starts occurred when they perceived a high standard of job-matching or when the candidate was seen as being interested in the work (regardless of their experience), willing to learn and to fit in to the working environment.

Less successful SEO starts were characterised by placements being too short for the claimant to make a meaningful contribution to the organisation; claimants needing more support than the employer felt able to provide or was available from the SEA and attitudinal barriers from the claimant, for example, poor time-keeping, lack of proactivity or unwillingness to complete tasks. Whilst these attitudes and behaviours could be due to their disability or health condition, particularly for those with a mental health condition, private sector employers felt that they did not have capacity to support claimants in this way and needed work-ready candidates. Social benefit organisation or charities were more willing and able to support claimants who needed support to understand what was expected in the workplace.

Research with claimants

The claimants interviewed had a mix of health conditions, disabilities and levels of work experience, ranging from those with decades of professional experience to those who had never had a job before. However, all claimants had been away from the labour market due to their ill-health for at least a year.

The research found that a claimant’s health condition or disability influenced the type of work they felt able to do, or whether they felt able to work at all.

Their health condition or disability also led to indirect barriers, such as anxiety about re-entering the labour market due to extended time away or a lack of awareness and understanding of the social norms of a workplace. This could lead to a reluctance to accept a work placement/job or risked the experience of the placement being unsuccessful.

SEO was most successful for claimants when they received intensive support, tailored to their personal circumstances, and health condition. Claimants appreciated one-to-one regular and informal guidance from their SEA or work coach and liked seeing the same person as this helped build rapport and trust.

The support from JCP staff which claimants found most helpful depended on their proximity to the labour market. Claimants closer to the labour market preferred support directly related to preparing for work, such as help with CVs, finding and arranging suitable opportunities and accompanying them to interviews. Those further from the labour market reported that the most valuable type of support from JCP was on-going conversations to help them prepare for work and to address specific issues whilst in placements or work.

Claimants felt that the job-matching process needed to be tailored to their interests, skills and health condition and their future career goals. Claimants who had narrow views of the types of roles they would consider, needed help from JCP to see the benefits of different roles including temporary and voluntary placements.

Positive effects of SEO reported by claimants who took up an opportunity through the programme included a sense of achievement, establishing a routine and improvements in confidence and soft skills such as communication and time-keeping.

Claimants also reported that the SEO experience helped motivate them to look for more work and to develop a clearer idea of the type of roles they would like to pursue.

Conclusions

The research with employers suggests that experiences of working with JCP for employers could be improved through better candidate matching, meaning they only receive applications from appropriate candidates. Employers also appreciated regular communication from JCP, preferably with a named contact, and some requested more support before and during placements.

Charities and social benefit organisations have a valuable role in helping claimants move closer to work. Employers interviewed from this group described their commitment and capacity to providing support to candidates furthest from the labour market.

Claimants referred to SEO demonstrated a need for intensive coaching and support to help them prepare to return to the labour market. Support directly related to preparing for work, such as help with CVs and interview skills was beneficial but the claimants particularly benefitted from wider, softer support. For example, conversations about what to expect in the workplace and social norms of being at work, such as good time-keeping and showing initiative. These claimants also benefitted from help to think beyond their current expectations of the type of work which might be suitable for them or which they might be interested in. Future provision may need to allow for this more intensive work before job-matching can begin.

These conclusions dovetail with themes from the literature review about the need to take a holistic approach, working closely with both employers and claimants. The individual needs and preferences of both parties need to be considered in the process of improving employment prospects for those with health conditions or disabilities.

Question 7

1.  Introduction

Accepted Answer

This report presents findings from an evaluation of the Small Employer Offer (SEO) commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

1.1 Background

In 2017, the Department for Work and Pensions and Department of Health released a joint command paper Improving Lives: Work, Health and Disability. The paper acknowledged that many disabled people and people with long-term health conditions face multiple barriers and disadvantages to get into and remain in work. As a consequence, many miss out on the opportunity to benefit from the positive health and well-being outcomes that can be derived from work. The paper set an ambitious goal of having one million more disabled people in work by the end of the ten-year period to 2027. The vision was to create:

a society where everyone is ambitious for disabled people and people with long-term health conditions, and where people understand and act positively upon the important relationship between health, work and disability. (Improving Lives: The Future of Work, Health and Disability DWP and DoH, 2017).

A more joined-up approach across the welfare system, the healthcare system and the workplace was identified as being key to delivery. The paper notes that a more joined-up approach will facilitate tailored support for individuals with long-term health issues or disabilities. The paper also notes that enabling employers as well as individuals is seen as being crucial to success.

From April 2017, a £330 million package of funding was made available over four years to support these aims, known as the Personal Support Package (PSP). The PSP aimed to create transformational change by providing personalised and tailored support for people with disabilities and long-term health conditions and is delivered both by JCP staff and a range of external providers. As part of this package DWP introduced the Small Employer Offer.

1.2 Small Employer Offer

The SEO epitomised the aims of the Improving Lives: The Future of Work, Health and Disability command paper, to develop new ways of delivering employment support services which not only took into account individuals’ health and employment needs but also supported employers’ needs.

The key delivery mechanism for SEO were Small Employer Advisors (SEAs). They worked with small employers and claimants of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and the equivalent Universal Credit (UC) claimants. The SEA role aimed to expand engagement activity with employers with 25 or fewer employees (small employers) and break down preconceived ideas about employing people with long-term health conditions or disabilities. The SEAs encouraged small employers to create job opportunities, work trials and work experience placements which assisted people with long-term health conditions or disabilities to enter work. They advised employers on how they could make reasonable adjustments and adaptations, or how in-work support could be accessed, if a person with a health condition or disability was taken on. SEAs also raised awareness amongst small employers of schemes such as Disability Confident (DC)^{[footnote 1]}, Access to Work (AtW), the Fit for Work Service and the Small Employer Payment^{[footnote 2]} (SEP).

Reverse job-matching was used so that claimants’ health conditions, access needs and employment requirements were taken into account when identifying or creating potential work opportunities. This ensured claimants were matched to appropriate placements, jobs and employers. The SEA supported both the claimants and employers through the recruitment process including offering support for job interviews, induction, mentoring and in-work support. A range of other JCP roles also supported delivery of the SEO. These included:

Disability Employment Advisers (DEAs), who provide expert advice to JCP staff to raise awareness of specific disability issues. DEAs support and upskill work coaches (WCs), Employer Advisers (EAs) and other JCP staff such as Partnership Managers (PMs). They develop local training for WCs, raise awareness of local disability employment support options and advise on referrals for claimants.
Employer Advisers (EAs) support all sizes of business with tailored recruitment services. Their role includes helping employers to provide work trials, sector specific training or work experience for any claimants searching for work via JCP. EAs assist employers to match candidates to job opportunities and access schemes such as DC and AtW.
Community Partners (CPs) were employed by JCP to strengthen the understanding of disability amongst WCs, EAs and other JCP staff. They had lived experience or expert knowledge of disability and helped JCP staff tailor support to claimants’ needs. CPs provided advice, raised awareness, developed local training, highlighted disability employment support options and awareness of AtW.
Work Psychologists (WPs) support “harder to help” claimants and implement psychological interventions to assist them into work. WPs also work with JCP staff to advise them on appropriate support to help their claimants move closer to work.

1.3 Aims and objectives

The purpose of this evaluation was to gain an in-depth and rounded picture of how the Small Employer Offer (SEO) was operating, exploring the effectiveness of the SEO in supporting claimants towards or into work, engaging employers and matching claimants to employers and suitable roles.

As the SEO has now ended this report focuses on the learning that can be taken forward by DWP to inform future provision and engagement with employers and claimants.

There were three stages of research activity. Firstly, a literature review considered existing evidence around the characteristics and barriers to work for claimants with long-term health conditions or disabilities; previous and current initiatives to support claimants into work; and the attitudes of employers and their role in supporting claimants into work. Secondly, qualitative research interviews were conducted with JCP staff (including SEAs), claimants and employers. There were different aims and objectives for each stage of the qualitative research, outlined below.

The JCP staff research considered:

organisation of JCP staff in relation to the SEO
effectiveness of each role and how they worked together to deliver the SEO
JCP staff suggestions for improvements in delivery of the SEO

Following on from this, the research with employers and claimants considered:

claimant attitudes towards work and progression once in work, prior to and after participation in the SEO
employers’ attitudes towards, and experience of, hiring employees with a disability or health condition prior to, and after, participation in the SEO
experiences of employers and claimants including advice and support received from JCP before and after a start in an SEO opportunity
outcomes as a result of the SEO and impact on behaviours and attitudes for both employers and claimants

1.4 Methodology

1.4.1 Literature review

Academics in the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University undertook a literature review as part of this study. This involved reviewing the existing evidence base and summarising the findings to set out the context for this research. This includes an overview of the characteristics and barriers to work for claimants with long-term health conditions or disabilities; previous and current initiatives to support claimants into work; and the attitudes of employers and their role in supporting claimants into work.

1.4.2 Research interviews

A qualitative approach was taken for the research to gain in-depth insight from the different groups involved with SEO.

The interviewees for this research were:

Small Employer Advisors
other Jobcentre Plus staff
employers who had been approached about and involved in the initiative
claimants who had been referred to, or started an SEO work opportunity

A sample of claimants and employers who had participated in the SEO, and JCP staff who had been involved in delivery, were provided by DWP for Ipsos MORI to recruit research participants from. A purposive sampling approach was adopted, whereby key quotas, such as experience of SEO and employers’ sector, for example, were set and participants were recruited according to these, using a screening document. Full details of the quotas are shown in Appendix A.

All interviews were conducted by telephone. Each interview lasted between 45 minutes to an hour and was conducted by an Ipsos MORI researcher using a discussion guide agreed with DWP. Separate discussion guides were developed for each of the four groups (SEAs, JCP staff, claimants and employers).

Small Employer Advisers

In total, 30 Small Employer Adviser (SEAs) were interviewed across 21 JCP districts (which cover local areas), in July 2018.

Other Jobcentre Plus staff

Fifty-five members of wider Jobcentre Plus staff were interviewed across six districts in August and September 2018. Jobcentre Plus roles that were interviewed were:

Disability Employment Advisers (DEAs)
Employer Advisers (EAs)
Work Coaches (WCs)
Community Partners (CPs)
Work Psychologists (WPs)

1.4.3 Employers

Eighty-four small employers were interviewed between January and March 2019. For the purpose of the SEO and this research, small employers were defined as those with 25 employees or fewer.

Quotas were set on the level of employer engagement with the SEO. Secondary variables ensured a mix of sectors, areas and size of employers (fewer than 10 and fewer than 25) were included. Full details of the final sample profile can be found in the Appendix A, Table 1.

1.4.4 Claimants

Twenty-two claimants who had been part of the SEO were interviewed. These claimants all had long-term health conditions or disabilities and were in the Employment Support Allowance Work-Related Activity Group (ESA WRAG) or Universal Credit Limited Capability for Work group. These claimants had undergone a Work Capability Assessment and been assessed as being able to prepare for work. Research interviews were conducted in January and February 2019.

Claimants interviewed had been offered an SEO work opportunity (placement or paid job) and included those who had started and those who had declined the opportunity to participate. The sample included those with a range of health conditions including mental health conditions, learning disabilities and physical health conditions. The final sample profile of claimants can be found in the Appendix A, Table 2.

1.4.5 Analysis and interpretation of data

The interview data were analysed using a robust inductive^{[footnote 3]} framework approach, as part of which the data was synthesised thematically and interrogated for patterns and relationships.

Qualitative research is illustrative, detailed and exploratory. It seeks to understand not only what people think and do but why this is the case. The volume and richness of the data generated allows for a detailed picture to be developed of the range and diversity of views, feelings and behaviours and this can be used to develop new concepts and theories. The findings in this report are intended to provide insight into the views of different SEO stakeholders but the purposive nature with which the sample was drawn and small number of interviews conducted means that they cannot be considered representative of these populations as a whole.

Question 8

2. 	Literature review

Accepted Answer

This chapter provides contextual information relevant to the implementation of the SEO. It summarises key evidence from academic literature, government and third sector policy documents and administrative data to help to situate the findings emerging from the SEO evaluation. The following themes were explored:

trends in disability benefit receipt and employment rates; barriers to work amongst people with long-term health conditions or disabled people
historic and current initiatives, at both national and local levels, which seek to support people with health conditions or disabilities into work
employers’ attitudes, support needs and experiences of employing people with long-term health conditions or disabilities

The SEO sat within DWP’s wider policy framework that takes a holistic approach to working with employers and claimants, reflecting the ethos of Improving Lives: The Future of Work, Health and Disability.

2.1 Disability benefit receipt and barriers to work amongst people with long-term health conditions or disabilities

2.1.1 Background

Substantial jobs growth following the 2008/09 recession led to record high employment rates and claimant unemployment^{[footnote 4]} falling to pre-recession levels in recent years (Figure 1). Whilst non-disabled claimant unemployment (Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) and Universal Credit (UC) equivalent) has been responsive to the economic cycle, the trend in ESA and equivalent benefits^{[footnote 5]} has not. Successive government policy documents acknowledge that these are issues that need to be tackled (21st Century Welfare DWP, 2010; and Improving Lives: The Future of Work, Health and Disability DWP and DoH, 2017). The government has recognised that raising employment rates amongst people with long-term health conditions or disabilities, as well as supporting them to remain in work, is seen as important to raising productivity in the workforce and supporting economic growth (DWP & DoH, 2017, p14).

Figure 1: Working age claimant unemployment and claimants on ESA or equivalent benefits, Great Britain, 1979-2018

Source: DWP administrative data^{[footnote 6]}

2.1.2 The benefits system for claimants with health conditions or disabilities

The benefits system for claimants with health conditions or disabilities underwent a number of changes in the past decade. In 2008, ESA replaced Incapacity Benefit (IB) for new claimants unable to work due to ill health or disability. Under ESA claimants are required to undertake a Work Capability Assessment (WCA). If as a result of the WCA, the claimant is deemed to be unable to work on health grounds they are allocated to one of two groups:

ESA Work Related Activity Group (ESA WRAG) - claimants are expected to undertake some preparation towards moving into work
ESA Support Group - benefit receipt is unconditional for this group of claimants who are assessed as having the most severe health conditions or disabilities and are not required to undertake any work related activity, but can do so on a voluntary basis

Recent welfare reform includes the introduction of Universal Credit (UC) (DWP, 2015). After a WCA, UC claimants with long-term health conditions or disabilities are allocated to one of two conditionality groups:

Limited Capability for Work (LCW) - equivalent to ESA WRAG. Claimants are not expected to look for work but are expected to take steps to prepare for work
Limited Capability for Work and Work Related Activity (LCWRA) - equivalent to the ESA Support Group. Claimants are not required to undertake any work related activity.

2.1.3 The Disability Employment Gap

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) defines being disabled as having “a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”. The Equality Act 2010 (EA) defines being disabled as having “a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities”.

Ill health or disability is not always an insurmountable obstacle to employment. However, over the course of a year, disabled people who are in work are twice as likely to move out of work than non-disabled people (10% versus 5%); and if they are out of work they are nearly three times less likely to move into work than non-disabled people (10% versus 26%) (DWP and DoH, 2017, pp.82-83).

Consequently, disabled employment rates are much lower than for non-disabled people. The difference between the two is known as the ‘disability employment gap’. A number of recommendations, including the importance of supporting employers, were made in the Disability Employment Gap written by the Work and Pensions Committee in 2017:

The government will struggle to achieve its objective if it cannot bring employers on board, and enhance in-work support. Employment opportunities must be opened up to more disabled people and employers helped to see how taking on disabled people, and retaining employees who become disabled, could be good for their businesses. Some employers may need additional financial support and incentives to take on disabled people, and a great many could benefit from access to more practical, tailored, specialist advice at the point of need.” (Disability Employment Gap, House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, 2017, p.3).

The ONS Annual Population Survey indicates that progress has been made in increasing the number of disabled people in employment and reducing the disability employment gap:

between 2013 to 2014 and 2017 to 2018 disabled employment rates increased by 5.8 percentage points to 51.1% in Great Britain
this compared to a 3.1 percentage point increase to 80.8% in the non-disabled employment rate between 2013 to 2014 and 2017 to 2018
the national disability employment gap reduced over the period by 2.7 percentage points to 29.7%
in 2017 to 2018, disability employment rates were highest in the South East, South West and East regions and the lowest in the North East, Wales and Scotland; ranging from 58.4% in the South East to 44.3% in the North East
in 2017 to 2018, the disability employment gap was nearly 20 percentage points higher in the North East (44.3%) than in the South East (24.1%) or South West (25.2%)

2.1.4 Barriers to work for people with health conditions and disabilities

Even with strong economic growth, multiple challenges exist to re-engaging claimants with health conditions or disabilities with the labour market (Beatty and Fothergill, 2013). Extensive literature highlights a number of common barriers to work for this group including poor health, skills, qualifications and the lack of recent labour market experience.

Health conditions and disability

An Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded survey of 3,500 incapacity benefits claimants in Britain undertaken in 2008 found that 80% reported that their health limited their ability to work ‘a lot’ or that they ‘couldn’t do any work’; around half expected their health condition to deteriorate; and only 5% expected it to get better (Beatty et al., 2009). Three-quarters of respondents who said that they would like a job thought that employers would regard them as ‘too ill or disabled’ or ‘too big a risk’ to employ.

Employees with disabilities or health conditions tend to have limited awareness of their rights in terms of reasonable adjustments (Adams and Oldfield, 2012). This study also found that employees’ judgements are often based on what they feel their employer will be able to afford and they state that smaller companies may be impacted more negatively than larger ones.

Perception of health was found to be an “overwhelmingly important” factor in determining whether participants in the Pathways to Work programme returned to work (Becker et al., 2010). Participants in this study most frequently cited poor health as a barrier to work and those with ‘good or improving’ health were far more likely to return to work. Oakley (2016) found that those with an improving health condition are twice as likely to move into work.
The negative impact of disability also affected the quality of employment individuals accessed (Konrad et al., 2013). This issue is not merely confined to the UK; thus, a review of the empirical evidence on disability and the labour market across European countries, America and Australia concluded:

Regardless of country, data source or time period disability serves to reduce labour market prospects.” (Jones, 2008, p.405).

Mental health conditions

The Annual Population Survey indicates an increasing proportion of claimants report mental and behavioural health conditions: rising from 35% of claimants in 2000, to 43% in 2007 and 51% in 2018. A detailed analysis of the differential employment outcomes of individuals indicated that those with a mental health condition were around 30% less likely to move into work than those with other health conditions or disabilities (Oakley, 2016). Many other studies also highlight poor mental health as a key barrier to work (Hale, 2014; Benstead and Nock, 2016). Claimants often face complex multiple mental health issues, such as depression or anxiety, in addition to a primary diagnosis for a physical health condition (Kemp and Davidson, 2010; Lindsay and Dutton, 2012).

