Survey of disadvantaged groups on Universal Credit covering: care experience, ex-offenders, homelessness and substance dependency

Question 1

Voluntary statement of compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics

Accepted Answer

The Code of Practice for Statistics (the Code) is built around 3 main concepts, or pillars, trustworthiness, quality and value:

trustworthiness – is about having confidence in the people and organisations that publish statistics
quality – is about using data and methods that produce assured statistics
value – is about publishing statistics that support society’s needs for information

The following explains how we have applied the pillars of the Code in a proportionate way.

Trustworthiness

This survey fieldwork and analysis was carried out by IFF Research, and the segmentation analysis conducted The Stats People. Fieldwork and analysis were carried out impartially and in compliance with the Market Research Society code of conduct and Government Social Research code of practice. This report was written by the research team at IFF Research and has been checked thoroughly by analysts at the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure it meets the highest standards of analysis and drafting.

Quality

The survey was carried out using established quantitative research methodology and statistical methods. Details of these methods are in the accompanying technical report. The research has been quality assured using IFF Research internal quality checking processes, which have been shared with the Department for Work and Pensions. The Stats People also implemented a robust Quality Assurance structure involving internal peer review and sign-off of the segmentation model, following ISO:9001 2015, ISO 20252, and the 2023 MRS Code of Conduct principles. All work conducted by The Stats People was also quality assured by IFF Research as lead contractors. The analysis of findings and report writing has been quality assured by analysts at the Department for Work and Pensions.

Value

This survey provides insight into the motivations and barriers to work for Universal Credit claimants who have experienced at least one of the following forms of disadvantage: experience of homelessness, experience of a substance dependency, experience of the care system as a child, or being an ex-offender. The findings of this survey provide robust data on the support needs of these claimants, to inform future policy development.

Question 2

Executive summary

Accepted Answer

Incidence and profile of the four disadvantaged groups within the UC claimant population

The disadvantaged groups that were the focus of this research were: those who are care experienced, ex-offenders (who received a custodial, suspended or community sentence, exclusive of fines), those who have experienced substance dependency in the past 2 years, or those who have experienced homelessness in the past 2 years.

The main aim of this study was to establish the incidence rate of these four disadvantages within the Universal Credit (UC) claimant population, as well as to better understand the motivations and barriers to work for those who experience them.

Overall, 1 in 5 (21%) claimants had experienced at least one of these four disadvantages, with 6% having experienced 2 or more. The incidence rate of each disadvantage was as follows:

9% of UC claimants had experienced homelessness in the past 2 years
7% of UC claimants were care experienced
7% of UC claimants had experienced substance dependency in the past 2 years
6% of UC claimants were ex-offenders

Substance dependency more commonly co-occurred with other disadvantages, particularly being an ex-offender and having experienced homelessness in the past 2 years. The four specific disadvantages that this study focussed on also overlapped with other forms of disadvantage; for example, a third of claimants in these groups had also experienced domestic abuse (35%).

Around a quarter of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were in employment, including self-employment (27%) and just under 3 quarters were not (72%). Almost a quarter of those in the four disadvantaged groups had spent most of their time since leaving education not working (23%), and just one in twelve had spent most of their time working (8%). Across all disadvantaged claimants, the most common employment status was to be long-term sick or disabled (37%).

Claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were more likely to rate their health as bad (44%) than good (30%). The proportion rating their health as bad was considerably higher among claimants who had experienced substance dependency in the past 2 years (57%) or who were ex-offenders (50%). 7 in 10 disadvantaged UC claimants had a physical or mental health condition lasting or expected to last 6 months or more (70%), and two-thirds (64%) had conditions or illnesses that reduced their ability to conduct day-to-day activities.

Disadvantaged groups in employment

UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups who were employed (including self-employment) were less likely to have experienced substance dependency (23%) in the past 2 years or be an ex-offender (22%). Claimants in employment were also less likely to have multiple disadvantaged experiences (17%) than those not in employment (31%).