Evidence suggests that greater awareness of mental health issues and better recruitment practices are needed amongst employers. A DWP study of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) found that small employers are sometimes reluctant to employ people with a mental health condition (Davidson, 2011). Some of the SMEs interviewed also voiced concerns that this might be difficult to manage in their workplace.

Multiple disadvantage in the labour market

Additional factors known to be associated with lower employment rates are prevalent amongst people with long-term health conditions or disabilities. These include: having an older age profile; low skills or qualifications; previous employment in a manual job; long-term detachment from the labour market; and lack of experience or relevant experience for the types of jobs which are available (Beatty and Fothergill, 2012; 2013). A short summary of key evidence is presented here.

Age

ESA claimants have an older age profile than the population; half are aged 50-64 compared to 26% of JSA or UC equivalent claimants or 30% of working age population as a whole (DWP Benefits Data, NOMIS and Stat-Xplore; ONS mid-year population estimates, 2018).

In the UK, older people with work-limiting conditions are less likely to move into work than younger people (Oakley, 2016).

Qualifications and skills

A DWP survey of disabled people claiming Job Seekers Allowance (JSA), ESA or IB indicates that 41% of disabled people seeking work reported a lack of qualifications/skills/experience as a barrier to work (Cole, 2013).

2015 LFS data for GB indicates that 27% of ESA claimants aged 18-64 had no qualifications; this compares with 19% of JSA claimants, and 5% of employed people (Beatty et al., 2016).

Individuals with work-limiting health conditions or disabilities and who have low (below A Level) or no qualifications are less likely to move into work (43%) compared to those with higher qualifications (61%) (Oakley, 2016).

50% of ESA claimants’ previous employment was in a low skill job; this compares with 28% of those currently in employment (Beatty et al., 2016).

Duration out of work

Two-thirds of ESA or UC equivalent claimants have been on benefit for over two years compared to 10% of JSA claimants (DWP, 2016).

Those with work-limiting health conditions or disabilities who have been out of work for less than six months are eight times more likely to move into work than those out of work for over five years (Oakley, 2016).

2.2 Historic employment support initiatives for claimants with health conditions or disabilities

2.2.1 Background

Various employment support initiatives for those with health conditions or disabilities have been tried and tested at different points in time. Previous initiatives tended to emphasise enhancing employability through traditional employment support and, at times, this was combined with health interventions. More recently, there has been a move towards tailoring support to meet not only individual needs but increasingly the needs of the employer. These include initiatives that offset additional costs borne by an individual or employer in order to support a transition into work. Other initiatives aim to raise awareness amongst employers of the benefits of employing disabled people. This section provides a brief overview of both historical and recent initiatives.

2.2.2 Previous national DWP initiatives

A brief overview of previous national DWP initiatives relevant to the SEO is provided below.

New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP)

Introduced nationally from 2001, this voluntary programme operated through a network of Job Brokers to support employers and help people move into sustained employment. The evaluation reports indicate that NDDP had mixed success with employers in terms of building sustained relationships with them and was more targeted at supporting the individuals enrolled on the programme (Aston et al., 2005).

Pathways to Work (PtW)

This initiative, piloted in 2003 and launched in 2007, sought to address the health‐related and personal barriers of claimants with long-term health conditions or disabilities to help them move closer to work. PtW included compulsory work-focussed interviews plus a range of voluntary options, including training, referral to NDDP; and a back-to-work credit of £40 a week for the first year for those entering low-paid employment. Another voluntary element of PtW was the Condition Management Programme (CMP) which emphasised awareness, reassurance and advice rather than directly treating health conditions (Kellett et al., 2011). There is some evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) used within the CMP element of PtW had some positive effects on participants’ well-being, perceptions of health, confidence and readiness to work but the findings for positive employment outcomes is less clear-cut and moving directly into paid employment was not a common outcome (Dibben et al., 2012 Secker et al., 2012; Nice and Davidson, 2010). Overall, there is mixed evidence on the degree to which PtW and the CMP element was successful (Bewley et al., 2008; National Audit Office, 2010; Beatty et al., 2013).

Work Programme (WP)

The WP replaced PtW in 2011 and provided support for the long-term unemployed as well as incapacity benefit claimants. It supported claimants’ labour market activity (such as job search) and tackled employability issues, such as skills gaps. The DWP evaluation of WP (Newton et al., 2013) suggests that in the early years of the WP contract providers made little effort to deliver sophisticated or specialist services to claimants with health conditions or disabilities. However, more specialist services were developed over time. The slower rate at which incapacity benefit claimants found work compared to the unemployed claimants also influenced the contractors’ targeting of resources (ERSA, 2013).

Work Choice (WC)

WC was introduced in 2010 as a specialist disability employment programme for those who could not be supported through mainstream employment programmes. WC provided a flexible programme of personalised pre- and in-work support for claimants, the use of the ‘place and train’ model of supported employment, and support for employers which included financial incentives for some. The initial evaluation indicates that widening employer engagement activities was seen as important and that employers were positive about the support they received. Many employers suggested that they would probably not have employed claimants without the support received and that this was necessary to maintain ongoing employment (Purvis et.al., 2013).

2.2.3 Local initiatives

Local initiatives have often tested more joined-up local approaches to delivery with employment support services, employers and other partners as well as testing financial incentives for employers. Some examples of local initiatives with detailed evaluations are explored below.

Northern Way Worklessness Pilots

The Northern Way was a collaboration of three northern Regional Development Agencies. They initiated a programme of local interventions between 2005 and 2008 in ten areas with high incapacity benefits rates. Participation was voluntary. Some pilots adopted a ‘health-centred’ approach whilst others opted for an ‘employment-focused’ approach. Pilots sought to enhance skills, enable volunteering, boost confidence and improve social interaction skills of claimants.

The evaluation concluded that flexible and creative approaches that were attuned to local circumstances assisted incapacity benefits claimants to move towards employment. A combined health and employment-related approach which was tailored to individual needs was seen as the most beneficial model (ECOTEC Research and Consulting, 2009). The evaluation highlighted successful aspects of employer engagement and support, many of which echo features embedded within the SEO. These include:

raising awareness amongst employers about the benefits of employing people with health conditions and reassuring them around specific concerns were both essential first steps to getting them on board
making use of existing employer engagement activity infrastructure rather than duplicating established approaches
work tasters and placements, and in work transitional support were valuable for both the prospective employee and the employer
initial wage subsidies can also persuade some employers (and especially SMEs) to take on claimants with health conditions or disabilities

Aim High Routeback

A detailed local evaluation was undertaken of the Aim High Routeback initiative which was one of the Northern Way Worklessness Pilots in Easington (Frontline, 2008). This initiative deployed a ‘health-first’ approach involving partnership working between health professionals and employment support professionals. One in three of the claimants subsequently found work which was well above the average for the Northern Way pilots as a whole. Success factors included the voluntary nature of the scheme, the flexibility of support available and the team-based approach to delivery.

Project Search

Project Search programmes run in over 40 localities across the UK and focus on working with employers to provide supported internships for people with learning disabilities. If a suitable ‘job match’ takes place, then claimants have the opportunity to be employed on a more permanent basis.

The UK evaluation covered 17 projects and suggests that around half of the claimants moved into paid employment (Kaehne, 2016). Projects appeared to work less well with small employers who had limited capacity and resources to: develop positive relationships with the interns; work alongside external job coaches; or the ability to offer a permanent post at the end of the training period.

2.2.4 Summary

The evidence from previous national programmes and local initiatives in the UK is mixed both in terms of approaches taken and employment outcomes achieved. There are some common themes which emerge over time from across the evidence. First, holistic approaches which are delivered by a range of professionals from different disciplines working in partnership tend to be viewed more positively by claimants. Often this includes those delivering psychological therapies, health professionals, and employment support workers. Second, individualised support which is tailored to a participant’s health condition or disability, capabilities and labour market experience rather than a ‘job first’ approach are viewed as being more beneficial to both claimants and employers. Third, increasing employer engagement and support for the employer, including after a placement has been made, is seen in a positive light. Specifically targeting SMEs for support is not mentioned by any of the interventions and there is almost no evidence on the effectiveness of interventions in relation to the size of employer. Finally, the range of schemes demonstrate that, even with support, delivering sustained employment outcomes for claimants with long-term health conditions or disabilities is difficult. Claimants often require long-term and intensive support to achieve a job outcome. However, targeted interventions often achieve wider benefits such as an improvement to the health and well-being of the claimants.

2.3 Current national initiatives which include employer engagement

There are a number of current initiatives which aim to build on lessons learnt from previous schemes by taking a more holistic and individualised approach to employment support. They aim to increase engagement with employers as well as offering support to individuals in order to increase employment amongst disabled people or those with long-term health conditions.

Work and Health Programme (WHP)

The WHP provides targeted contracted employment provision to offer more intensive, tailored support to meet individuals’ needs. The scheme replaces WP and WC and is voluntary^{[footnote 7]} for new ESA WRAG or UC equivalent claimants (House of Commons Library, 2018a). It was launched in November 2017 and takes a joined-up approach to provision to tackle the labour market and health barriers of claimants. Employer engagement is increasingly recognised as an essential component of WHP. This includes developing relationships with employers to open up job opportunities to people with health conditions or disabilities as well as supporting employers to increase retention of claimants with health issues they take on through the scheme.

Disability Confident (DC)

Launched in 2016, DC supports employers to gain the techniques, skills and confidence they need to recruit, retain and develop people with long-term health conditions or disabled people in the workforce. As of September 2019, 13,600 organisations were signed up to the scheme. The three levels of engagement include:

being ‘Committed’ to follow good practice and take actions that make a difference
‘Employer’ organisations complete an action-focused self-assessment taking on ‘core actions’ and at least one ‘activity’
and ‘Leader’ organisations are validated by a third party and act as a champion for disability employment within the local and business communities

A survey of DC employers found that half had recruited one or more individuals with a disability or long-term health condition as a result of joining the scheme (DWP, 2018). However, smaller employers were less likely to have done this than larger organisations: 30 % of micro-employers, compared with 47 % of small employers, 50 % of medium employers and 66 % of large employers^{[footnote 8]}.

Overall, 88 % of employers reported that they had made changes to their recruitment practices for disabled people as a result of joining the scheme. A quarter said that they were unlikely to have made these changes without DC; rising to a third for micro employers, suggesting it was particularly important for small businesses. Smaller employers were also more likely to report that they had to started implementing practices and activities within the following 12 months.

Access to Work (AtW)

Access to Work provides advice and a financial grant for practical support to help people overcome work related barriers due to disability. It is available to people with a disability or health condition who are already in paid employment or those about to start or return to paid employment. AtW provision includes individual assessments which explore workplace barriers to employment and recommend how these can be overcome. For some, this results in provision of advice and/or a grant which helps with the cost of practical support for both the employee and the employer. Access to Work statistics show that in 2018/2019, 32,010 people received AtW provision a 15% increase from 2017/2018.

Evaluation evidence shows that smaller employers were less aware of AtW than larger ones, and that employers learnt a lot from the assessment process about how to make reasonable adjustments (Sayce, 2011; Dewson et al., 2009). Employers felt that raising awareness of AtW amongst small employers would help to allay their fears about the costs of employing someone with a long-term health condition or disability (Dewson et al., 2009).
DWP qualitative research on AtW indicates that both employers and individuals were mostly positive about the scheme (Adams et al., 2018). Employers reported that they had employed staff with health conditions or disabilities that they may not have without the scheme and that this was especially notable amongst small employers. DWP research indicates that costs for adjustments due to limited cash flow may be an issue for some small employers (Dewson et al., 2009). Small businesses could also benefit from a more flexible approach to AtW which may include part-funding of cover for significant periods of sick leave for employees with fluctuating conditions (Sayce, 2011). People with disabilities or health conditions who had claimed AtW and were working in SMEs reported supportive, rewarding and trusting relationships with their employers (Adams and Oldfield, 2012).

2.4 The role of employers

2.4.1 Background

Support to assist people with health conditions or disabled people into work often focuses on supply-side initiatives such as improving skills or job search activities (Cornell University Employment and Disability Institute, 2013). The role of employers and demand-side barriers which impede disabled people from progressing into paid work are often overlooked (Lindsay and Houston, 2011). However, research shows that employer recruitment practices; stigma and discrimination; physical challenges around access; and availability of suitably flexible job opportunities also act as barriers to work (Roulstone and Barnes, 2005; Barnes et al., 2010). There is an increasing recognition that employers have an important role to play if disability employment rates are to be increased:

The Government has little prospect of halving the disability employment gap unless employers are fully committed to taking on and retaining more disabled people. (House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, 2017, p.41)

Evidence on employer attitudes, barriers to employing people with long-term health conditions or disabilities, and their support needs are now considered. However, it should be noted that the evidence tends to refer to employers in general rather than specifically in relation to the size of the business. A DWP qualitative study of SMEs attitudes confirms this:

..despite the prevalence of SMEs in the UK economy, relatively little is known about their recruitment procedures and how these might relate to the employment of disabled people. (Davidson, 2011, p.1)

2.4.2 Employer attitudes

Numerous studies explore employer attitudes in relation to recruitment practices, retention polices or employment of people with specific types of health conditions. The evidence is relatively mixed depending on the size of employer, type of employment and type of health condition or disability. A DWP commissioned survey of employers (Young and Bhaumik, 2011) indicates:

nearly nine out of ten employers recognised that they have a role to play in encouraging health and wellbeing amongst their staff
many employers actively supported staff at risk of leaving work but only just over half agreed that the financial benefits outweigh the costs
this was particularly the case for SMEs, who were less likely to provide occupational health services to employees: only 16% of micro employers and 33 % of small employers provided access to occupational health services compared to 85% of large employers

Employer concerns include the possibility that future health difficulties may result in financial pressures for the business. Having a better understanding of the health issues faced by employees may allay their concerns about the scale or costs of adaptations that might be needed (Rashid et al., 2017). A study on mental health and employment confirms employers are generally open to taking on employees with mental health conditions but that larger employers find it easier to make adaptations (Sainsbury et al., 2008).

2.4.3 Small and medium sized employers

DWP commissioned a study on SME attitudes and recruitment procedures for disabled people or people with long-term health conditions (Davidson, 2011). The resultant literature review highlighted that for SMEs barriers to recruiting disabled staff include:

perceptions that disabled people may be more of a health and safety risk than non-disabled people
perceptions that disabled people may be less productive than non-disabled people; that efficiency may be reduced; and that there may be disruption in the workplace especially for those with ‘severe’ impairments
narrow perceptions of disabled workers, i.e. as wheelchair users (Disability Rights Commission, 2004)
a reluctance to challenge discriminatory attitudes of wider staff (Duckett, 2000)
concerns about making workplace adjustments, e.g. financial implications and resentment from other staff (Kelly et al., 2005)

The study also included qualitative interviews with 30 SMEs which indicate that their perceptions reflect similar views voiced by other sized businesses in previous studies. Some used relatively narrow definitions of disability associating it with physical conditions, whilst others included all health conditions or degrees of severity. This echoes findings from a systematic review which highlights small employers’ wide ranging views on disability (Beyer and Beyer, 2017). The respondents within the Davidson study depict common concerns as:

lacking awareness and knowledge of health conditions which makes it difficult to judge whether an applicant can perform tasks associated with a specific role
their preference to reduce hours worked to help disabled employees cope in the workplace, rather than changing the range of tasks involved in a given role
worries about fluctuating conditions which may result in unpredictability, absence, disruption to workplace routines or managing rest of the workforce
the costs involved in making adaptations and/or purchasing appropriate equipment for one recruit or that this might be wasted if the person left their post
uncertainties due to: the suitability of the built environment; risks to productivity; risks to the disabled person, other staff or customers - especially where the work was considered to be relatively dangerous; and wider cost implications

The main concern of most employers in the study was to find someone who they perceived could ‘do the job’ or who is the best person for the job. Many employers agreed that disabled workers can be as productive as non-disabled workers, provided they are in the right job. In general, SMEs focused on attaining flexibility, maintaining productivity, lowering their costs and increasing profit margins by finding the best person for the job. Some SMEs recognised the benefits of employing disabled people including: bringing diversity and a different viewpoint, enhancing employer reputation, showing employers’ commitment to staff. Some SMEs felt that larger employers would be better placed to take on disabled workers as they could exploit greater economies of scale and a greater volume of job vacancies.

SMEs within the study indicated a range of ways that they could be supported including:

matching disabled applicants with suitable opportunities
information on health conditions and capabilities of applicants
education for wider workforce to prevent discrimination
work trials to assess capability and suitability
financial help for the business for adaptations or specialist equipment
increasing awareness of DWP policy initiatives amongst SMEs

2.4.4 Supporting employers to employ people with developmental disabilities

The role of employers in achieving successful employment outcomes with disabled candidates is frequently overlooked (Nicholas et al., 2015) but several studies highlight the benefits of supporting employers to employ people with developmental disabilities. Canadian research shows that this can be instrumental in helping individuals with developmental disabilities to gain employment (Rashid et al., 2017). This includes using employment support workers in building employer capacity to assist people with autism to transition into and maintain work.

Close liaison between employment support workers and employers is associated with better outcomes. Claimants with employers who received employment support had higher salaries, greater job progression, and were employed for longer than those with employers not receiving support (Nicholas et al., 2015). Successful support strategies include building on existing relationships with employers, maintaining contact and listening to employer concerns after hire, as well as providing job coaching to the individual (Migliore et al., 2012).

A British systematic review highlights the benefits of supporting employers to take on people with learning disabilities (Beyer and Beyer, 2017). The evidence indicates employers have limited awareness of disability and may be resistant to hiring people with learning disabilities. Concerns are associated with the perceived additional costs of: hiring; making reasonable adjustments or accommodations; additional supervision; loss of productivity; difficulty in carrying out job terminations if needed; and potential employees having skill deficits (Peck and Kirkbride, 2001; Konrad et al., 2013).

Positive disability employment outcomes stem from specific employment support services which engage positively with the worker and the employer (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2001). Support which continues in the workplace remains important in delivering positive work experiences. Employers with experience of employing people with a learning disability (including work placements) are more positive in valuing their contribution to the company.

2.4.5 Financial incentives for employers

Many small employers voice concerns about additional costs which may be associated with employing staff with long-term health conditions or disabilities (Davidson 2011). Potentially, financial support which offsets these costs may provide an incentive for some to offer work opportunities to disabled workers. However, the evidence that this works is relatively mixed. Whilst some SMEs report that financial help to offset these costs may be beneficial, many express an overriding concern is to get the right person who could ‘do the job’ and meet their business needs. Small employers state that for employment or a placement to work, the right job needs to be available which is appropriate for the candidate. These factors appear to outweigh the potential for financial incentives. The Routes to Work initiative in Barrow was part of the Northern Way Pilots and included a substantial six month jobs subsidy. Again, employers stressed the crucial importance of people’s aptitude and attitude for the job on offer (ECOTEC Research and Consulting, 2009). On the whole, employers thought that a wage subsidy would not make a difference to their decision to employ somebody. A small number of respondents expressing an interest in a wage subsidy thought it could be useful to cover a high-risk initial training period or as a means of offering short-term work placements. However, those who took part in the initiative were almost all large firms (or branches of bigger organisations operating nationwide).

There does not appear to be clear evidence on the benefits of financial support offered to some employers or the use of a wage incentive for young people within the Work Choice programme (Purvis et. al., 2013). One Work Choice provider offered incentives in various forms, including a payment of £500 for employers who employed a participant. However, this had not been taken up and as a result they had steered away from using financial incentives.

A study of wage subsidies for disabled workers in Sweden (Gustafsson et al., 2014) indicates that employer attitudes and matching candidates to appropriate positions are important factors in determining whether financial incentives work. Employers with positive earlier experiences of people with disabilities were more willing to consider people with disabilities for jobs, but for hiring to take place, there must also be a match between the right person and the right job. Employers saw substantial wage subsidies (in this case up to 80 % of the wages) as important and stated they would probably not have hired the person without it. All employers emphasised the advantages of cheaper labour and the subsidy was seen as compensation for reduced productivity. This was especially the case amongst small employers as the overall wage reduction offered by a substantial wage subsidy was seen as extremely important to offer them a competitive edge.

2.4.6 Reverse job matching

The SEO offered a personalised approach to working with the claimant and employer to reverse job match candidates to employers which could offer opportunities that are appropriate to the individual’s health condition, experience, needs and interests. The SEA may have approached an employer that they already had a relationship with and who they knew was open to the idea of offering an opportunity to a person with long-term health condition or disability. Alternatively, the SEA may have sought out a potential employer in a particular sector and engaged with them to see if they were open to offering a placement or work experience to a disabled claimant.

There is relatively limited literature available on the benefits of reverse job matching especially in relation to small employers. However, many of the studies discussed here stress the importance of ensuring that an appropriate job match, which is suitable to both the employer and the claimant, is needed if a placement is to be successful. This view is proffered in many instances by both employers and employment support workers. Small employers report that having support which matches disabled applicants with suitable job opportunities is an important requisite of any successful placement (Davidson, 2011). Careful job matching is a key feature of successful projects which offer tailored employment support for jobseekers with mental health conditions and learning difficulties (Roulstone et. al., 2014). Finding a suitable ‘job match’ is also seen as the basis for work placements to have the potential to turn into more permanent positions (Kaehne, 2016). A Swedish study of wage subsidies for disabled workers (Gustafsson et al., 2014) also highlighted the importance of matching candidates to appropriate positions if placements are to be successful.

2.4.7 Summary

The role of employers is frequently overlooked in the design of employment initiatives which support people with long-term health conditions or disabilities into work. And yet the research considered here indicates that employer recruitment practices, stigma and discrimination, employers concerns about additional costs or productivity of staff, and the willingness of employers to offer suitable or flexible job opportunities can all act as barriers to work for this group. Therefore, there is an increasing recognition that more holistic approaches which include employers are needed if disability employment rates are to be increased. Existing research highlights that there are a number of approaches that may be beneficial. These include - increased engagement with employers to raise awareness and understanding of health conditions and disabilities faced by potential employees. Assisting employers to understand how relatively straightforward adaptations can be made to support an employee, and supporting them with the costs involved, may also allay their concerns about the scale or costs of adaptations that might be required. The importance of matching candidates to suitable job opportunities is also shown to be beneficial to employers and helps meet their primary concerns that they get the right candidate who can do the job. Evidence on small employers specifically is relatively lacking. However, most of the attitudes identified amongst SMEs seem similar to those of employers in general. However, due to their size, they frequently voice concerns about their capacity to absorb additional costs, provide additional support or manage the impact of fluctuating health conditions all of which may make them risk adverse and deter them from employing staff with long-term health conditions or disabilities.

Question 9

3. 	Research with Jobcentre Plus staff

Accepted Answer

This chapter presents findings from research with JCP staff; with SEAs and other members of JCP staff: Employment Advisors (EAs), Disability Employment Advisors (DEAs), Work Coaches (WCs), Work Psychologists (WPs) and Community Partners (CPs).

This chapter discusses the purpose of the SEO and the SEA role and the roles and relationships between other JCP colleagues in relation to the delivery of the SEO.

3.1 The SEA role and delivery of the SEO

The SEA role was created to work with small employers to identify work placement and job opportunities for claimants with disabilities and/or long-term health conditions. There were approximately three SEAs in each JCP district when the research was conducted^{[footnote 9]}.

The SEA role changed over time. They began with an initial focus on employer engagement, to generate employment opportunities. However, SEAs reported identifying more work placement and job opportunities than there were claimants eligible and ready to take these up. As a result, their focus shifted more towards supporting claimants to move closer to the labour market and increased reverse job-matching.

Through reverse job-matching, SEAs sought roles based on claimants’ interests and skills, rather than matching claimants to existing roles. SEAs felt this approach increased the likelihood of the claimant taking up the role and was seen as creating a better impression on employers than sourcing roles which they then may not have anyone to fill. In some cases this led SEAs to approaching larger employers if a suitable opportunity was not available from small employers.

SEAs also started providing intensive employment support for claimants as they felt this was a gap in JCP provision for this claimant group. There were two reasons for this; firstly, SEAs perceived that work coaches did not always have the skills or capacity to provide the intensive support they felt these claimants needed. Secondly, SEAs suggested that changes to the role of the DEA were a factor because DEAs were no longer working directly with claimants^{[footnote 10]}. In response to this perceived gap in support for claimants, SEAs took on additional claimant facing responsibilities to support their wider team. In time, SEAs described their role as a being a conduit between employers and claimants; a means of helping claimants with health issues and disabilities to get into work and to promote other DWP initiatives such as Disability Confident to employers.

There was a relationship between how SEAs perceived their current role and the previous role they had held at JCP. For example, an SEA who had previously had an employer facing role, such as an EA, might focus more on the employer aspect of the SEO. Those who had previously been in a claimant facing role focused more on claimants. Other SEAs described an equal focus on both parties. These differences are reflected in the quotes below:

I see the Small Employer Offer as a way of helping people with health issues and disabilities to get them into work. (SEA)

For me the SEO is being the in-between link for client and the employer. (SEA)

The Small Employer Offer is to promote Disability Confident to smaller employers locally. (SEA)

[The] SEO is a bespoke tailored service for employers who have less than 25 staff and working with disadvantaged customers with health conditions or disabilities who are claiming certain types of benefits. (SEA)

As well as each SEA bringing their own skills and perspective to the role, some felt that at the outset of the SEO rollout they were not clear on specifically how the role was to be delivered and how it fitted with other JCP roles.

This meant that SEAs interpreted their role in a way that fitted with their individual skills and the needs they perceived in their local area such as local claimant needs and local labour market characteristics.

Tasks carried out by SEAs included:

promoting and marketing the SEO – including developing marketing materials, holding awareness sessions and communicating the SEO to other JCP staff
supporting referrals to the SEO – working with WCs when eligible claimants were referred to SEO opportunities, meeting claimants and arranging three-way meetings with themselves, the claimant and WC
working with employers – finding suitable vacancies for specific claimants and offering ongoing support to employers once claimants were in post, as necessary. Strategies used to engage employers included direct approaches such as attending job fairs, cold-calling local businesses and attending community events
working with claimants – flexible, informal and regular contact with claimants to help them prepare for work; offering interview support; encouraging work experience or trials; providing and/ or signposting them to advice, support and training; supporting job searches; facilitating contact with employers and providing in work support

3.2 Relationships between SEAs and other JCP roles

SEAs worked closely with other JCP roles in the delivery of the SEO. SEAs worked with WCs for claimant referrals and the SEO delivery; EAs when approaching and engaging with employers and DEAs to support claimants with their health conditions or disabilities. Figure 3 below illustrates how the roles at JCP worked together to deliver the SEO.

Figure 2: Joint working pathways between SEAs and other roles

Effective joint working was characterised by strong relationships and regular communication between the different job roles. Successful methods for joint working included three-way interviews between claimants, the WC and the SEA; visiting employers with EAs and case conferencing with other colleagues. SEAs also promoted their role and the SEO internally and externally. For example, they gave presentations to other JCP staff to promote their role; attended events such as job fairs and health and disability fairs and participated in local and regional meetings with other SEAS and/or other JCP staff.

We work closely, share workload and it is important for me to work together with other employer advisers. We have communication, team meetings with them. We talk about good news stories. (SEA)

Less effective joint working between SEAs and other JCP staff was a result of more competitive atmospheres and poor communication. In these circumstances, a lack of awareness about and understanding of the SEA’s purpose further contributed to a sense of duplication of roles.

The EAs felt threatened initially – they couldn’t understand why [SEAs] had been brought in and felt that this [role] was being done already. (SEA)

Question 10

4. 	Research with employers

Accepted Answer

This chapter explores how employers’ previous experiences of hiring people with a long-term health condition or disability impacted their current views; and how their prior experiences of working with Jobcentre Plus relate to their perceptions and experiences of the SEO. Finally, the chapter examines employers’ awareness and experiences of the SEO initiative.

4.1 Employers’ views of employing people with a health condition or disability

From the sample of employers interviewed, previous experiences of employing people with long-term health conditions or disabilities strongly influenced their attitudes towards doing so in the future. Analysis showed that experiences of, and attitudes towards employing people with a long-term health condition or disability was also strongly related to employer type.

The following descriptions are not intended to be a comprehensive segmentation of employers. Instead, they are groups of employers emerging from the interviews who had similar characteristics affecting their experiences, or lack of, and views of hiring disabled people. It is also important to note that these organisations exist within the study population, which was not designed to be representative of the wider employer population.

These organisations were oriented towards a social cause and included community and advocacy groups; social care and mental health organisations and others aimed at supporting homeless people, the elderly, ex-offenders, those with a visual impairment, autism and other disabilities.

These organisations were strongly positive about hiring people with a long-term health condition or disability and had extensive experience doing so. This was grounded in their company policies, values and purpose. There were examples of this being driven by the business owner who had experience of a long-term health condition or disability themselves.

There has been a history and culture of the organisation to welcome anybody as a volunteer. The majority of our volunteers are learning challenged. We do welcome people who have additional needs as long as we have the capacity to support and supervise them safely as necessary. It is part of our charity objective to work with the vulnerable and disadvantaged; we are filling one of our charitable objectives from a very practical point of view. (Employer, Charity – Hospitality & Other)

These organisations felt that there were specific benefits to hiring someone with a long-term health condition or disability. For example, they felt these candidates would have a better understanding of their service-users, or could be more resilient and driven because of the challenges they have faced. It was also thought that people with disabilities can bring a different perspective to their work, as well as problem-solving abilities gained from managing their condition and navigating a world which is often not designed with their condition in mind.

One thing that’s really unique is that [disabled people’s] problem-solving will be different. They’ve had to deal with and problem solve whatever’s going on for them, whether that be lifelong or a recent change in their abilities, just the way they think about things is breath-taking. They are more resilient, they have had to do this, so their drive, commitment and passion is usually above any able-bodied candidate. (Employer, Mental Health Charity)

The social benefit organisations interviewed were less likely to offer paid or permanent roles. They were reliant on local or national government funding or were charities and this limited the number of paid roles available. Instead they offered, and had a strong focus on, the importance of, work experience and voluntary roles to help people with health conditions and disabilities become more job-ready.

4.1.2 Private sector businesses focused on inclusion

These employers were found in a range of sectors including marketing, cleaning, fitness, manufacturing and retail. These employers had company policies and cultural values oriented towards workforce inclusivity and diversity. This was because they had either previously hired someone with a disability, the owner had personal experience of disability or they wanted to demonstrate that they are a forward-thinking, progressive company. Inclusive businesses viewed hiring people with disabilities as a practical way to deliver on both corporate social responsibility agendas and the Equality Act 2010.

The experience these businesses had of hiring at least one person with a health condition or disability in the past made them more aware of how someone in this position could fit into their business. This included the kind of work they could do to benefit the business and how they could be supported. They saw employing people with disabilities and health conditions as a positive practice.

Within an age of equal rights and diversity, [hiring someone with a health condition or disability] gives employers a chance to show they are employing these people and giving them a wage as part of their corporate responsibility. (Employer, Manufacturing)

4.1.3 Private sector businesses focused on commercial gain

These employers included those in manual labour industries such as manufacturing, freight forwarding, construction and energy and included family-run businesses who had never hired someone externally. They lacked experience of recruitment in general and diverse recruitment specifically. On the rare occasion they did take on someone new, they relied on informal connections and people they already knew or social media. They had not given much thought to hiring and had never knowingly hired someone with a disability or long-term health condition. Therefore, they lacked awareness of how employing someone with a long-term health condition or disability would practically work for their business or any of the potential benefits of doing so.

Lack of experience meant that these businesses strongly associated disabilities with physical conditions and particularly wheelchair use. They felt they would not be able to accommodate this in their small, manual, fast-paced business and that it would not be conducive to their priority of business efficiency. They believed that taking on someone with a health condition or disability would not be suitable for their business because they needed someone who can work to maximum capacity all of the time, with as little supervision as possible, and felt they did not have the capacity to make workplace adjustments.

If they were able to do our job, regardless of the disability, then that would be fine. But when you’re in road haulage and somebody has got a learning disability then it’s quite hard for them to work for us. But there are jobs where they can definitely work for people, so there’s no way I would discriminate against a disabled person.(Employer, Haulage)

A strong theme across the organisations interviewed was their caution when taking on new employees. These small employers took on staff infrequently and reported that doing so felt like a big commitment. As a result they needed to feel confident about who they were taking on. These employers also felt that qualities such as employee loyalty and efficiency were relatively more important to them than larger employers because they had fewer resources and so each employee represented a significant investment. They also felt that employees demonstrating initiative was again, relatively more important to them than a larger employer, as they did not have the resources to intensively support employees.

4.2 Employers’ views on working with Jobcentre Plus

Employers’ previous experiences of working with Jobcentre Plus strongly influenced their current perceptions and how they engaged with the SEO.

Employers who had positive experiences of working with Jobcentre Plus were open towards working with them again and supportive of the SEO. Positive experiences were characterised by strong, ongoing, close and communicative relationships including face-to-face visits. Those with ongoing working relationships with JCP felt that JCP had improved their communication and ways of working with employers. Even when employers had not recruited anyone through JCP, if the communication and recruitment process was clear, joined-up and tailored to the business, they maintained a positive perception of JCP and openness to working with them in the future.

We have a positive perception of the Jobcentre because we have a good working relationship with them. They often send over people to talk to our workers and volunteers. (Employer, Charity)

Employers who had recently used Universal Jobmatch to advertise vacancies online felt that this had improved by providing more suitable candidates than in the past. Employers who were aware of specific JCP events, such as those focussing on mental health, again viewed this as a positive step and useful for gaining more information.

Employers who had limited or no experience of working with JCP held neutral perceptions. Their lack of experience meant these employers felt that they did not have a basis on which to make a judgement either way. Whether or not these employers worked with the SEO was due to their need to recruit employees at that time. Employers also reported neutral perceptions where they did not directly manage the SEO opportunity day-to-day, or had only recently worked with JCP and did not feel well placed to give an opinion.

I wouldn’t not recruit from the Jobcentre [Plus]…it was a case that we hadn’t reached that point in the business where we were in need of recruitment…I suppose being a small business, we would probably use social media first. (Employer, Manufacturing)

Employers who reported negative experiences of working with JCP in the past reported that these underpinned their current attitudes and led to a low inclination to use JCP again. This was the case even if the negative experience had been some time ago. Challenges employers reported when working with JCP included being given too little information about candidates; difficulties reaching the right person and needing to speak with multiple people who employers felt did not relay messages between each other.

There was also a perception amongst these employers that JCP candidates were likely to be unsuitable for the role. This was drawn from experience of candidates who did not have the required qualifications, skills or experience; whose CV did not match their stated experience at interview; who did not attend interviews or who did not seem interested in the role or motivated to work during the interview.

The job wasn’t the right fit for the individual [when JCP approached me in the past]. I feel like I had described the role quite clearly but there were points in the process that felt quite unfair… the role I suggested to the Jobcentre [Plus] was quite admin based and the person who came into the role wasn’t equipped for that at all. I was more than happy to support but she was not job-ready for that.” (Employer, Retail)

Employers with a negative experience of working with JCP in the past believed that candidates from JCP frequently applied to vacancies because they were required to, either to meet internal targets or to maintain their current benefits by providing proof of job-searching. This led them to believe that JCP does not understand their business needs, reducing their inclination to engage with JCP, for the SEO or any other initiative.

I don’t use Jobcentre [Plus] at all. I’ve used it in the past but I never found it successful. I found that there was a lot of [people] applying who didn’t actually want to work. They were just applying [for jobs] because they had to. (Employer, Retail)

There was evidence that employer perceptions of JCP are improving as a result of its increased focus on building effective working relationships. However, the attitudes of employers which had a previous poor experience with JCP presents a key challenge to forging closer relationships and employer openness to recruiting employees through initiatives such as the SEO.

4.3 Employer awareness and experience of the SEO

4.3.1 Awareness and understanding of the SEO

All the employers interviewed were listed on JCP records as having been approached by SEAs about the SEO. However, not all the employers remembered the approach nor the term ‘SEO’.

Employers who did not remember the approach found it difficult to distinguish the SEO as separate to general recruitment work conducted by JCP and did not realise the initiative was about helping people with health conditions or disabilities. When asked if they were aware of the SEO, they instead thought it might have been aimed at young people, ex-offenders or anyone long-term unemployed.

I know there’s a lot of offers around but I’ve not heard of this specific one.” (Employer, Retail) Employers who remembered being contacted about the SEO had a better understanding of what it entailed. This was either because they had been contacted more recently, had an in-depth discussion about the SEO or had experienced an SEO start. There were also examples of employers who recalled hearing about the SEO through the Disability Confident Scheme, their local Council, their local Adult Education Centre, online or through colleagues. This suggests that all channels can be successful for contacting employers as it is the quality of contact which influences the likelihood of it leading to successful engagement.