Among those in employment, it was most common to be in permanent jobs (55%), though a sizable minority had less predictable work through zero-hours contracts (12%) and temporary and/or seasonal contracts (9%).

The most common goal over the next 2 years for those in employment was to change jobs (36%). While a third of claimants (31%) reported no barriers to staying in work, a similar proportion felt that physical or mental health conditions or disabilities had acted as barriers to staying in work over the past 6 months (34%). Of claimants facing health-related barriers, 26% were already receiving support with this, and a further 27% said they would be interested in receiving support.

Of the four disadvantaged groups, the disadvantage that was most likely to be considered a barrier to staying in work was experience of homelessness in the past 2 years: 41% of this group felt that this experience had made staying in work more difficult. In line with this, 41% of claimants with experience of homelessness were interested in receiving support with finding stable housing.

Perhaps in line with it being common to want to change job, employed claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were most interested in receiving support related to increasing their earnings, which 46% were interested in and 8% were already receiving.

Disadvantaged groups not in employment

UC claimants from the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment had a different profile to those in employment. A higher proportion of those not in employment had experienced substance dependency in the past 2 years (35%) and were ex-offenders (32%) than among those in employment (23% and 22% respectively). A higher proportion had also experienced multiple types of disadvantage (31% compared to 17%). It was also more common for disadvantaged claimants not in employment to have no qualifications (30%) than for those who were in employment (14%).

The most common aspiration for disadvantaged claimants not in employment over the next 2 years was to get a job (33%). This was more of a priority for those who had experienced homelessness in the previous 2 years (39% compared with 28% for all others). Being physically healthy was also a key priority for those not in employment (17%).

In terms of employment prospects, over half (55%) of those not in employment felt that returning to work was a possibility with the right support, with 1 in 5 (20%) feeling they were ready to return to work immediately. In terms of attitude to work, half of claimants not in employment agreed that they would be happier and more fulfilled if they were working (51%).

Two in five claimants in the No Work-Related Requirements regime felt that employment was a possibility for them in the future if they had support (41%). On the other hand, 50% of claimants in the Intensive Work Search regime did not feel ready to work immediately.

The most common barrier to work for disadvantaged claimants who were not in employment related to physical or mental health conditions or disabilities (72%). In addition, around a third felt that not having the right skills or qualifications for the jobs available (33%), and a lack of confidence in applying for jobs (30%) were barriers to employment. Over two fifths (41%) felt that jobs on offer weren’t flexible enough for their circumstances and a third felt that the jobs on offer did not pay enough to make working financially worthwhile (33%).

Some claimants felt their experience of being in one of the four disadvantaged groups had affected their ability to work: 59% of claimants with experience of homelessness in the past 2 years felt this had made it more difficult to get a job.

Despite these barriers, claimants in these four groups tended not to be interested in support related to moving towards employment: just 31% were interested in support related to improving their confidence and 27% related to accessing education or training. There was more interest in support with specific disadvantages they faced, particularly finding stable housing (44% of those who had experienced homelessness in the past 2 years) and mental health issues (34% of those with a mental health condition).

Segmentation analysis

Segmentation analysis was used to better understand how attitudes towards, and barriers to, employment and support needs varied among those claimants who were not in employment.

The result was a segmentation model made up of 8 different segments who varied in distance from the labour market. This analysis identified a sizable group of – mainly younger - claimants who were motivated to work, which comprised four of the 8 segments. These claimants were often looking for support with accessing opportunities in their local area and building their skills and/or experience, although some were allocated to the ‘No Work-Related Requirements’ regime so may not have been receiving this support.

The remaining four segments represented claimants who were further away from work, with lower proportions feeling they would be ready to work immediately or in the future. Being in poor health, an ex-offender, or having experience with a substance dependency were barriers mentioned by claimants in each of these segments. Claimants in these segments had often been out of work for longer, so lacked recent experience, qualifications, and confidence to engage with work.