4.3.2 SEO engagement strategies

JCP approached employers about the SEO through a variety of strategies. This could be through an ongoing working relationship, for example one social benefit charity held a job club that JCP staff attended and used as an opportunity to make the employer aware of the SEO. Where there was not an ongoing relationship, employers were approached about the SEO through a specific contact. This was done through phone calls, emails or face-to-face meetings where an SEA went to visit the employer to gauge their interest in the SEO. There were also examples of SEAs going to employers with the SEO candidates and encouraging the employer to take them on. Employers reported variability in whether or not JCP followed up with them after the initial contact or whether this was a one-off approach.

Although the channel for contacting employers was less pertinent, the nature of the engagement was crucial in determining whether or not employers engaged with the SEO. The initial contact with employers was an opportunity for JCP to demonstrate what the working relationship would be like. Employers felt that taking a tailored approach and demonstrating an understanding of the business helped to create a positive impression. Understanding whether a business was looking to recruit was the primary aspect of a tailored engagement strategy. Employers were more open to engaging with the SEO if the candidate filled a gap in their business or they had an open position. Small businesses of all types were unlikely to take someone on if they did not have the capacity and resources. For commercially-focused businesses there had to be a business need for taking on a new employee.

It was also important for JCP to address the lack of knowledge about long-term health conditions and disabilities which acted as a barrier for more commercially-focused businesses to take on a candidate. One way of doing so was to approach employers about a specific candidate. Here, JCP could clearly lay out the individual’s skills, interests and support needs so that the employer could fully understand from the outset who the individual was, their needs and how they could fit into the organisation. Commercially-focused employers in this sample were more likely to have taken someone on when they were approached about a specific individual. This was particularly the case for more commercially-focused businesses who had not hired anyone with a disability before, and had preconceived ideas about the unsuitability of disabled candidates for their business.

If the Jobcentre [Plus] said, hey we have this person we think is really talented, would you like to talk to them…that’s kind of the perfect balance, that’s what we love. (Employer, Education)

Timely communications between JCP and employer also contributed to successful engagement. This was seen as a way of demonstrating that JCP understood the businesses’ needs and employer timescales for recruitment. For example, if the employer was recruiting during a 2-week period JCP needed to keep within those timings to increase the likelihood of an SEO start. Employers who had not received a timely response reported waiting months to hear back from Jobcentre Plus, or never hearing from them again and were less positive about the SEO.

Tailoring the timing of the approach and type of engagement to the business was also important. One employer reported that an SEA had visited their café at lunchtime, their busiest period of the day, meaning the employer could not give much time to their discussion.

Employers felt that the approach did not work well when the SEA gave, what felt like, a one-sided sales pitch for the initiative. Employers were more favourable to a reciprocal discussion where the positives of taking a candidate on could be openly explored.

I haven’t gone any further with [the SEO] because I like to do things in my own way, so I never enjoy being pushed by anybody and I never say yes in meetings when I’m pushed. (Employer, Manufacturing)

4.3.3 Employer experiences of an SEO start

The employers who had an SEO start and took part in this research came from a range of sectors and offered a variety of roles including website development; administrative assistance; support workers; outdoor work; call centre shadowing; restaurant and hospitality; mechanical work; reception; retail and cleaning.

Positive employer experiences were characterised by a high standard of job-matching and a positive experience of working with the claimant. Employers were most positive about their experience of an SEO start when the candidate was perceived as completing the work to a high standard, suggesting their skillset had been appropriately matched to the role. High quality work also included completing work in the required timeframe, and therefore ‘justifying’ their wage, having a strong work ethic and consistently arriving to work on time. Successful job-matching saw the candidate filling a business gap in the organisation; for example one employer was a start-up so needed support with paperwork and preparation, which they received from a claimant who had depression. The candidate being motivated and enjoying the work was another important aspect of a successful SEO start from the employer’s perspective.

Employers who reported positive SEO start experiences were aware that candidates would not always turn up fully job-ready and were happy to support candidates to develop these skills. Support included providing induction training; on-going supervision and guidance, including help gaining relevant qualifications; accommodating requests for leave and flexible working patterns. Where employers were not able to provide this support, the SEO experience became successful if intensive support was provided by JCP to the claimant. Employers were invariably positive about SEAs or other JCP staff who made regular visits to the workplace to check-in on the claimant and help meet their support needs. This was because it gave the employer a direct JCP contact, reassurance and support for the claimant. It also helped relieve some resourcing burdens from the employer.

Case study: well matched claimant and intensive support from the SEA

One employer who ran a bicycle shop, and suffered with physical and mental health conditions himself, was approached by JCP to engage someone in a voluntary capacity. The employer was keen, as he had been looking for a volunteer, and the claimant was interested in cycling, as well as being a trained engineer which was needed for the mechanical role. The claimant helped the owner in the shop and fixed bicycles.

The SEA held meetings at the shop once or twice a month and engaged with the claimant’s needs, for example helping to provide a stool to sit down on in the workshop. The SEA understood the claimant’s health condition and needs. The employer appreciated the support the claimant had from JCP, for example, if the claimant was struggling working out how his benefits were affected, he could call JCP. The employer was not able to take the claimant on in a permanent position but would have done so if he had the funding to pay him a salary.

I think it went OK because the [SEA] from the Jobcentre [Plus] was very proactive. He wanted to find a place for him. He wanted to get him some work experience, so he was not sat at home. (Employer, Retail)

SEO starts which were perceived by employers to be less successful were characterised by placements being too short for the claimant to learn how to do the job and make a meaningful contribution to the organisation; claimants needing more support than the employer felt able to provide or was available from the SEA or the claimant demonstrating a poor attitude to the work. As some claimants with support needs required more training, this had the potential to take up a large proportion of the placement with little time left for the claimant to settle into and fulfil the role. Even without training, employers recognised that these claimants may take longer to learn the role and demonstrate their full potential. Employers with a strong commercial focus who felt that the placement was too short for the claimant to have an impact, found that the SEO start brought no commercial value to the business.

The few employers who asked claimants to leave an SEO placement early had done so when candidates were not seen as being job-ready and/or not matched to a role that suited their skillset and interests. Experiences reported by this sub-group of employers included claimants:

not following workplace regulations such as adhering to dress codes and taking unauthorised sickness absences
demonstrating a poor attitude towards work which led employers to believe that claimants wanted to stay on benefits rather than work. This included behaviour such as not wanting to carry out the tasks and not responding well to direction or what they were asked to do. One claimant was reported to have left a role after three days and did not return any subsequent calls from the employer
lacking the confidence needed for public-facing roles
lacking initiative in the role, for example employers reported that less job-ready claimants needed repeated guidance and instructions, even to complete the same task for a second or third time and did not take the initiative to seek out new tasks, rather waited to be given them
displaying poor time keeping

Employers in these circumstances were either not able, because of time and resourcing constraints, or not willing to give the employee the intensive level of support it was perceived that they required. Providing on-going reassurance and supervision was a different working style for these employers which they were not used to, or prepared for. These employers were also likely to feel that they did not receive enough support from JCP. The biggest change that they wanted to see was more readily available in-work support and visits from the SEA or other JCP staff member, to help them appropriately manage any challenges they faced working with claimants.

4.3.4 Attitudes towards employing claimants with a long-term health condition or disability in the future

Following the end of an SEO placement, employers who had high satisfaction and capacity to support employees with a health condition or disability reported that they would be likely to engage with similar initiatives in the future. Those with less positive experiences or low resourcing capability said they would not. This illustrates the benefits of JCP ensuring candidate suitability to the role and offering support to the employer throughout the placement, as it helps to secure future engagement as well as support positive outcomes at the time. How employers felt about their future propensity to hire someone with a health condition or disability through JCP fell in to four broad categories, outlined below.

Would employ again

Employers who reported being satisfied with their SEO experience said that they would employ someone with a long-term health condition or disability through JCP again. This was because they now understood how employing someone with a health condition or disability can work specifically in their business and therefore had more confidence to do this again. They felt that employing someone with a disability had brought clear benefits to their organisation such as diversity and a different viewpoint; enhancing their reputation as an employer and business and showing their commitment to staff. As well as being willing to employ JCP claimants in the future, these employers said that they would recommend this to other businesses because of the wider benefits it could bring to the organisation.

Careful consideration

Employers who felt they had negative experiences of an SEO placement but who felt they had sufficient resourcing capability to employ a disabled claimant through JCP again, said they would do so but with careful consideration as to who they took on. Employers stated that they would need to understand the capabilities and attitudes of the claimant and what work they could do to ensure this aligned with the needs of the business. Growing commercial businesses which said they could accommodate claimants with health conditions, also wanted a high standard of work and claimants who required minimum supervision to maximise business productivity.

Work experience only

Employers who felt that offering a paid, permanent role was not feasible in their organisation said that they would be more likely to consider offering work experience opportunities in the future. This was particularly the case for those who had positive experiences of offering work experience or who struggled with resourcing and financing a permanent paid member of staff.

Never again

Employers who had particularly negative experiences of their SEO start, and who struggled with resourcing, felt that they would not take someone with a disability or long-term health condition on again. This was because they felt that they did not get a return on what they put into the opportunity in terms of time and resources, as a small business. These employers did not feel able to support and manage claimants with a poor attitude to work or who were not job-ready.

I probably wouldn’t do it again… We’re not a big company so we can’t absorb something like that and can’t give someone with the issues we’ve dealt with before the support that they need. (Employer, Manufacturing)

4.4 The Small Employer Payment

In half of JCP districts, a payment of £500, known as the Small Employer Payment (SEP) was made available to small employers to see if this incentivised engagement with the scheme^{[footnote 11]}. Employers in the eligible districts received the SEP when they had employed a disabled person or person with a health condition through the scheme for twelve weeks. The payment was intended to help small employers with the cost of supporting these specific employees with any adaptations needed and on-going support needs such as mentoring, additional management time or training. There were some employers in the sample who met this criteria and applied for the payment. For example, one employer who received the £500 payment said it helped them to be able to make necessary adaptations and meant they were able to spend more time on training without worrying about the financial impact of taking on someone who required intensive support.

Employers recognised that financial support to help accommodate additional needs could be helpful in some instances and the SEP was more strongly welcomed amongst the smallest employers, particularly those who perceived they may need to make adaptations to the workplace. In addition, socially focused organisations and charities who were reliant on government or local authority funding were also particularly in favour of the payment as this helped them provide opportunities and placements for candidates.

Those who were against the payment felt that employers should not take on people with health issues simply to receive the payment and people with health conditions should be treated the same as other applicants. Employers with the least experience of working with claimants with a health condition or disability felt that £500 would not be sufficient to cover additional costs of taking on a claimant with health issues, especially over the long term.

Overall, additional support was welcomed by employers in any form, however, a one-off payment was not necessarily seen as the best way to address the barriers employers felt towards employing someone with a health condition. More information about employing people with a disability or health condition and practical advice and support around managing issues such as increased sickness absence were also felt to be important.

Question 11

5. 	Research with claimants

Accepted Answer

This chapter presents findings from the interviews with claimants about their experience of SEO, including reasons for accepting or declining an opportunity or leaving a placement early. It also discusses claimants’ next steps following an SEO opportunity and reflections on their experiences. As discussed previously, a limited number of claimants available for interview had experienced an SEO start. Ipsos MORI contacted all who were available for this research. Findings in this section are drawn from the experience of 22 claimants and may not be reflective of the wider population.

5.1 Claimant context

This section explores the context of the claimants who were interviewed, including their health condition, employment history, attitudes to work and previous experiences with Jobcentre Plus and how this affected their interactions with the SEO.

5.1.1 Health condition

Claimants felt that the nature of their health condition presented a direct barrier to work and strongly affected the types of work they felt able to do. Those whose conditions fluctuated could find it hard to commit to a regular work pattern; this was particularly the case for those with a mental health condition. Researchers also observed that claimants’ health conditions presented as an indirect barrier to work, since a prolonged time out of the labour market could lead to anxiety about returning or lack of knowledge about the workplace social norms.

5.1.2 Employment history

There was a mix of employment histories among claimants, ranging from those with over 15 years of work experience to those who had never been in paid long-term employment before. Employment history was related to the claimants’ age and the nature of their health condition. Those who were younger, for example in their twenties and had always been disabled or had a long-term health condition, were less likely to have had prior work experience than older claimants whose health conditions came on in later life. For example, one claimant had 15 years’ experience working as a librarian before being assaulted at work and now suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which limited his ability to work. Another had worked in various manual, low-skill jobs for 25 years before becoming unable to work due to the onset of depression and anxiety.

Claimants’ work experience ranged from lower skilled, manual jobs for example, in construction, manufacturing, cleaning, retail, hospitality or caring to those with a more highly-skilled or professional background, for example experience working in IT, as a librarian and as an engineer.

These differing backgrounds and skillsets meant that claimants were looking for varied roles and so needed a flexible and tailored approach to meeting their needs. Those with more experience, particularly in more professional roles, who were closer to the labour market, wanted a paid long-term job which utilised their skills. In contrast, those with little or no prior experience were more receptive to taking voluntary and short-term opportunities in low-skill positions.

Employment history also strongly influenced attitudes to work in the future. Those closest to the labour market were most positive about work and wanted to overcome the barriers presented by their health condition.

[I have] always worked and [I am] always looking for work when out of work. (Claimant, Physical condition)

Of course, I want to work but I want to do the jobs I know I can do! (Claimant, Physical condition) Those who had been unemployed for a longer period and who wanted to get back into work if their health condition allowed were more apprehensive about doing so. This was exacerbated for those with mental health conditions such as anxiety who reported feeling nervous and worried about starting a new role.

I was scared. I was petrified because it was the first time going back to work after a year and a half and I was trying to keep my mental health away from it and it worked. I was on the straight and narrow, but then I got a couple of weeks in and I thought ‘I can’t do this anymore’, I don’t feel up for it. I don’t feel right.” (Claimant, Mental health condition)

However, others, who had also been out of the labour market for a long period were reluctant to find work due to their health condition, family pressure or expectation to not work due to a family history of not working. Participants also expressed concerns about being worse off financially by going back to work as their benefit payments would be reduced and they were not clear that the financial gain from working would offset this.

5.1.3 Recent experiences with Jobcentre Plus

All SEO claimants had been unemployed for over 12 months and therefore had been going to a JCP office to claim their benefits and have meetings with a work coach. Claimant experiences varied depending on the person or people they worked with at JCP.

Those who reported positive experiences of the SEO tended to have more supportive work coaches who took into account their personal circumstances and the types of activities they enjoyed doing and used this information to suggest suitable roles.

[She asked me] Where are you happiest?’ and I said ‘gardening’ and that made her think of a specific organisation, who have a big garden area where you can go and learn horticulture. So that was good, she was looking for where am I happiest at this moment in time. (Claimant, Mental health condition)

Negative experiences participants reported from interactions with JCP included feeling that their personal interests and circumstances were not taken into account or that the work coach did not have enough time to offer them intensive or tailored support. This illustrates the importance of a strong relationshop between the work coach and claimant, so that they can better help them explore the boundaries of their perceived capabilities.

Sometimes my work coach was great, but sometimes they prioritise pushing you to do things you’re not really that comfortable with. (Claimant, Learning Disability)

Participants disliked seeing multiple JCP staff as this meant they had to explain their personal circumstances and health issues every time. This could be distressing, particularly for those with a mental health condition, and negatively impacted their views of JCP.

5.1.4 Claimants’ experiences of the SEO

This section discusses claimants’ experiences of the SEO, drawing on the experiences of those who had been referred to an opportunity and either declined or accepted this opportunity. It also discusses reasons for leaving a work placement early and the next steps taken after the SEO.

5.1.5 Overview of SEO experience

To be eligible for the SEO, claimants were all receiving ESA or UC equivalent benefits and working with JCP to prepare for finding suitable employment or to move towards becoming more job-ready. Claimants who accepted an SEO opportunity either left the placement or job start (at its natural end if it was a temporary position or early if was not a good match) or were still in the role. This overview is shown in Figure 4, below.

Figure 3: Overview of claimants’ experience of the SEO

Prior to their referral to the SEO, all claimants were having sessions with a work coach. When they were referred to the SEO scheme, claimants reported seeing other members of JCP staff. Claimants were not always clear about the job title of the other JCP roles they worked with but there were claimants who reported contact with an SEA. In addition, the type of support described by claimants aligns with the practical help and emotional support SEAs described giving to claimants in the staff research to get them into or closer to work.

Claimants reported having regular sessions with their SEA or other staff members and receiving personalised, intensive support. Positive experiences stemmed from feeling that JCP took into account their personal circumstances including their health condition and employment preferences by having a detailed initial discussion about this at the outset to understand their background and then tailoring all subsequent support to meet these needs. The types of support given by JCP included helping claimants with practical steps to move towards employment. Specific tasks that JCP staff undertook helped claimants in different ways and included:

help with CV development
help with job applications
preparing for and/or attending interviews with them
approaching suitable small employers in their local area and finding voluntary and paid opportunities for them
applying for grants and referrals to courses

Claimants reported that the contact they had with their SEA was more informal than with the work coach. Examples of how SEAs fostered this more informal relationship included meeting outside of JCP; longer meetings and ad-hoc support through email and phone calls outside of regular meetings. This more intensive support may be in part due to SEAs having more time available than work coaches, who tend to have full diaries covering a large caseload of claimants. Claimants particularly liked seeing the same person each time, meaning they did not have to repeat details of their health condition and circumstances to different people. These experiences helped claimants feel more relaxed and comfortable, leading to more productive sessions to move them closer to the labour market.

It was very helpful to be able to contact [the SEA] outside of the JCP because it meant that if I got out of a job at 5 o’clock or something, I could ring her and talk to her then. (Claimant, Mental health condition and Learning Disability)

I didn’t feel like just one of their clients. I actually felt [they were] on my own personal level with me and understood my background and where I come from and that to me is how it should be…I fully appreciated the amount of respect they gave to me. (Claimant, Learning Disability)

Claimants who felt that the support from JCP staff was not helpful, reported feeling that they were not given enough tailored support which took into account their particular circumstances and limitations due to their health conditions. This included not receiving practical advice or help with things like CVs or interviews when they would have found this helpful. Claimants also reported disliking it when they only had short interviews when they felt they needed more intensive support or when the member of JCP staff did not help them to find and arrange suitable work experience placements or roles.

There were instances of claimants who stopped seeing JCP staff or who were told not to come in to the Jobcentre Plus office anymore. These claimants were likely to have support from elsewhere, such as a support worker.

I think it is a waste of time going up there (JCP) so I don’t go there no more…I’d rather stick with my support worker as she knows me and knows what I’m capable of. (Claimant, Learning Disability)

5.1.6 Claimants who accepted an opportunity

Claimants were more likely to take up an opportunity when the offer and their desires were (or became) aligned. The diversity of claimant backgrounds, experiences and attitudes to work meant that there was not a one-size-fits-all approach to encouraging claimants to taking up an offer.

Claimants accepted an opportunity when:

they felt the role was suitable for them, that is they felt capable (physically, mentally and/or emotionally, depending on their condition) of carrying out the required tasks
the opportunity aligned with what they wanted to get out of work and matched their interests and employment ambitions. This could relate to the sector but also the type of employment, for example if it was a paid or voluntary position

I would like to work but I would like to work in an area which would interest me - I would really like to work in the arts and media. I’m very passionate about the arts and that sort of thing. (Claimant, Learning Difficulties)

the opportunity fitted with their confidence levels about work. Those more nervous about entering the labour market or who had anxiety were more averse to a challenge, those with more confidence were more open to a challenge

[The opportunity] was good for me. I didn’t have to think about it…. But I was pretty nervous to be honest and kind of unsure but they were pretty nice to me. (Claimant, Mental health condition)

they were able to travel there. Claimants who were not able to drive, or did not have access to a car, needed affordable and reliable public transport options instead. This was particularly challenging for those living in rural areas
they felt reassured that there would not be a negative effect on their benefit claim as they did not want to be made worse off financially by taking on part-time or voluntary work

5.2 Experience of the role

Claimants had a mix of experiences when starting a work experience placement or job opportunity through the SEO. More positive experiences came about when the claimant felt supported by JCP staff before, during and after the placement and who had a flexible and supportive employer who was willing to adapt to their needs. It was also beneficial for the role and tasks to align with the claimant’s expectations and what was agreed with the employer at the outset. Learning new skills also helped the claimant enjoy the experience.

Conversely, an unpleasant work environment, clashes with colleagues and lack of support from the employer and/or JCP, especially when issues arose, led to negative experiences of the SEO for claimants. Claimants wanted to feel that they were learning and progressing and did not enjoy carrying out repetitive tasks.

Case study: accepted a placement and started

A female claimant in her early fifties with depression and anxiety was claiming ESA and looking for work after resigning from her job the previous year due to ill-health. She wanted to find part-time work in a supportive working environment. She had started going to JCP and was referred to a voluntary gardening placement at a charity.

It [the conversation with JCP] was about ‘where would you be happy and comfortable right now?’ rather than ‘what are you good at?’ It was understood that I needed to be comfortable and that made a lot of difference. (Claimant, Mental health condition)

After a few months, she was promoted to a paid role within the charity as a part-time volunteer manager. The claimant felt the role was suitable for her because it is part-time; her boss and colleagues are supportive; and the charity was nearby and there was a mixture of work for her to do.

[My employer] is very supportive. We shuffled my working days around so I could attend a mindfulness meditation group, because they understand that that’s part of me maintaining my wellbeing. (Claimant, Mental health condition)

She is still in the role and hopes to maintain the position and the associated level of wellbeing in the future.

5.2.1 Claimants who declined an opportunity

There were a wide range of reasons why claimants chose not to take up an SEO opportunity which included:

they found a job themselves or with the help of another organisation such as a recruitment agency. This was more likely to be claimants who were close to the labour market and were actively pursuing employment opportunities
JCP staff suggesting that participants arrange a work placement themselves. For example, one claimant reported that her work coach suggested she approached a local charity shop directly to see if she could volunteer there
claimant decided to pursue further study or training
difficulties with accessibility, such as a lack of reliable or frequent public transport. This was a particular problem in rural areas
their health condition deteriorated and they no longer felt able to work
feeling the role was unsuitable

Case study: applied for a job independently

A male claimant in his twenties with a physical health condition had been claiming ESA for six months after leaving his previous job due to his health condition. He was keen to find work and was actively looking.

He went to JCP every two weeks and saw the same work coach who helped him with his CV. They also sent him on courses related to work. It was suggested at one of these courses that a local employment agency could help him find work. He felt this would be quicker than looking for work through JCP. He contacted them and was subsequently offered a job at a refuse centre. At the time of interview, he was still in that job and wanted to stay there for the foreseeable future.

This case study shows how claimants closer to the labour market did not require intensive support and could be encouraged to re-enter the labour market independently.

They did what they could for me, but [it was] better when I went off on my own [to look for jobs]. (Claimant, Physical health condition)

Claimants who had narrow views of the types of work they wanted to do, wanted to work in an area they enjoyed, such as working with pets, or related to a hobby such as gardening. In these cases, if the role they were offered was not aligned to their career aspirations in terms of both the sector and type of employment they were likely to turn it down. For example, those who were offered voluntary and temporary positions when they wanted paid, full-time work were likely to decline the offer. This was particularly the case amongst those closer to the labour market with extensive prior experience.

However, claimants’ career goals did not necessarily always align with their skills and experience or the type of roles available in their local labour market. This barrier needed to be addressed by JCP staff to help to encourage claimants to take on other experiences.

The only challenge I’ve come up against perhaps is when they want to go into a specific job or sector and we know realistically that that isn’t going to happen. (SEA)

These findings suggest that JCP staff may sometimes need more time to work closely with claimants to understand their ambitions and help them to see the benefits of roles which are not exactly what they had in mind.

Some staff may also need help to develop the right skill-set to support claimants in this way. JCP staff could also explain to claimants how taking some initial voluntary work experience to gain recent employment experience could help them achieve a long-term goal, as claimants were not always able to see this for themselves.

Case study: declined an opportunity due to poor job-matching

A male in his fifties had been in the same job for 15 years. After being assaulted at work he suffers anxiety and PTSD, which led him to being unable to work for a period of time. He had been unemployed and claiming ESA for two years.

He wanted to work again and was working towards this. He had a number of sessions with the same SEA at JCP which focused on ways of helping him back to work. JCP also referred him to a counselling service.

He had an interview for a voluntary work experience placement with a furniture removal company. However, he declined the role as he wanted paid work in the retail sector. He did not feel adequately supported by JCP in terms of seeking suitable employment which took his health condition into account.

This case study shows how a mismatch between claimants needs and placements can lead to them declining the opportunity.

[PTSD] should be more recognised as a physical disease, it’s not a mental condition. It’s a physical ailment, I physically shake, and I can’t meet new people and I don’t think Jobcentre [Plus] staff are actually trained in that. A lot of them are more interested in making sure you’ve filled out your work search booklets and things like that. (Claimant, Mental health condition)

5.2.2 Reasons for leaving a placement

Claimants left roles either when they came to an end naturally (for example if it was a short temporary placement for a set period of time with no opportunity for extension), the role did not meet their expectations, or they did not meet the employer’s needs.

The following reasons were given for leaving a work experience placement or paid job early:

logistical issues such as bad weather disrupting public transport services, which meant it was difficult or too expensive to travel there
a temporary role coming to an end with no opportunity to extend it into a long-term or permanent position;
the participant was offered another job which they chose to accept instead
if the participant felt they were not learning anything or they felt the tasks they were given were “too boring” or repetitive (especially if the position was not paid). This was particularly the case if there was a lack of communication or they were only given one task to do such as washing up or cleaning. This was exacerbated if the tasks they were doing did not align with their expectations of the role
a communication breakdown between the claimant and employer
a lack of understanding of the dynamics of a work environment. This was particularly the case for those with learning disabilities, mental health issues or who had not been in paid work before. These claimants needed clear instructions about tasks, expectations and breaks, and these needed to be more explicit and direct than employers may have been accustomed to providing for other employees

Claimants who did not understsand workplace norms and therefore were not clear about what was expected or permitted at work, said they had negative experiences of the placement and were more likely to leave early. These claimants were highly reliant on the employer to explain what was and was not permitted or expected and risked leading to misunderstandings. For example, one claimant did not understand that they were able to take a break or lunch.

Claimants also seemed less committed to voluntary positions and sometimes felt it was unfair for them to have to take on unpaid roles, particularly if they had a lot of previous work experience.

Case study: left a work placement early

A male in his early twenties with multiple health conditions including autism, hypermobility, epilepsy and anxiety. He had never been in employment before due to his health conditions. At the time of the interview he was taking a break from a University course. In the long term he wanted to work in the hospitality and tourism sector.

He started going to JCP in 2018 and saw the same SEA regularly for 30-minute sessions. He felt frustrated by the experience as he felt that the SEA did not engage with his personal circumstances and health issues.

He was referred to a voluntary work experience placement in a local café and was told that he would be doing a variety of tasks including using the coffee machine, serving customers and using the till. However, in the role he was only given the washing up to do. He found this difficult as he had to stand up for a long time which was challenging because of his health conditions. He also found it difficult to get to the café and sometimes had to get a taxi home due to having spent long periods of standing up. This caused him financial difficulties as the placement was unpaid. He asked the employer about doing more varied tasks but was told they were too busy to support this. He also felt that the SEA was not supportive in helping him ask for other tasks.

He left the placement early as he felt he was not learning enough. He would still like to work in the same sector but this experience put him off working for small employers.

I probably wouldn’t choose an independent business. If there was a big chain restaurant…then I’d definitely feel I would be able to go there because the manager would have to make sure [there was enough support], whereas an independent business couldn’t really guarantee that was going to happen. (Claimant, Physical health condition/Learning Disability)

This case study shows how a work opportunity not meeting a claimant’s expectations alongside a perceived lack of support from the employer and JCP, led to them leaving a job start.

Claimants with learning difficulties or mental health conditions sometimes found communication with other employees difficult. There were examples of claimants being asked to leave the role, which they reported was because they had been arguing with other members of staff or because the employer did not feel they had capacity to provide the level of support they required.

The experiences of claimants who left a placement early suggest it is important that the expectations of the claimant and employer are managed prior to a placement. Providing both employer and claimant with support during a placement is also important, to check it is going well and to help resolve any issues when they arise. In these instances, a JCP staff member can act as a useful mediator to address any issues and help to liaise between employers and claimants when they do not feel confident doing this themselves.

5.2.3 Next steps for claimants who took opportunities

Next steps for claimants, following engagement with the SEO, varied as described below.

Figure five below shows the different experiences claimants had after SEO. Claimants who took on a work experience placement either left the placement at the planned end of the opportunity, left early for the reasons discussed above or extended the placement. Occasionally this extension turned into a paid job .

Claimants who took up a job, either initially or after a placement, stayed on in the same role, increased their hours and responsibility, looked for other jobs or left the job and went back to JCP.

Figure 4: Next steps for claimants

Some specific examples of claimants’ journeys after the SEO included:

being offered a full-time, paid job in a different area. In one case the claimant was hoping to move on to a more interesting job in a year’s time
going to see JCP again and even more motivated to go back to work for social and emotional benefits. This led to increased openness to voluntary work experience placements
progressed from volunteering for an organisation to a paid role as a part-time volunteer manager at the same organisation

Case study: still in role due to well-suited opportunity and support from SEA and employer

A male claimant in his thirties, with epilepsy and Asperger’s syndrome, has had difficulties getting a job in the past as he cannot drive and many jobs he is qualified for he is unable to travel to without a car.

In the past, it’s been very difficult getting a job because of the epilepsy, but I’m continuing to work as much as I can. (Claimant, Physical health condition/Learning Disability)

For the past five years, he has been volunteering three days per week. He started going to JCP 12 months ago and started working with an SEA in January 2018. He was open with the SEA about his career goals and she helped him with his CV and looked for suitable vacancies for him with small employers.

He can have anxiety attacks before interviews and finds it hard to communicate under pressure so the SEA attended an interview with him for an IT support role for an environmental firm. She helped him to answer questions during the interview that he was unable to do for himself and he was subsequently offered the job. He is still in the role and the company are supportive of his condition, know how to help him if he has an epileptic seizure and allow him to work flexibly when needed. They want him to continue to progress in the company.

This case study shows how a candidate being given intensive support by the SEA and being offered a role that suited his skills led to him staying in the role. His employer being supportive of his condition and allowing him to work flexibly also contributed to him staying at the company long term.

5.3 Reflections on their experience and the impact of employment

Claimants described the key benefits of participating in the SEO and accepting an opportunity included the development of soft skills, such as increase in confidence.

Overall, claimants reported that the experience of a placement, even if it was not suitable for them in the long term, tended to motivate them to either stay in work or look for more suitable employment, rather than demotivate them from doing so. This is because it helped them move towards being job-ready and gave them the confidence to continue pursuing their career goals.

Some specific positives of the SEO placements reported by claimants included:

felt rewarding and created a sense of pride and achievement to be doing something, especially if the role was in the voluntary sector or involved looking after others
helped claimants become more job-ready by helping them to establish a routine and recognise the importance of timekeeping
interacting with other people helped claimants to develop their communication skills and moderated social anxiety
helped to increased their confidence, particularly important for those with mental health or learning disabilities;
increased their motivation to find and stay in work
helped them to understand what type of work they may or may not be suited to or what they like doing, in terms of the type of tasks and type of employment.

I do enjoy working…it made me realise I definitely want to get back into work. (Claimant, Mental health condition)

Negative experiences of the SEO placements included claimants who:

were only satisfied doing voluntary work for a short period of time, especially if they were originally looking for a paid role, had extensive prior experience or were close to the labour market
felt there was a lack of opportunity to learn or develop new skills or to do the tasks that they thought they would be doing at the outset
reported becoming de-motivated if they were not developing transferrable skills that would help them with their job search or in future employment opportunities

Evidence from claimants suggests that the key benefit of the placements for participants were soft benefits such as confidence, motivation and getting back into a routine. Therefore, emphasising these over harder skills could help encourage claimants to feel more positively about voluntary or more routine positions that still help them progress in their journey towards long-term, enjoyable employment.

Question 12

6.  Conclusions and recommendations

Accepted Answer

This chapter summarises the key findings from the evaluation and discusses how the experiences of SEO could be used to inform the development of future initiatives to support people with disabilities and/or long-term health conditions into work. It considers what support employers and claimants would like from JCP, including considerations around offering employers who take on this type of employee a payment to cover additional costs.

6.1 Key findings

Existing literature suggests that a joined up approach to employment support, including a focus on employers, is crucial in helping move more disabled people towards and into work. The literature also notes that careful job matching tailored to an individual’s circumstances with on-going support for employers and claimants is a key driver for ensuring placements are successful for both parties.

The SEO policy design reflects many of the lessons learnt from existing literature. The SEO was successful in identifying a large number of work opportunities from employers. However, the initiative was less successful in filling these opportunities because of the limited numbers of ‘work ready’ eligible claimants.

The research found that employers’ previous experiences of working with someone with a disability or long-term health condition strongly influenced attitudes towards doing so in the future. Private sector employers with experience of working with people with health conditions and disabilities felt that doing so was a positive practice. However, it was important for these employers that any employees were motivated and understood the social norms of a working environment such as showing initiative and good time-keeping.

Private sector employers with no experience of hiring or working with candidates with a long-term health condition or disability were less likely to be confident about doing so in the future. These employers tended to have a narrow view of disability as a physical condition and found it more difficult to see how they could accommodate this.

Charities and social benefit organisations interviewed for this research had supporting people with disabilities and long-term health conditions as one of their central objectives. They were, therefore, able to provide intensive support to people further from the labour market on voluntary placements. However, they were less likely to be able to offer a paid position after the placement ended. Positive employer experiences of SEO starts were characterised by a high standard of job-matching and tailored support from JCP and when the candidate was seen as completing the work to a high standard. Less successful SEO starts for employers were characterised by placements being too short for the claimant to make a meaningful contribution to the organisation; and claimants needing more support than the employer felt able to provide or was available from the SEA.

The research found that the claimant’s health condition or disability influenced the type of work they felt able to do or whether they felt able to work at all.

It also led to indirect barriers, such as anxiety about re-entering the labour market due to extended time out of the workplace, which could result in a lack of awareness and understanding of the social norms of a workplace such as showing initiative.

The SEO was most successful for claimants when they received intensive support from JCP staff tailored to their personal circumstances and health condition.

Positive effects reported by claimants who took up an opportunity through SEO included a sense of achievement, establishing a routine and improvements in confidence and soft skills such as communication and time-keeping. The SEO experience also helped motivate claimants to look for more work and to develop a clearer idea of the type of roles they would like to pursue

6.2 Developing the JCP offer for employers

Findings suggest filtering candidates and encouraging them to apply for relevant roles, improved communication from JCP and more intensive support before and during placements could help ensure employers had a positive experience of employing candidates with a health condition or disability. Employers who reported a positive experience of SEO felt that this had been the case, in contrast to those who reported a poorer experience.

6.2.1 Job-matching process

Employers interviewed for this research described having a lack of time to filter potential employees and wanted self-motivated and job-ready candidates, with the required skills and experience, particularly for permanent or paid roles. They preferred to hear from candidates who were genuinely interested in the role and had the required skills and capabilities. Applications from claimants who lacked these requirements led to negative experiences for employers and were detrimental to their perceptions of JCP candidates.

6.2.2 Communication

Interviewed employers with limited experience of knowing or working with someone with a health condition or disability had a very narrow view of what this could be and typically thought of someone with a physical health condition in a wheelchair. Being approached about a specific individual with clear communication of their health issues and information on how to support and make adaptations for them in the workplace (including ways in which other staff should relate to them) was important to help overcome this and increased their likelihood of engaging with initiatives such as the SEO.

6.2.3 Ongoing support

As well as clear communication about the candidate before taking them on, some employers requested more on-going support from JCP during placements or job starts. This was seen as a way of addressing any challenges which could arise whilst the candidate was in post.

Small employers who lacked familiarity with hiring people, including those with long-term health conditions or disabilities, needed intensive support to take these candidates on. Employers recognised that they would benefit from intensive support from JCP, when helping those further from the labour market back into work, but this support needs to be tailored to the needs of the employer and claimant.

Close working between JCP and employers is therefore necessary to provide reassurance. Employers were more positive when they felt supported throughout the process, from the initial contact, through recruitment, until after the placement or job start had begun. To help with this process, employers ideally wanted a named contact at JCP, with follow-up contact and support in the form of face-to-face visits, adaptation recommendations and answers to any questions. Employers also welcomed the opportunity to provide JCP with feedback on candidates at all stages of the process.

In summary, ensuring employers’ had a positive experience with the SEO involved well-matched candidates, good communication and support from JCP. This ultimately had a positive influence on employers’ views of JCP more generally and increased their propensity for employing people with a health condition or disability again. 6.3 Developing the JCP offer for claimants

Claimants who reported a more positive experience had experienced more intensive support from JCP and better job-matching to suitable opportunities, suggesting that ensuring this is the case for all claimants could help improve the overall experience.