Question 3

Glossary and acronyms

Accepted Answer

Care experienced

Claimants (across all age groups) with any experience of the care system before the age of 18, covering: foster care; residential children’s home; supported accommodation; and living with parents, grandparents, other family or friends with support from social services.

Care leaver

Claimants (across all age groups) with experience of the care system, covering: foster care; residential children’s home; supported accommodation; and living with parents, grandparents, other family or friends with support from social services) who were in care for a period of at least 13 weeks from the age of 14 and ending after their 16th birthday.

Claimants

People who claim benefits. In this context, it refers to people in receipt of Universal Credit.

Conditionality group

Conditionality groups determine what the claimant must do to find work (where applicable), what is required of them in relation to their Universal Credit payment and the type of work-related activities they can be set as part of their Claimant Commitment.

Every claimant is allocated to one of 6 Labour Market regimes – see Labour Market Regime. The conditionality group and allocated Labour Market regime explains the level of support the claimant can expect to receive and the framework of what is expected of them.

The conditionality groups are as follows:

All Work-related Requirements
Work Preparation
Work Focused Interview
No Work-related Requirements

Disadvantaged Group

In this report, this term is used to describe individuals who belong to at least one of the following four disadvantaged groups:

care experienced or care leaver
ex-offender
homeless in the past 2 years
substance dependent in the past 2 years

Domestic abuse

In the context of the survey, domestic abuse was defined as: having had a partner or ex-partner, or a member of your family you were living with at the time, who has ever used controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour; violence; or abuse.

DWP

Means: The Department for Work and Pensions

Ex-offenders

In this survey ex-offenders are defined as: a claimant that has ever received a criminal conviction resulting in either a custodial, suspended or community sentence (exclusive of fines and cautions).

Homelessness

In this survey experience of homelessness is defined as, in the past 2 years, having experienced homelessness. This covers: staying overnight in a bed and breakfast or hotel arranged by a local authority, staying overnight in temporary rented accommodation or room in a shared house arranged by a local authority, staying overnight in a hostel, refuge, shelter or supported housing, having sofa surfed or temporarily stayed with family or friends, or having slept rough.

Intensive Work Search (IWS)

One of the labour market regimes claimants in the All Work Related Requirements conditionality group can be placed in. It contains Universal Credit claimants who earn below the Administrative Earnings Threshold, and who are expected to take intensive action to secure work or more work.

Jobcentre Plus (JCP)

A government-funded employment agency and social security office that can be found in most population centres, whose aim is to provide benefits payments to people of working age and help them find employment.

Labour Market regime

Every UC claimant is allocated to a Labour Market regime based on their individual circumstances, household information and where applicable, earnings. 

The claimant’s circumstances must be established and understood for the appropriate regime to be allocated. There are 6 Labour Market regimes, and each regime aligns to one of four conditionality groups. The Labour Market regimes are: Working Enough, No Work-related Requirements, Work Focused Interview, Work Preparation, Light Touch and Intensive Work Search.

Multiple disadvantage

Claimants who are in more than one of the four disadvantaged groups.

Random probability sampling (RPS)

A sampling method that allows for randomisation of sample selection, with each record having an equal chance of being selected at the sampling stage. In market research, RPS approaches also involve putting rules in place around contacting the sample of possible respondents (in this instance, participants were contacted a maximum of 8 times).

Substance dependency

In this survey experience of substance dependency is defined as: the need to drink alcohol and/or drugs is too strong to control, and coping with life without it is difficult. To be classed as substance dependent in this research, this must have been experienced in the past 2 years.

DWP Verified care leaver

A UC claimant whose self-reported care leaver status has been verified by DWP and was aged 16 to 30 at the time of making their claim.

Universal Credit (UC)

A single monthly benefit payment for people of working age who are out of work or on low incomes. Introduced to replace 6 other benefits from 2013 onwards.