6.3.1 Career goals and expectations

Some claimants demonstrated a narrow perspective of what work they wanted or felt they could do. This was particularly the case for those with little or no work experience or who were further away from the labour market, for example if they had been unemployed for several years.

These claimants said that they wanted to do something interesting that they would enjoy such as gardening or looking after animals. However, these requests did not always fit with claimants’ backgrounds in terms of their skills, experience and capabilities, or the types of jobs available in their local job market. Careful support from JCP can help encourage claimants to consider new options, outside of their ideal sector.

Whilst there was some reluctance to take up work experience placements amongst those who felt they should be paid for working, or who were closer to the labour market, claimants who undertook this type of placement reported benefits to their confidence, interpersonal skills, time-keeping, mental health and longer term career development. Emphasising these benefits could help encourage take-up of unpaid placements.

Claimants, employers and JCP staff also felt that different types of health conditions are more or less suited to different types of work or working environments and that it would be beneficial to consider this when suggesting placements or jobs for individual candidates.

6.3.2 Understanding the working environment

It was reported by claimants and employers that claimants who were further from the labour market with limited or no work experience were not always clear on appropriate behaviour in a work environment.^{[footnote 12]} Difficulties raised by employers included poor time-keeping and claimants not taking initiative. Claimants were worried by a lack of understanding about what to expect at work and this could exacerbate health issues such as anxiety. For example, one claimant did not know to ask when they could take a lunch break, tea break or use the toilet and so worked the entire day in a warehouse with no break. They did not go back to work the next day and had a poor experience.

Intensive support can help these claimants prepare for work including educating them about the social norms within the workplace such as time-keeping and showing initiative. The types of support that claimants reported as helpful included helping with CVs, accompanying them to interviews and ongoing ad-hoc support and contact whilst in placements or work. In addition, support specifically to prepare for work, such as a checklist of questions to ask on the first day, could help claimants feel more prepared for work and address some of the behavioural challenges reported by employers.

Question 13

Appendices

Accepted Answer

Appendix A - Sample

Table 1: Sample profile of employers

Experience of the SEO	Number of interviews
Approached by JCP – declined involvement	13
Approached by JCP – interested but no opportunities offered	25
Provided an opportunity	23
Provided an opportunity and had start	23

Sector	Number of interviews
Retail	15
Office	10
Manufacturing	7
Catering and Hospitality	8
Health and Social Care	21
Education	6
Other	16

Region	Number of interviews
East of England	1
London	4
South East	3
Scotland	7
South West	1
North West	12
North East	12
Wales	12
East Midlands	11
West Midlands	11
Yorkshire	8

Table 2: Sample profile of claimants

Experience of the SEO	Number of interviews
Offered opportunity and declined	6
Offered opportunity and accepted	16

Health condition or disability	Number of interviews
Mental Health Condition	9
Learning Disability	9
Physical disability / condition	5

Gender	Number of interviews
Male	17
Female	5

Age	Number of interviews
18-24	4
25-34	7
35-44	3
45-54	5
55 +	3

Appendix B - Research materials

Small Employer Advisor discussion guide

1. Welcome and introduction

Thank participant for taking part; introduce self, Ipsos MORI.

Explain focus of discussion: DWP has asked Ipsos MORI to talk to Small Employer Advisers (SEAs) about their role delivering the Small Employer Offer (SEO) and working with employers, claimants and colleagues. We want to hear about their experience in the role so far, what is working well and less well and any suggestions they have for improvement.

Confidentiality: reassure that participation is voluntary and all responses are anonymous and that no identifying information will be passed back to DWP or any government department.

Role of Ipsos MORI: independent research organisation (i.e. independent of Government); commissioned by DWP to conduct the research. We adhere to MRS code of conduct.

Length: 45 minutes to 1 hour.

Any questions before beginning.

Get informed consent: check happy to proceed and know they can withdraw consent for data to be used at any point before, during or after the interview.

Get permission to digitally record: transcribe for quotes, no detailed attribution.

Note to researcher: The purpose of the interviews is to gather feedback on the Small Employer Offer in order to assess the impact of this policy, find out about delivery challenges and good practice and inform the future of the SEO and the Small Employer Payment. We are also interested to know more about the roles and responsibilities of SEAs and how they (SEAs) work with other staff.

2. Overall role as SEA and purpose of this (5 mins)

Note to researcher: The purpose of this section is to warm-up the participant and to get an overview of the responsibilities of the SEA in this district, what the SEA understands to be the purpose of their role, and how this fits with any other roles and responsibilities they may have. This will be covered in more detail in later sections, and will inform the discussion in section 5 of how the role fits with others at JCP.

briefly describe the Small Employer Offer in own words
- purpose/objective of SEO
- how it is organised in the district – how many SEAs in district; role of SEAs; other staff/partners
briefly explain your role and responsibilities as a Small Employer Adviser
- overall purpose of the role
- briefly describe their day-to-day activities as an SEA
- is it a standalone role or do they have any other roles or responsibilities in addition to the SEA role; how do these roles fit together
briefly explain your previous role (prior to becoming a SEA)
- briefly describe your day-to-day activities in previous role
- explore what expertise they brought from this position to the SEA role

3. Working with employers (15 mins)

Note to researcher: The purpose of this section is to understand the nature and effectiveness of the work the SEA does to engage employers with the SEO, and the support and advice subsequently provided. Please ensure that the section on the Small Employer Payment is sufficiently covered.

Ask participant to tell you about the work they do with employers in their own words and then probe:

Context:

what types of employers do you typically work with
sectors, industries
approximate numbers
size – and whether they work with larger as well as smaller employers

Engagement:

tell me about the work you do to engage with small employers
- describe your approach to engaging with small employers
- how have you maximised employer engagement under SEO
- what have you found to be successful in increasing/maximising employer engagement; reasons for this
- how easy or difficult is employer engagement; reasons for this
- what challenges have you encountered in engaging employers; reasons for this – provide examples
to what extent is your approach to engagement adapted for different employers
- how is it adapted; barriers to adaptation; benefits of adaptation
how does the engagement approach fit together with existing employer engagement work – provide examples
how similar or different is your current employer engagement approach from previous/existing work to engage employers; how does it differ
to what extent have previously unengaged employers been engaged with; have existing links been built upon; or a combination of both

Small Employer Payment:

explore use of the Small Employer Payment (£500 cash incentive); when they use this; how they use this
explore impact of the payment on employer engagement; how this has impacted; has this helped; reasons for this
has the payment helped with the take-up of the SEO; reasons for this
should SEAs continue to offer the £500 incentive; is this amount enough to make a significant different to employers; how motivated would employers be to claim this; reasons for this

Support to employers (including job-matching):

explore type of support and advice provided to small employers - provide examples
- what support and advice is sought/needed by employers in your area
- how similar/different is this support and advice to any previous/existing work with employers – provide examples
describe use of reverse job-matching with employers
- what does reverse job-matching involve with employers; explain how this works
- is job-matching reactive (working with existing opportunities) or proactive (creating new ones); reasons for this
- how well does reverse job-matching work with employers; what works well/less well; reasons for this
- any challenges encountered; how could this be improved in future
explore any in-work support provided to employers after a SEO start
- what does this support involve; how is this delivered
- what has worked well and less well about this process; reasons for this

4. Working with claimants (15 mins)

Note to researcher: This section aims to understand how the SEA works with claimants, and the effectiveness of this. SEAs may work with claimants directly as well as indirectly (e.g. via Work Coaches).

Ask participant to tell you about how they work with claimants in their own words and probe:

SEA approach to support:

describe how the SEA role supports claimants; how they approach this
do they work directly with claimants or indirectly (e.g. via Work Coach)
what is the profile of the claimants they support (characteristics/need)
- any other health and employability support claimants are receiving
explore awareness of Work Coaches opening SEO opportunities to other claimants

Job-matching:

describe the process of job-matching claimants
- who do they engage with – prompt: staff, claimants
- what information do they receive for job-matching; do they look up claimants details directly and/or receive all the necessary details from the Work Coach – prompt: employment passport/similar templates
- how well does this process work; any problems/challenges – provide details
- any suggestions for improvement

Other support:

explore any other support provided to claimants by the SEAs
- any support helping claimants get support from Access to Work; how
- any in-work support to claimants after a SEO start; what did this involve
- how well the support is working – what works well/less well
- any suggestions for improvement
what are the main challenges in working with claimants

5. Working with other roles at JCP and with J2E providers (5 mins)

Note to researcher: The purpose of this section is to find out more about the SEO is organised locally; explore how the SEA role fits with other roles in delivering the aims of the SEO; whether there is overlap or duplication between these roles; and the value of each role. This will inform the DEER review of job roles at JCP. The section also asks about joint working with Journey to Employment providers.

Ask participant how their role fits with that of other colleagues at Jobcentre Plus in their own words and probe:

Overview:

what staff or partners do they work with as part of the SEA role
how far the SEA role fits with existing roles and ways of working; what works well/less well; reasons for this
how well roles fit together to deliver the SEO; reasons for this
- how this affects the success of the SEO initiative
any overlap with any other roles

Work Coaches:

describe how they work with the Work Coaches; what this involves
- any work to upskill Work Coaches in the way they support claimants with health conditions or disabilities; what this involves – provide examples
- how well relationship works; any challenges/problems
- any suggestions for improving ways of working together

Disability Employment Advisers and Community Partners

how far the SEA role involves working with the DEAs and CPs in your district
- what does joint working entail – provide examples
- how does joint working support you in your role – provide examples
what support is on offer from the Community Partners in your district
- how well does this work – what works well/less well
how does the SEA role differ or overlap with the role of the DEAs and CPs
- any instances of overlap or duplication between these roles; views on this
explore any improvements you would make to the DEA or CP roles; what is their main value; should they stay as they are in the future

Work Psychologists:

explore whether they with Work Psychologists; what this involves
- any overlap between your role and that of the Work Psychologist
- what works well/less well; any improvements

Working with Journey to Employment (J2E) providers:

any joint working with the J2E provider in your area; what this involves
- what works well/less well; any improvements
- value in continuing with joint working
- how employer activity is co-ordinated with J2E staff to avoid employers being overloading with requests for opportunities

6. Overall opinion of the SEO and SEA role (5 mins)

explore overall view on how well the SEO is working
explore overall impact; how would they rate the overall impact of the SEO in your area
explore how SEAs have been sharing good practice with other SEAs; have they used the social intranet for SEO; if so, has this been helpful
what do you think has led to the recent increase in job/placement starts
explore overall effectiveness of SEA role; what works well/less well
what has been particularly successful; what has been particularly challenging
explore views on the principle of SEO
should any of the roles be changed or adapted
explore any suggested changes at local level – probe:
- the merging of roles
- should number of SEAs in the district change
- change how the SEA work with other roles
- anything else that may improve how the system works
anything else you would like to feedback regarding the SEA role or SEO?

Thank and close

Staff case study discussion guide

1. Welcome and introduction

Thank participant for taking part; introduce self, Ipsos MORI.

Explain focus of discussion: DWP has asked Ipsos MORI to talk to DWP staff who work with Small Employer Advisers (SEAs) about their role in assisting them with the delivery of the Small Employer Offer (SEO).

Confidentiality: reassure that participation is voluntary and all responses are anonymous and that no identifying information will be passed back to DWP or any government department.

Role of Ipsos MORI: independent research organisation (i.e. independent of Government); commissioned by DWP to conduct the research. We adhere to MRS code of conduct.

Length: 45 minutes to 1 hour.

Any questions before beginning.

Get permission to digitally record: transcribe for quotes, no detailed attribution.

Note to researcher: Using the guide – Discussions will be tailored according to the role of the participant and how roles are structured in their district. Questions will not always be asked exactly as written in this guide, but will be adapted to ensure they are relevant for the individual participant.

Check whether participant is in an area which offers the Small Employer Payment.

2. Overall role and purpose (10 mins)

Note to researcher: The purpose of this section is to warm-up the participant and to understand their role as a whole and in the context of the SEO (the latter will be explored more fully throughout the discussion).

Explore the role and responsibilities of the participant in their own words (in general not just SEO), then explore:

overall purpose of the role
how long they have been in the role; at Jobcentre overall
any relevant previous experience including other roles held in the Jobcentre
briefly describe their day-to-day activities (will be covered in more detail later)
- briefly explore details of how they work with claimants
- briefly explore details of any work with employers
- briefly explore details of how they work with other staff (this will be explored further in section 5)
briefly describe their role in relation to the SEO
briefly describe how they work with the SEAs and others in their district to assist with the implementation of the SEO (this will be explored further in section 4)

3. Awareness and understanding of SEO (10 mins)

Note to researcher: The purpose of this section is to explore awareness and understanding of the SEO including how they became aware of it and views on marketing.

Note to researcher:

SEO is a scheme designed to help small employers take on sick/disabled claimants either for a job vacancy or work placement. The scheme also involves reverse job-matching and in some districts offers a financial incentive to employers for sustained job outcomes.

SEO was first introduced in June 2017 as part of the Personal Support Package for people with disabilities or health conditions. Most of the SEAs hired to deliver the SEO started in the role around this time. Accurate recall of when they first heard of it therefore may be an issue.

Awareness of SEO:

explore awareness of SEO
- how did they first hear about the SEO
- what channel this came through – provide examples
- information source – e.g. other Jobcentre staff, marketing, other
- what information was provided – provide description
- views on this
- how helpful was it
- whether any important information was missing
- any suggestions for improvement

Marketing:

explore any marketing they may have seen on the SEO
- what marketing information have you received – probe: leaflets or posters
- explore views on this/usefulness; what worked well/less well
- how effective was this at explaining/promoting SEO
- have you distributed this marketing yourself – provide details
- any suggestions for improvement

Description and understanding of SEO:

how would you describe the SEO in your own words – what does it aim to achieve and how does it aim to achieve that
explore views on the principle of SEO; reasons for this

4. Implementation and delivery of SEO (10 mins)

Note to researcher: This section aims to understand their involvement in delivery of the SEO on a day-to-day basis.

Ask participant to tell you about how they are involved with delivering SEO in their own words:

describe your involvement in the SEO in detail
how are you involved in the delivery of SEO; what is your role (building on warm up)
- what does this involve day to day – provide examples
- [Briefly explore] who do you connect/work with in relation to this – probe: SEA, WC, DEA, EA, CP, WP, other – will be explored in more detail later

Probe on the following if relevant:

Working with claimants as part of SEO:

have they referred claimants to an SEO opportunity and if so, how many claimants have they referred to SEO
their role in the decision to refer; how this is made; what this involves; what guidance they follow; whether liaise/discussion with SEA or other staff
what type of claimants have they referred to an SEO opportunity– provide examples
how/why they think the claimants will benefit from taking on an SEO work experience placement or job opportunity
how they help claimants with referral to SEO opportunity – what is their role in this (e.g. help with application process):
- involvement of other staff e.g SEA
- meetings
- whether and how they explain SEO to claimants
explore views on referral process under SEO; how well referral works overall; any problems; reasons for this
any additional support needed
any suggestions for how it could be changed or improved
explore any involvement in reverse job-matching claimants under SEO
what does this involve; what support do they provide
views on this
explore any other ways they work with claimants in relation to SEO – provide examples e.g. attending job fairs, providing face to face support on complex cases – probe around anything else
explore whether they continue provide support to claimants if they start on a SEO opportunity or whether this goes through SEA
how they talk to claimants about this; whether they explain that this is part of SEO; what they say about SEO
explore views on working with claimants under SEO; what works well/less well; any problems; reasons for this
any additional support needed
any suggestions for change
do they think that SEO has been successful in helping disabled claimants – how, any challenges or suggested improvements
how does this complement the other work / jobs they do or have done with the claimants

Working with employers as part of SEO:

explore whether they work with or have contact with employers as part of SEO - probe on what activities – e.g. source opportunities (vacancies and work experience placements), reverse job matching for specific client, promote disability confident and general commitment to employing claimants with health condition or disability
what types of employers do they typically work with
- sectors, industries
- approximate numbers
- size – and whether they work with larger as well as smaller employers
what does this engagement look like/involve – probe on what they are trying to achieve – e.g. identifying SEO opportunities, reverse job matching for specific claimant or promoting disability confident etc.
- describe approach to engaging with employers
- do they give any advice, information or support to employers – if so what does this involve
- how have they maximised employer engagement under SEO
- what have they found to be successful in increasing/maximising employer engagement; reasons for this
- how easy or difficult is employer engagement; reasons for this
- what challenges have they encountered in engaging employers; reasons for this – provide examples
what are your views on the Small Employer Payment (£500 cash incentive)
should SEAs continue to offer the £500 incentive to employers to encourage them to employ a claimant with health issues; is this amount enough to make a significant different to employers; how motivated do you think small employers would be to claim this; reasons for this
explore views on working with employers under SEO; what works well/less well; any problems; reasons for this
- any additional support needed
- any suggestions for change
summarise views on working with claimants and employers on SEO; what works well/less well; any problems; reasons for this
any additional support needed
any suggestions for change

5. Relationships/working with other colleagues on SEO (15 mins)

[Note to researcher: The purpose of this section is to find out more about how the SEO is organised locally; how different roles work together in delivering the aims of the SEO; whether there is overlap or duplication between these roles; and the value of each role.]

describe how they work with the staff and partners noted on SEO (if not already covered); what does the relationship look like
how do these roles fit together to deliver the SEO; reasons for this
- views on communication
- any duplication
- any gaps
- how they think this affects the success of the SEO initiative
- what works well/less well
- any problems/challenges
- any ways this could be improved
any further information they need
explore views on working with other colleagues on SEO; what works well/less well; any problems; reasons for this.
explore in more detail any overlap or duplication with any other roles How well do these roles fit together; how are these relationships working – prompt: SEA, DEA, CP, EA, WP, WC, other
what works well/less well; reasons for this – provide examples
how would you describe the role of the SEA in delivering the SEO
how effective is this
what support they offer to colleagues and how – provide examples and probe on:
- upskilling and advising staff on opportunities with small employers for claimants with disabilities
- assisting with employer engagement
- contribute to the delivery of events including jobs far, small employer events/visits etc
- any other examples of providing other support or advice to colleagues to help promote the aims of SEO
- channels used
how well does the organisation of staff at their Jobcentre work to support disabled claimants – how could this be improved

6. Overall opinion of the SEO (10 mins)

explore overall view on how well the SEO is working
explore overall impact; how would they rate the overall impact of the SEO in your area
how effective is SEO is supporting claimants with health conditions or disabilities; reasons for this
explore views on the principle of SEO
how SEO fits with other initiatives to support disabled people into work
explore anything they would change about SEO; reasons for this
what could be done to improve delivery of SEO
whether they have changed anything in their area to improve delivery
probe whether they think SEO would be improved if there were changes to roles and responsibilities of staff – what changes, how would this improve SEO
what does DWP need to do as an organisation to increase employment rates for disabled claimants – provide examples
anything else you would like to feedback regarding SEO in general?

Thank and close

Claimant Discussion Guide

1. Welcome and introduction (2 to 3 mins)

Thank participant for taking part; introduce self, Ipsos MORI.

Explain focus of discussion: DWP has asked Ipsos MORI to talk to individuals about their experiences with the Jobcentre. We will also be talking about a JCP scheme designed to help claimants with health conditions find job opportunities or work experience with small employers.

Confidentiality: reassure that participation is voluntary and all responses are anonymous and that no identifying information will be passed back to DWP or any government department.

Role of Ipsos MORI: independent research organisation (i.e. independent of Government); commissioned by DWP to conduct the research. We adhere to MRS code of conduct.

Length: 45 to 60 minutes.

Get informed consent: check happy to proceed and know they can withdraw consent for data to be used at any point before, during or after the interview.

Get permission to digitally record: transcribe for quotes, no detailed attribution.

Incentives: as a thank you, a £40 incentive will be paid.

Any questions before beginning?

GDPR added consent (once recorder is on): Ipsos MORI’s legal basis for processing is your consent to take part in this research. Your participation in this research is voluntary. You can withdraw consent for data to be used at any point before, during or after the interview. Can I check you are happy to proceed?

Note to researcher: Using the guide – Discussions will be tailored according to whether the claimant has started a job or completed a work placement, have been offered a role or have been offered a role but turned it down. Questions and wording throughout should be adapted to ensure they are relevant for the individual participant.

Adapt timings to reflect experience – for those who have not had a permanent start there will be more time to focus on the last section about general support from JCP.

Adapt language to reflect experience e.g. if currently in / out of work.

2. Background (5 mins)

[Note to researcher: The purpose of this section is to warm the participant up and gain some general information about themselves and their current circumstances.]

Gain an understanding of who the individual is and their current circumstances:

please could you tell me a little bit about yourself?
- how old are you?
- where are you living at the moment? Who are you living with?
- what does a typical week look like for you? [Probe: Are you a parent? What are your hobbies? Are you currently working?]

3. Claimant context (10 mins)

[Moderator explain: you’d like to start by learning a little bit about them, their previous employment experience and their experiences with the Jobcentre.]

Explore claimant context – take brief work history and explore health condition, how this affects ability to work:

what is happening for you now – working / not; how long has this been the case for
are you claiming any benefits – if not when did you stop?
can you tell me a bit about you, your health, work and what has been going on for you in the past few years? [Recap on all health condition(s), (physical/mental health/ both) from screener and probe on when this started and impact on day to day life - specifically ability to work; whether this is getting better or worse.]
before claiming ESA / UC what were you doing? When was this – [for those who were working:] what job were you doing; what size was your employer (big / small / medium); what did you like about this; how long were you in this role; what had you been doing previously; when did you stop working; why was this
have you always done one type of job or have you done different things over the years?
what impact has your health condition had on your ability to work? [Probe for specific examples.]
is there anything else which makes it difficult for you to work? [Probe: confidence, transport, skills; family commitments]
how do you feel about working now / in the future? What types of roles would you be interested in? What else would you be thinking about before going for /accepting a role?

4. Experiences of SEO (15 to 20 mins)

[Note to researcher: This section explores experiences of SEO. It is vital here to establish where the individual is on their SEO journey. Individuals are unlikely to use this term, reflect their own language.]

Now I’d like to talk about your recent experiences with the Jobcentre:

can you tell me about your most recent experiences with the Jobcentre - when did you start going; are you still going; who did/do you meet with – same person or different people; how long did the sessions last?
what are/were your meetings like? What was covered? [Probe around extent to which they were the same / different – if different probe fully to try and explore all different types of meetings. Where did they take place?]
have you received any additional help / support from JCP outside of these meetings? [If so, what – probe around training, education, courses, additional contact – how this has taken place.] How did you feel about this? What have been the benefits of this for you? And have there been any drawbacks?
did you have any contact with the JCP outside of the Jobcentre? How – in person/ phone/email/text etc; what is/was discussed; how do you feel about this? What are the benefits of this for you?
what types of activity has the JCP helped you with to prepare for work? [Probe – sourcing suitable opportunities, help with CV, preparing for/attending interviews, general advice – anything else?]
to what extent did you trust that DWP/the Jobcentre to act in your interests? [Explore why / not] Have you been offered any work / work placement opportunities through the Jobcentre? [Moderator: Refer to sample – crosscheck. If participant says something different to what is on sample probe around this. Probe to understand how many opportunities they have been offered.]

[If not offered an opportunity go to section 6]

Experience of being offered an opportunity

Can you tell me a little bit about how this opportunity came about:

what was the role? [Probe: type of employer; work experience / permanent; hours; sector; activities this would include]
what did the JCP tell you about it? How long had you been visiting the JCP before you heard about this?
how did you feel about starting a job /work experience placement? [Probe around health condition and extent to which they felt this would act as a barrier.]
how did you feel about this role specifically? [Probe around positives/ negatives.] How suitable do you think it is for you?
what happened next? [Probe around discussing with family and friends – what did they say? Interview / meeting employer? Declining opportunity etc.]
what support/ contact did you have from JCP at this time? What were they telling you about the role? How helpful was this?
what happened next – [explore whether or not they started the role and reasons.]

If offered an opportunity but declined:

why did you turn this role/these roles down? What were your concerns / worries? [Probe around hours; ability to take on role; interactions with health condition; family commitments; travel; concerns about employer; lack of interest in role; lack of support from JCP; concerns about lack of support from employer]
what would have needed to have been different for you to take on this role? [Probe around employer size, sector, location, reputation; hours; pay; support from JCP; role of advisor including helpfulness and extent to which they felt supported]
and how is this similar to / different from the support you might need to take on any other job?
are there other roles you would be more interested in / which you would have taken on? Can you describe the type of job, sector, hours etc.
what else do you think JCP could do to help you find a job that suits you? Is the JCP the best organisation for this or would you rather go somewhere else?

[Go to section 6]

If offered and opportunity and started:

Experiences leading up to the start:

can you tell me a bit about the most recent role which you started in [MONTH]? [If not covered already, probe around sector; size of employer; location; hours; job / work placement.] Are you still there?
what was it about this opportunity which appealed to you?
why did you decide to take this opportunity up? [Probe around employer size, sector, location, reputation; hours; pay; support from JCP; role of advisor including helpfulness and extent to which they felt supported; status of health condition (sufficiently improved).]
how did you feel about starting?
what support did you receive from JCP before starting? [Probe around help with CV, attending interviews, arranging visits/support needs from employer, anything else]
how did this support help you to start this role? [Probe around building confidence; building skills; overcoming other barriers.]

Experiences and support in the role:

how did you feel about starting in this role?
what were your first few days / weeks like? [Probe around any challenges settling in and how these were resolved]
what types of tasks did you do? Were there any changes to these over time?
what sort of support did you get from the employer?
was there anything else the employer could have done/could do to help you?
what did your advisor at the JCP help you with during your placement / role, if anything?
did the JCP tell you about the Access to Work scheme? What did they tell you about this? [Prompt if needed: Access to Work provides money to help with costs such as travel to work or adaptations at work]
if so, was this offered / did you apply for this to support you into work? Were you successful in your application? What impact did this have on you?
how often did you have contact with your advisor at JCP whilst on the placement/doing the job? Was there anything else JCP could have done to help you?
was there anything else JCP could have done to help you?
did/do you get support from colleagues, friends and family? In what way?
[as relevant:] are/were there any particular benefits to working for a small employer?

If left a job start:

why are you no longer there? How did you feel about leaving?
could anything have been different to help you stay in this role? Probe around support from JCP; support from employer; health; travel

5. Reflections on overall experience and impact of employment (10 mins)

[Note to researcher: This section aims to gather reflection on their experience and the impact of their work experience placement/job.]

How is/was your overall experience of the role/placement?

what were the benefits in taking on this work experience placement/job?
what have you learnt from this experience?
what impact did the work placement/job have on your confidence?
what impact did this have on your skills? Have you gathered new skills? If so, what?
what were the benefits and drawbacks of doing the placement/job?
how do you feel about work / future roles now?

For work placement claimants only:

was there an opportunity to extend your placement or take a more permanent/paid role with your employer? If so, did you pursue this? If not, why not?
what impact did the work experience /job have on how you feel about getting a job in the future? If so, how?
has completing the work experience/starting the job had any other impact on you (positive or negative)? If so, what?

For those who are still in the job:

how long have you been working there now?
how has your role changed since you’ve been there?
has anything changed for you – probe around confidence; ability to manage health condition; relationship with family and friends
can you see yourself still being in this role in the next 12 months? Next 18 months? If not, why? What do you think you will be doing instead? What would you like to be doing?

6. Views on future of JCP support (5 to 10 mins)

[Note to researcher: The purpose of this section is to understand broad views on JCP support and help inform future service design.]

overall, how was your experience of working with the Jobcentre? [Probe around what worked well and what could be improved. Ask for examples]
to what extent do you feel that the support from the Jobcentre addressed all of your support needs at work which arise from your health condition?
what could have been improved to help you? [Probe around support; relationship with advisor; suggested roles; training]
what else could DWP have done to help you move in to work or move closer to work? [Probe fully]
what do you think about government initiatives to support people with health conditions to work? [Probe: Positives / negatives, what could be improved]
what are the advantages / disadvantages of DWP / JCP providing this support? Would anyone else be better?
what do you think about having a specific role within the Jobcentre dedicated to helping people who have health conditions find work?
what else do you think the Jobcentre could do to help people get into a job that suits them?

7. Summary and close (2 mins)

where do you see yourself in the next 6 to 8 months? What do you hope to be doing? How will you get there?
what message would you give to DWP about supporting people with health conditions or disabilities to move into work?
is there anything that we haven’t discussed that you would like to add?
reassure about confidentiality
check details for incentive

Thank and close

Employer discussion guide

1. Welcome and introduction (2 to 3 mins)

Thank participant for taking part; introduce self, Ipsos MORI.

Explain focus of discussion: DWP has asked Ipsos MORI to talk to employers in small businesses like you about a DWP initiative aimed at supporting small employers in offering job vacancies and work experience placements to candidates with health conditions or disabilities. This DWP initiative is known as the Small Employer Offer (SEO).

Confidentiality: reassure that participation is voluntary and all responses are anonymous and that no identifying information will be passed back to DWP or any government department.

Role of Ipsos MORI: independent research organisation (i.e. independent of Government); commissioned by DWP to conduct the research. We adhere to MRS code of conduct.

Length: 45 minutes.

Get informed consent: check happy to proceed and know they can withdraw consent for data to be used at any point before, during or after the interview.

Get permission to digitally record: transcribe for quotes, no detailed attribution.

Incentives: as a thank you, a £50 (for non-engaged employers) OR £20 incentive (for engaged employers) will be paid.

Any questions before beginning?

GDPR added consent (once recorder is on): Ipsos MORI’s legal basis for processing is your consent to take part in this research. Your participation in this research is voluntary. You can withdraw consent for data to be used at any point before, during or after the interview. Can I check you are happy to proceed?

Note to researcher: Using the guide – Discussions will be tailored according to whether the employer engaged with SEO or not and took on an employee through the initiative. Questions and wording throughout should be adapted to ensure they are relevant for the individual participant.

Participant may not know the SEO as such – for those with low / no awareness reflect their language or refer to ‘the initiative’.

Check whether employer engaged / not, had a start / not and whether or not is in Small Employer Payment area or not.

Adapt timings to reflect experience – for those who offered an opportunity and/or had a start, spend more time on SEO experiences. For those who did not, spend more time on general experiences of and attitudes employing people with a health condition or disability.

2. Background and context

[Note to researcher: The purpose of this section is to warm the participant up and gain some general information about their organisation and their role.]

Explore the organisation and their role and responsibilities:

please could you tell me a bit about the organisation you work for? *what does the organisation do?
- how long has the organisation been operating?
- number of employees – proportion of full time/part time roles – what are their roles, what do they do day to day; what does this involve – what skills are required
please could you tell me about your job role?
- overall purpose of role
- what it involves day to day
- how long have they been in the role; at the organisation overall
- any previous positions within the same organisation
- level of involvement in recruitment decisions

3. Background and awareness of SEO (10 mins)

[Note to researcher: This section explores the employer’s experience of engaging with the SEO and the SEA/JCP in detail.]

Awareness of SEO:

are you aware of a DWP initiative entitled the Small Employer Offer? [Briefly describe SEO if needed: DWP initiative aimed at increasing the number of job vacancies and work experience placements available for candidates with health conditions with small businesses and providing support to employers in taking on those candidates]

For those who are aware:

how did you hear about this DWP initiative / the Small Employer Offer – ask to describe process of learning about SEO and initial impressions
who contacted you – probe to see if they recall job title / role; any contact with other members of JCP staff
- do you recall having contact with a JCP staff member called a Small Employer Adviser?
how did you hear about it – email; telephone; face-to-face etc.
was this part of an ongoing conversation with JCP or a one off contact?
how did you feel about it / what were your initial perceptions of SEO/this initiative? Probe –positive / negative? Why? What do you think about the SEO in principle?
what did they tell you about SEO – probe for any mention of Small Employer Payment (SEP) or Disability Confident
have you seen/were you given any printed / written materials about SEO? Probe for recall of when given, what they said and impact on perceptions of SEO and JCP more widely
did JCP approach you about a particular candidate that was looking for a placement/job vacancy to see if you could accommodate them?

Previous relationship with JCP:

have you hired or given work experience to someone who came through the Jobcentre before? Why / not? Approximately how many times? What was the experience like?
is working with JCP your main method of recruitment to vacancies? If not, what are your usual methods of recruitment?
what were your perceptions of JCP prior to contact about SEO? Probe to explore whether positive / negative, what this was based on – existing relationship; word of mouth; having employed claimants; any involvement in other JCP initiatives, etc.
to what extent were candidates supplied by JCP were ‘job ready’? If not, why not?

For employers who don’t recall contact with JCP about SEO:

have you hired or given work experience to someone who came through the Jobcentre before? Why / not? Approximately how many times? What was the experience like?
what are your current perceptions of JCP? Probe to explore whether positive / negative, what this was based on – existing relationship; word of mouth; having employed claimants; any involvement in other JCP initiatives, etc.

Note to researcher: For those employers who don’t recall having contact with JCP about SEO please still cover sections 4, 6 and 7. Please also check whether section 5 is relevant to them and ask the relevant parts of this section.

4. Experiences employing people with a disability or health condition (10 mins)

Note to researcher: This section explores general motivations and barriers to employing people with a LTC or disability.

what are your general views on employing people with a long-term health condition or disability? Explain this can include mental or physical health conditions.
- where does this come from – probe around word of mouth, personal experience, news, industry guidance
- how would you feel about employing someone with a physical condition? And how about with a mental health condition? Are there any differences?
- have you employed someone with a health condition or disability in the past [outside of or prior to SEO] or do you currently? Or have you employed someone who developed a health condition / disability whilst in post?

For those who have / do: What type of role was this e.g. temporary work experience placement or permanent part-time /full-time role:

were there any challenges or difficulties in employing this person / these people? If so, how did you overcome them?
were there any adjustments that you need to make? Probe around change to hours, working patterns, extra support, changes to responsibilities, referral to OH if available, etc
did you seek any advice from external organisations/people? If so, how did they help?
did you seek any advice on the legal requirements?
have you heard of the Access to Work scheme? If yes, did you use it? Note: Access to Work is a DWP policy that provides money to pay for extra costs such as taxis to work, assistant at work, minor adaptions to the work place
what were the benefits of employing them?
would you say having them in the team has made a difference to your organisation –why/ how
would you consider employing someone with a health condition/ disability in the future? Would you do anything differently?
what would you say to other businesses your size about employing someone with a health condition / disability?

For those who have not:

are there any particular reasons why you haven’t employed someone with a health condition / disability before?
do you have any experience of doing so from another role / organisation? Explore fully as relevant
what would be the challenges to your company employing someone with health condition or disability?

5. Experience of SEO

Note to researcher: This section explores experiences of SEO. Tailor language accordingly.

confirm details of SEO experience: I can see that you [had a start, offered an opportunity via JCP but didn’t have a start etc] – is that right?
can you tell me a little bit about your experiences?

Explore as relevant to SEO experience:

If no opportunity/not interested:

why didn’t you engage with SEO? Probe on: information available about SEO; perceived suitability of claimants for type of work; availability of roles available at the time; understanding of SEO; relationship with JCP / SEA; perceived time taken to engage / support claimant /don’t recall JCP approach
and why weren’t you able to offer any opportunities to people with a health condition/ disability?
have you had contact with the JCP since discussions about SEO – what has that covered? What influence has it had on you?
would you consider employing workers with health conditions/ a disability in the future? Why/ not? What questions or concerns would you have about this?
what could help you overcome these challenges in the future? And what could the JCP could do to support you to offer work experience or jobs vacancies for claimants with health conditions in the future? Probe fully
what impact would being approached about a specific individual and provided with information about their skills, experience, health condition and support needs have on your likelihood to offer a role to someone with a long-term health condition / disability?

If offered an opportunity:

how many opportunities did you offer through SEO?
what type(s) of opportunity was this / were these? E.g. work experience placement; work trial; permanent role; how many hours per week; length of contract
why did you decide to offer this opportunity through SEO? Probe on motives, influence of SEA or other JCP staff.
was there a specific existing vacancy already or did you create one for SEO? Was this offered to all candidates, solely to candidates with health condition or disability or solely to candidates who came through the JCP? Probe to understand whether this was ‘reverse job matching’ and what influence this had on decision to offer through SEO / to claimant with LTC / health condition.
what was the process of agreeing to offer this opportunity through SEO? Probe to understand role of JCP / SEA
did you have any concerns or worries about offering an opportunity to candidates with health condition or disability? Probe to explore any concerns and how these were overcome
what were your perceived benefits of making this offer?
were you offered any incentives / benefits from JCP for offering an opportunity through SEO?
did JCP put forward any candidates put forward for the role(s) if so:
- what happened?
- to what extent would you say JCP understood your recruitment requirements?
- what information was provided by the JCP on the claimant’s support needs
- what were your initial impressions based on their CV / application?
- did you hold any interviews? How did they go? Probe around interview technique; support needs during interview; how well key skills and experience were demonstrated
- to what extent were candidates supplied by JCP ‘job ready’? If not, why not?
how many of the opportunities you offered resulted in a claimant starting work / a placement? What happened in these circumstances?
were any jobs/placements advertised via SEO but not filled? What happened in this instance? How did you fill the role?