DWP Unverified care leaver

A UC claimant whose self-reported care leaver status has not been verified by DWP, or was aged over 30 at the time of making their claim.

Work coach

The work coach is responsible for providing claimants with personalised support, guidance, and advice to help them find work, as well as reviewing their work search and preparation obligations.

Question 4

1. Introduction

Accepted Answer

1.1 Background and aims

DWP commissioned IFF Research to conduct a large-scale quantitative survey of Universal Credit claimants who have experienced at least one of four forms of disadvantage. This research was designed to:

1. Measure the incidence rate and profile of the four groups within the Universal Credit claimant population, and the overlap between them (those facing ‘multiple disadvantage’);

2. Understand current and past experiences of working, and attitudes to work;

3. Identify barriers to work faced by these claimants; and

4. Explore the types of support that claimants were accessing or would be interested in accessing in the future.

1.2 Definitions of the four disadvantaged groups

The definitions used for the four disadvantaged groups that were the focus of this research were developed in collaboration with the DWP.

Those who had experienced homelessness

Whether claimants met this definition was established through asking them whether they had experienced a number of different types of homelessness in the past 2 years. The definition was based around the past 2 years as this was considered to be recent enough for impacts on the ability to find and stay in work still to be felt. The forms of homelessness that were included were having:

stayed overnight in a bed and breakfast or hotel arranged by your local authority
stayed overnight in temporary rented accommodation or room in a shared house arranged by your local authority
stayed overnight in a hostel, refuge, shelter or supported housing
sofa surfed or temporarily stayed with family or friends
slept rough

Ex-offenders

Claimants who have ever received a criminal conviction resulting in either a custodial, suspended or community sentence (exclusive of fines). The decision to only focus on custodial, suspended or community sentences was taken as these were deemed to have a much more significant effect on claimants’ ability to find and stay in work than fines or cautions. Criminal convictions over any time period were deemed relevant as the impact of having a criminal conviction on the ability to find and stay in work can be long-lasting.

Those who had experienced a substance dependency

Claimants who have been dependent on either alcohol, drugs, or both, in the past 2 years. For the purposes of the survey, dependence was described as ‘feeling the need to drink / take drugs is too strong to control and having difficulty coping with life without it / them’. Again, a 2 year timeframe was agreed as it was felt that this was an appropriate amount of time for the impact on a person’s ability to find and stay in work to be substantial.

The care experienced

Claimants (across all age groups) with any experience of the care system before the age of 18. Whether or not a respondent met this definition was determined through a series of questions asking about their experiences of different forms of care, including:

foster care
a residential children’s home;
supported accommodation
while living with family with support from social services

Care leavers

Claimants (across all age groups) with experience of the care system (covering foster care; residential children’s home; supported accommodation; and living with parents, grandparents, other family or friends with support from social services) who were in care for a period of at least 13 weeks from the age of 14 and ending after their 16th birthday.

1.3 Report structure

Methodology

Brief methodological overview of the way that the survey was carried out and analysed. A technical report has been published separately to this findings-led report.

Incidence and profile of the four disadvantaged groups within the Universal Credit population

Presenting findings around the incidence of each of the four disadvantages within the Universal Credit claimant population, as well as co-occurrence of these disadvantages. This chapter also presents a profile of claimants who have experienced these disadvantages covering their: employment status and employment history, mental and physical health, ethnicity, qualifications, and access to the internet.

Disadvantaged groups in employment

Covering a profile of employed claimants in the four disadvantaged groups, analysis of their future aspirations, the barriers they face to staying in employment, and their experience and interest in receiving support.

Disadvantaged groups not in employment

Covering a profile of claimants not in employment in the four disadvantaged groups, analysis of their work aspirations, the barriers they face to finding employment, and their experience and interest in receiving support.

Segmentation

Segmentation analysis was conducted amongst claimants in the four disadvantaged experiences who were not in employment. The analysis focuses on an 8 segment model, covering the full spectrum of attitudes and distances from work amongst those not in employment.

Annexes

Profiles of individual disadvantaged groups.

Question 5

2. Methodology

Accepted Answer

This chapter details the methodology used in this research. This includes details on the sampling and quantitative techniques deployed, how data was collected, and how the findings have been weighted, analysed, and interpreted.

2.1 Sample design

Random probability sampling (RPS)

The starting sample for the survey contained 93,131 UC claimants. Most of these (81,870) were drawn at random from DWP’s UC claimant database.

Care leaver boost sampling

The remainder (11,261) were drawn for the boost sample among care leavers. The targets set for this element of the research were 500 verified care leaver responses and 125 unverified care leaver responses.

2.2 Screener and questionnaire development

The survey began with an extensive screener section to establish the incidence rate of the four disadvantaged groups, and to establish the relevance of the remaining survey for respondents. Any respondents that were in the four disadvantaged groups then completed the main survey which covered topics such as barriers to work and support needs. These 2 aspects will be referred to as the screener survey and main survey throughout this report.

The core topics covered in each element of the survey are detailed below.

Screener survey

This established if claimants had experienced any of the forms of disadvantage, covering:

experiences of homelessness including time since last experience, types of homelessness experienced, and risk of homelessness in the next 2 months
history of offending including sentences received and time since last custodial or community sentence experience
experiences of care, including in which settings this was experienced, age when claimants entered and left care, and length of care experience from the age of 14
experiences of dependency on alcohol or drugs in the past 2 years

Main survey

main goals or aspirations over the next 2 years
experience of work, including current working status and employment history
attitudes to work
barriers to work
mental and physical health of claimants
support needs
experiences of Jobcentre Plus work coach support
access to services, including access to the internet and confidence using it
demographics

2.3 Data collection

Fieldwork for this research took place between 14th May and 13th October 2024

Participants were initially invited to take part in an online survey. After 2 reminders, a follow-up telephone survey was conducted, with respondents contacted a minimum of 4 times (if they did not complete the survey or opt-out).

A breakdown of screener and main survey responses by RPS and care leaver boost samples is provided in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 Breakdown of survey responses by RPS and care leaver boost samples

Responses	Total	RPS sample	Boost sample
Screener survey responses	14,321	13,598	723
Main survey responses	3,340	2,617	723

The 13,598 screener responses from the RPS sample were used to measure the incidence of each disadvantage in the UC claimant population. The 3,340 main survey responses were used for analysis of the main survey.

2.4 Data Weighting and Analysis

Weighting has been applied to make the analysis representative of the UC claimant population and to correct for non-response bias during the data collection process.

There were 2 stages to this weighting process as described below.

Stage one weight

The first weight applied to the data was a non-response weight. This was applied to all screener survey completes from the RPS sample and was designed to correct for non-response bias amongst survey respondents. Non-response weighting is designed to ensure that the achieved survey responses reflect the population’s characteristics, improving representativeness and accuracy of results for unbiased conclusions.

This weight was calculated using the UC population statistics that were shared by DWP. It was used for all analysis of incidence rates of disadvantage presented in this report.

The first weight took account of the following characteristics:

age
household type
UC Labour Market Regime
claim length
sex
region

Stage two weight

The second weight allowed the interviews obtained from the boost sample with care leavers to be incorporated into the dataset of interviews from the main survey without them being over-represented.

This weight has been used for analysis of all findings other than incidence rates, that is, all the analysis based just on those experiencing one of the 4 types of disadvantage who completed the main survey.

Further details of the weighting approach used has been provided in the technical report, published separately, including all weighting targets used.

Details on the survey margins of error are included in the technical report.

2.5 Comparison between disadvantaged groups

Because of the scale of overlaps between the four disadvantaged groups, direct comparison between them can be misleading. When comparisons have been made in this report regarding experiences of disadvantage, it is between claimants who have that experience and those that do not. An example of this is that comparison may be made between ex-offenders and those who are not ex-offenders.