If offered an opportunity but no start:

probe for how many opportunities not filled.
what were the reasons why you didn’t fill any roles with candidates who came through the SEO? Probe around whether JCP put forward any candidates; support to accommodate workers
as relevant: what was the difference between the jobs/placements that were filled through the SEO and those filled in another way / which were not?
could JCP have done more to help you fill this vacancy/placement / to ensure it was filled with a claimant with health conditions or disability?
would you offer a similar opportunity through the JCP in the future?
would you consider employing workers with health conditions/ a disability in the future? Why/ not? What could the JCP do differently to help you offer work experience or jobs for claimants with health conditions in the future?

[Probe fully]

could anything have been improved about your experience of working with JCP to this point – probe to explore role of JCP / SEA and how this could have been better

If offered opportunity and had start:

what was your experience of taking on an employee with disability/health condition via JCP/ SEO? Probe to explore fully – why did they offer them the role; how did role start out (work experience / placement); what happened – did it progress to part / full-time? Why /not? Listen out but do not prompt on mention of a payment from DWP. If raised by participant, follow up. What types of tasks did they do? Did this change over time?
what support did you offer to them? Did you make any adaptations to accommodate them – if so, what? How has this impacted on your organisation?
were there any difficulties in accommodating this individual at your workplace? What contact did you have with the JCP after the candidate started work? Probe around whether any support was offered, what this has included and whether it helped
how did you feel about the level of supported provided by JCP once the candidate had started work? How else could JCP have helped you in supporting the individual(s) whilst they were working at your organisation? Probe for details

For job starts:

is the claimant still in post? Why not / how are they getting on / how did the placement go?

For work experience placements:

were you able to provide a paid job for the individual(s) who undertook the work placement? If so, how has that worked out?

For all:

have JCP contacted you about other potential employees with disabilities/health conditions? How would you feel about taking someone else on in a similar position in the future?
would you offer a similar opportunity through the JCP in the future?
what could the JCP do differently to help you offer more work experience or jobs for claimants with health conditions or disabilities in the future? Probe fully
what impact would being approached about a specific individual and provided with information about their skills, experience, health condition and support needs have on your likelihood to offer a role to someone with a long-term health condition / disability?
could anything have been improved about your overall experience of working with JCP? Probe to explore role of JCP / SEA and how this could be improved
what would you say to other organisations about this initiative? And about taking on employees with a health condition or disability?

6. Views on future JCP policy (10 mins)

Note to researcher: The purpose of this section is to understand broad views on JCP policy on increasing employment for individuals with health conditions/disabilities now and help inform future service design.

what are your general views on JCP’s goal of increasing employment among candidates with disabilities or health conditions?
what are the positives of pursuing this goal?
how do you think JCP could improve their work in this area?
would you support JCP in these types of initiatives aimed at achieving this goal in the future?
does it feel appropriate for JCP to target small employers like you with this type of initiative?
what else could DWP could do to help support small employers like you take on workers with a long-term health condition / disability?
are there other organisations that could help you in this area? If so, how?
explain – the Small Employer Advisor role was created for small employers like you to have a direct contact at JCP
- what are the benefits of having this type of role / a named contact at JCP?
- what would be the impact on your organisations if for with a health condition / disability had someone from the Jobcentre to support them at work?
- what might be the benefits / drawbacks? What impact would this have on your likelihood of employing them?
have you heard about the Disability Confident scheme? If yes, what do you know about it? Have you signed up to the scheme? Did you change your recruitment practices as result of signing up?

Note to researcher: Disability Confident is a DWP scheme that recognises those employers who have made commitment to be disability friendly employer. The scheme also offers support to help employers make further changes to their recruitment and retention practices to a higher level of commitment.

Small Employer Payment:

Moderator note: In some areas employers who took on a claimant for 12 weeks+ were offered a payment of £500.

If not raised spontaneously, explore responses towards a hypothetical idea of a £500 cash payment, offered to employers when they have employed a disabled person or person with a health condition through a DWP/JCP scheme for three months. The payment would help employers with the cost of supporting these specific employees with any on-going needs such as mentoring, additional management time or training.

what impact would a payment like this have on whether or not you would take on a candidate with a disability or health condition? Why/why not? Is £500 an appropriate amount if so – why /not?
if participant is already aware of / was offered the Small Employer Payment: What impact did this payment have on your decision to offer an opportunity to candidates with disability or health condition?
- did you make a claim for the payment? If yes, did you receive the payment? If no, why didn’t you make a claim?
- is £500 an appropriate amount if so – why /not?
what other incentives could DWP offer employers like you to help support an increase in employment rates for people with a disability / long-term health condition?

7. Summary and close (2 mins)

What should DWP be doing to help small employers like you employ people with a long-term health condition/ disability?

Is there anything that we haven’t discussed that you would like to add?

Reassure about confidentiality

Check details for incentive.

Thank and close.

Question 14

References

Accepted Answer

Adams, L, Tindle, A., Downing, C., Morrice, N. and Domingos, M. (2018). ‘Access to Work: Qualitative research with applicants, employers and delivery staff’, DWP Research Report 967. London: Department for Work and Pensions.

Adams, L. & Oldfield, K. (2012) ‘Opening up work: The views of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions’. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Aston, J., Willison, R., and Davis S, Barkworth, R. (2005) ‘Employers and the New Deal for Disabled People - Qualitative Research, Second Wave’, DWP Research Report 231. London: Department for Work and Pensions. Barnes, H., Sissons, P. and Stevens, H. (2010) ‘Employment and Support Allowance: Findings from a face-to-face survey of customers’. DWP Research Report 707, London: Department for Work and Pensions.

Beatty, C., Fothergill, S., Houston, D., Powell, R. and Sissons, P. (2009) ‘Women on Incapacity Benefits’. Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.

Beatty, C. and Fothergill, S. (2012) ‘The Changing Profile of Incapacity Claimants’, In: Vickerstaff, S., Phillipson, C. and Wilkie, R. (eds.) Work, Health and Wellbeing. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Beatty, C and Fothergill, S (2013) ‘Disability benefits in the UK: an issue of health or jobs?’ in D Houston and C Lindsay (eds) Disability Benefits, Welfare Reform and Employment Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Beatty, C., Duncan, K., McLean, S. and Fothergill, S. (2013) ‘The Role of Health Interventions in Reducing Incapacity Claimant Numbers’. Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.

Beatty, C., Damm, C., Foden, M. and Wilson, I. (2016) ‘Characteristics of those needing support to return to work: a segmentation analysis’. Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.

Becker, E., Hayllar, O. and Wood, M. (2010) ‘Pathways to Work: programme engagement and work patterns’. DWP Research Report 653, Leeds: Corporate Document Services

Benstead, S. and Nock, E. (2016) ‘Replacing Employment and Support Allowance. Part One: Support Needs of People with Chronic Illness’. London: Ekklesia.

Bewley, H, Dorsett, R and Salis, S (2008) ‘The Impact of Pathways to Work on benefit receipt in the expansion areas’. DWP Research Report 552, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.

Beyer, S. and Beyer, A. (2017) ‘A systematic review of the literature on the benefits for employers of employing people with learning disabilities’. London: Mencap.

Cole, L. (2013) ‘A survey of disabled working age benefit claimants’. In-house Research Report 16, London: Department for Work and Pensions

Cornell University Employment and Disability Institute (2013) ‘Employer Practices and the Employment of People with Disabilities: Scoping the Literature’, Research presented at the Innovative Research on Employer Practices: Improving Employment for People with Disabilities State of the Science Conference, October 22-23, Washington DC.

Davidson, J. (2011) ‘A qualitative study exploring employers’ recruitment behaviour and decisions: small and medium enterprises’. DWP Research Report No 754, London: Department for Work and Pensions.

Department for Work and Pensions (2010) ‘21st Century Welfare’. Cm 7913, London: Department for Work and Pensions.

Department for Work and Pensions (2011) ‘Time limiting contributory Employment and Support Allowance to one year for those in the Work-Related Activity Group: Equality Impact Assessment’. London: Department for Work and Pensions.

Department for Work and Pensions (2015) ‘Welfare Reform and Work Bill: Impact Assessment to remove the ESA Work-Related Activity Component and the UC Limited Capability for Work Element for new claims’. London: Department for Work and Pensions.

Department for Work and Pensions (2018). ‘Disability Confident Scheme: Summary findings from a survey of participating employers’. London: Department for Work and Pensions.

Department for Work and Pensions and Department of Health (2017) ‘Improving Lives: The Future of Work, Health and Disability’. Cm 9526, London: TSO.

Dewson, S., Hill, D., Meager, N. & Willison, R. (2009) ‘Evaluation of Access to Work - Core Evaluation’. London: Department for Work and Pensions.

Dibben, P, Wood, G, Nicholson, R and O’Hara, R (2012) ‘Quantifying the Effectiveness of Interventions for People with Common Health Conditions in Enabling Them to Stay In or Return to Work’. DWP Research Report 812, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.

Disability Rights Commission (2004) ‘Small Employers’ Attitudes to Disability. A survey conducted by Opinion Research Business’, Leeds: University of Leeds.

Duckett, P. (2000) ‘Disabling employment interviews: warfare to work’, Disability and Society, 15 (7), 1019-1039. ECOTEC Research and Consulting (2009) ‘Final Evaluation of the Northern Way Worklessness and Employment Workstream’. Newcastle: The Northern Way.

ERSA (2013) ‘Work Programme Performance Report July 2013’. London: Employment Related Services Association.

Frontline (2008) ‘Evaluation of Aim High Routeback’. Newcastle: One North East. Gustafsson, J., Peralta, J.P. and Danermark, B., (2014) ‘The employer’s perspective: employment of people with disabilities in wage subsidized employments’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 16(3), pp.249–266. Hale, C. (2014) ‘Fulfilling potential and the fate of the Work-Related Activity Group’. London: Mind.

HM Government (2018) ‘Good Work Plan’, Cm 9755. London: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee (2017) ‘Disability employment gap: Seventh Report of Session 2016-2017’. HC56, London: House of Commons.

House of Commons Library (2018a) ‘Work and Health Programme’, Briefing Paper No 7845. London: House of Commons Library.

House of Commons Library (2018b) ‘Disability Confident Scheme’, Debate Pack No 2018/0001. London: House of Commons Library.

Jones, M. (2008) ‘Disability and the labour market: a review of the empirical evidence’, Journal of Economic Studies, 35 (5), 405-424.

Kaehne, A. (2016) Project SEARCH UK – ‘Evaluating Its Employment Outcomes’, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 29 (6), 519-530. doi: 10.1111/jar.12207

Kellett, S, Bickerstaffe, D, Purdie, F, Dyke, A, Filer, S, Lomax, V and Tomlinson, H (2011) ‘The clinical and occupational effectiveness of condition management for Incapacity Benefit recipients’, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50 (2), 164-177.

Kelly, G., Lam, P., Thomas, T. and Turley, C. (2005) ‘Disability in the Workplace’. DWP Research Report 277, Norwich: HMSO.

Kemp, P. and Davidson, J. (2010) ‘Employability trajectories among new claimants of Incapacity Benefit’, Policy Studies, 31 (2), 203-221.

Konrad, A., Moore, M., Ng, E., Doherty, A. and Breward, K. (2013) ‘Temporary work, underemployment and workplace accommodations: relationship to well-being for workers with disabilities’, Work: Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 29 (3), 367-382.

Lengnick-Hall, M., Gaunt, P. and Brooks, A. (2001) ‘Why Employers Don’t Hire People with Disabilities: A Survey of the Literature’. Wichita, Kansas: Cerebral Palsy Research Foundation (CPRF).

Lindsay, C., and Dutton, M. (2012) ‘Promoting healthy routes back to work? Boundary spanning health professionals and employability programme in Great Britain’, Social Policy and Administration, 46 (5), 509-525. Lindsay, C., and Houston, D. (2011) ‘Fit for purpose? Welfare reform and challenges for health and labour market policy in the UK’, Environment and Planning A, 43 (3), 703-721.

Migliore, A., Butterworth, J., Nord, D., Cox, M. and Gelb, A. (2012) ‘Implementation of job development practices’, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50 (3), 207-218.

National Audit Office (2010) ‘Support to Incapacity Benefits Claimants Through Pathways to Work’. London: Stationery Office.

Newton, B., Meager, N., Bertram, C., Corden, A., George, A., Lalani, M., Metcalf, H., Rolfe, H., Sainsbury, R. and Weston, K. (2013) ‘Work Programme evaluation: findings from the first phase qualitative research on programme delivery’. DWP Research Report 821, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.

Nice, K. and Davidson, J. (2010) ‘Provider-led Pathways: experience and views of Condition Management Programmes’. DWP Research Report 644, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.

Nicholas, D., Roberts, W. and Macintosh, C. (2015) ‘Advancing vocational opportunities for adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder’, Proceedings from the 1st Annual Canadian ASD Vocational Conference, Toronto, February 2nd-3rd 2012.

Oakley, M. (2016) ‘Closing the gap: Creating a framework for tackling the disability employment gap in the UK’. London: Social Market Foundation

Purvis, A., Foster, S., Lane, P., Aston, J. and Davis, M. (2013) ‘Evaluation of the Work Choice Specialist Disability Employment Programme’, DWP Research Report 846. London: Department of Work and Pensions.

Peck, B. and Kirkbride, L. (2001) ‘Why businesses don’t employ people with disabilities’, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16 (2), 71–75.

Rashid, M., Hodgetts, S. and Nicholas, D. (2017) ‘Building Employer Capacity to Support Meaningful Employment for persons with Developmental Disabilities: A Grounded Theory Study of Employment Support Perspectives’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47 (11), 3510-3519.

Roulstone, A. and Barnes, C. (eds, 2005) ‘Working Futures? Disabled People, Policy and Social Inclusion’. Bristol: Policy Press.

Roulstone, A., Harrington, B. and Kwang Hwang, S., (2014) ‘Flexible and personalised? An evaluation of a UK tailored employment support programme for jobseekers with enduring mental health problems and learning difficulties’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp14-28.

Sainsbury, R., Irvine, A., Aston, J., Wilson, S., Williams, C. and Sinclair, A. (2008) ‘Mental Health and Employment’. Research Report 513, London: Department of Work and Pensions.

Sayce, L. (2011) ‘Getting In, Staying In and Getting On: Disability employment support fit for the future’, Cm 8081, London: Department for Work and Pensions.

Secker, J., Pittam, P. and Ford, F. (2012) ‘Customers’ perspective on the impact of the Pathways to Work Condition Management Programme on their health, well-being and vocational activity’, Perspectives in Public Health, 132 (6), 277-281.

Young V. and Bhaumik C. (2011) ‘Health and well-being at work: a survey of employers’. DWP Research Report 750, London: Department of Work and Pensions.

These initiatives aim to support employers and people with a health condition or disability to take up employment opportunities. Details of DC and AtW are contained later in this report. ↩
A payment of £500 was available in some JCP areas if small employers took on someone with a health condition or disability into a job for 16 hours or more per week for a period of at least 12 weeks. ↩
An inductive approach aims to generate new theories based on the data. ↩
This includes those on Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or UC claimants who are seeking work. JSA was introduced as the main unemployment benefit from 1996 and UC has gradually been introduced for new claimants since 2013. ↩
This includes all working age work replacement benefits for people who are unable to work due to a long-term health condition or disability. Primarily, this group now consists of those on ESA or UC equivalents. Claimants of predecessor benefits are also included: Invalidity Benefit, Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance. ↩
DWP benefit claimant data from a number of official administrative data sources are combined over time. Sources include NOMIS, Stat-Xplore and published Social Security Statistics Tables. ↩
The WHP also includes claimants who have been unemployed for more than two years. Their participation is mandated. ↩
Micro employers (1-9 employees), small employers (10-49 employees), medium employers (50-249 employees) and large employers (250+ employees). ↩
Districts are geographical clusters of Jobcentres. There are 40 districts across England, Scotland and Wales. ↩
The changes to the DEA role were as a result of the introduction of the Jobcentre Operational Model (JOM), which was introduced in 2016. The main change was that it removed separate DEA caseloads and shifted the emphasis onto the DEA supporting the work coach including three-way appointments with claimant and work coach. ↩
The authors understand that DWP decided not to pursue the SEP policy in other JCP districts as a result of low-take up rates. ↩
It is noted that a lack of knowledge of workplace norms and expectations is not an issue solely related to claimants with disabilities or health conditions. Other claimants with a long history of unemployment may also lack this knowledge. ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK

Executive summary

Introduction

Key findings

Acknowledgements

The authors

Glossary

Access to Work (AtW)

Community Partners (CP)

Disability Confident (DC)

Disability Employment Adviser (DEA)

Employer Adviser (EA)

Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)

Personal Independence Payment (PIP)

Reverse job-matching

Small Employer Adviser (SEA)

Small Employer Payment (SEP)

Work Coach (WC)

Work Experience

Work Psychologist (WP)

Work Trial

Abbreviations

Summary

Introduction

Literature Review

Key findings

Research with staff

Research with employers

Research with claimants

Conclusions

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Small Employer Offer

1.3 Aims and objectives

1.4 Methodology

1.4.1 Literature review

1.4.2 Research interviews

Small Employer Advisers

Other Jobcentre Plus staff

1.4.3 Employers

1.4.4 Claimants

1.4.5 Analysis and interpretation of data

2. Literature review

2.1 Disability benefit receipt and barriers to work amongst people with long-term health conditions or disabilities

2.1.1 Background

Figure 1: Working age claimant unemployment and claimants on ESA or equivalent benefits, Great Britain, 1979-2018

2.1.2 The benefits system for claimants with health conditions or disabilities

2.1.3 The Disability Employment Gap

2.1.4 Barriers to work for people with health conditions and disabilities

Health conditions and disability

Mental health conditions

Multiple disadvantage in the labour market

Age

Qualifications and skills

Duration out of work

2.2 Historic employment support initiatives for claimants with health conditions or disabilities

2.2.1 Background

2.2.2 Previous national DWP initiatives

New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP)

Pathways to Work (PtW)

Work Programme (WP)

Work Choice (WC)

2.2.3 Local initiatives

Northern Way Worklessness Pilots

Aim High Routeback

Project Search

2.2.4 Summary

2.3 Current national initiatives which include employer engagement

Work and Health Programme (WHP)

Disability Confident (DC)

Access to Work (AtW)

2.4 The role of employers

2.4.1 Background

2.4.2 Employer attitudes

2.4.3 Small and medium sized employers

2.4.4 Supporting employers to employ people with developmental disabilities

2.4.5 Financial incentives for employers

2.4.6 Reverse job matching

2.4.7 Summary

3. Research with Jobcentre Plus staff