Differences between subgroups have been tested for statistical significance at the 95% confidence level, whereby only those differences found to be statistically significant are commented on. Throughout this report upwards arrows (↑) to indicate ‘more likely’ and downwards (↓) arrows to indicate ‘less likely’ are used on tables and charts to indicate statistically significant subgroup differences. Percentages in charts and tables may not always add to 100 per cent due to rounding.

2.6 Segmentation Analysis

Segmentation analysis has been used to identify key groups amongst disadvantaged groups not in employment. The segmentation drew on data from the RPS sample of all UC claimants as well as the boost sample of care leavers.

Segmentation examines similarities and differences in people’s attitudes and/or experiences (for example attitudes towards employment, experience of barriers and interest in support) and clusters people with similar attitudes together.

The purpose of the segmentation was to understand the attitudes and experiences of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups, and how that relates to their distance from work.

The segmentation was conducted using a Latent Class Analysis (LCA), because the questionnaire contained a rich amount of information, spread across different question types, from simple attitudinal scale questions to more complex multi-coded questions, which LCA is best suited to handle.

Question 6

3. Incidence and profile of disadvantage in the Universal Credit population

Accepted Answer

This chapter provides an overview of the incidence rate of the four disadvantaged groups within the UC claimant population and explores the co-occurrence of these disadvantages. To generate the incidence rate, this chapter draws on data from the random probability sample of all Universal Credit claimants. This chapter also profiles claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in terms of their health, ethnicity, and qualifications. It also explores their access to the internet and general confidence using online services.

Key findings

A fifth of all Universal Credit claimants had experienced at least one of the four disadvantages (21%).
Out of the four disadvantaged groups, it was most common for UC claimants to have experienced homelessness in the past 2 years (9%). 7 per cent of all UC claimants were care experienced, or had experienced substance dependency in the past 2 years, while 6% were ex-offenders.
The largest co-occurrence of disadvantage was between ex-offenders and those with a substance dependence in the past 2 years (2.1% of all UC claimants).
A quarter of Universal Credit claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were in employment (27%) and just under three quarters were not (72%). The most common working status among claimants in the four disadvantaged groups was to be long-term sick or disabled (37%).
Almost a quarter of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups had spent most of their time since education not working (23%).
A third of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups had also experienced domestic abuse (35%).
More disadvantaged claimants rated their health as bad (44%) than good (30%).
While most claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were confident using the internet (76%), a substantial minority were not (22%).

3.1 Incidence rate of each of the four disadvantages in the UC population

A fifth of UC claimants (21%) were in one of the four disadvantaged groups, with 6% belonging to more than one of them, as shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 Number of disadvantages experienced

Number of disadvantages experienced	Percentage	Notes
4	0.2%
3	1.2%	21% (at least one form of disadvantage)
2	4.4%	21% (at least one form of disadvantage)
1	15.1%	21% (at least one form of disadvantage)
None	79.1%

Base: All RPS UC claimants (13,598).

The incidence rate of each disadvantaged group within the UC population is shown in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Incidence rates of disadvantaged groups

Category	Percentage
Has experienced homelessness in the last 2 years	9%
Is care experienced	7%
Has experienced substance dependency in the last 2 years	7%
Is an ex-offender	6%
Is a care leaver (self-reported)	2%

Base: All RPS UC claimants (13,598).

Table 3.1 displays the forms of the four disadvantages, both within each disadvantaged group and within the UC claimant population as a whole.

Among those who had experienced homelessness in the past 2 years, sofa surfing or temporarily staying with family or friends was the most common experience (68% of all homeless claimants).

For those who were care experienced, the most common forms of care were to have been in foster care and to have been with family members supported by social services (both 44% of care experienced claimants).

For those with experience of a substance dependency, two-thirds had been dependent on drugs (66%) and just over half had been dependent on alcohol (52%)^{[footnote 1]}.

Among ex-offenders, an equal number had spent time in prison, had received a community sentence or had received a suspended sentence (49% for all 3 groups).

Table 3.1 Forms of disadvantage by disadvantaged group and all UC claimants

Homelessness	% of disadvantaged group	% of all UC claimants
Sofa surfed or temporarily stayed with family or friends	68%	6%
Slept rough	36%	3%
Stayed overnight in temporary rented accommodation or room in a shared house arranged by your local authority	33%	3%
Stayed overnight in a hostel, refuge, shelter or supported housing	29%	2%
Stayed overnight in a bed and breakfast or hotel arranged by your local authority	24%	2%

Care experienced	% of disadvantaged group	% of all UC claimants
Foster care	44%	3%
Residential children’s home	27%	2%
Supported accommodation	32%	2%
With your parents, grandparents, other family or friends with support from social services	44%	3%

Substance dependency	% of disadvantaged group	% of all UC claimants
Dependent on alcohol but not dependent on illegal drugs or addicted to prescription drugs in the last 2 years	34%	2%
Dependent on illegal drugs or addicted to prescription drugs but not dependent on alcohol in the last 2 years	48%	3%
Dependent on alcohol and illegal drugs or addicted to prescription drugs in the last 2 years	18%	1%

Ex-offenders	% of disadvantaged group	% of all UC claimants
Time in prison	49%	3%
Time in a young-offender institutions	21%	1%
A community sentence	49%	3%
A suspended sentence	49%	3%

Base: All RPS UC claimants (13,598); claimants who had experienced homelessness in the past 2 years (1,051); care experienced claimants (875); claimants who had experienced substance dependency in the past 2 years (810); ex-offenders (741).

3.2 Co-occurrence of disadvantages

Across all UC claimants, 6% had experienced more than one of the four forms of disadvantage. The most common co-occurrence of disadvantage was between ex-offenders and those with experience of a substance dependency in the past 2 years, who made up 2.1% of the whole UC claimant population.

The second most common co-occurrence was between homelessness and those who had experienced a substance dependency in the past 2 years, with this group making up 1.7% of the UC population.

In general, there was a pattern of substance dependency correlating more frequently with other disadvantages (Table 3.2). Conversely, care experience tended to co-occur less frequently with other forms of disadvantage.

Table 3.2 Co-occurrence of disadvantages for all UC claimants and all UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups

Co-occurrence of disadvantage	Co-occurrence of disadvantage	% of all UC claimants who have experienced one of the four disadvantages	% of all UC claimants
Ex-offender	Substance dependency in the past 2 years	9.9%	2.1%
Homelessness in past 2 years	Substance dependency in the past 2 years	8.2%	1.7%
Care experienced	Homelessness in past 2 years	7.3%	1.5%
Ex-offender	Homelessness in past 2 years	7.2%	1.5%
Care experienced	Ex-offender	6.6%	1.4%
Care experienced	Substance dependency in the past 2 years	5.2%	1.1%

Base: All RPS UC claimants (13,598); All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups (RPS sample) (2,617).

3.3 Profile of disadvantaged groups

This section will primarily compare the characteristics of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups with claimants who are not in any of the four disadvantaged groups (using data from the screener survey). This section also includes analysis of key differences between claimants with experience of different types of disadvantage.

When differences concern those with multiple disadvantaged experiences, the comparison is between those with multiple disadvantaged experiences, and those in one disadvantaged group.

Age

UC claimants in the disadvantaged groups were more likely to be younger, with 18% of this group being aged 16 to 24, compared to 11% of other UC claimants who did not identify as belonging to one of the four disadvantaged groups.

Differences within the four disadvantaged groups by age

Ex-offenders were comparably older (37% aged 50 and over compared to 23% of those with other disadvantaged experiences). It is worth noting that the definition of ex-offenders includes convictions from any point in time, rather than within a 2 year timeframe, as for those with experience of a substance dependence or homelessness. This may explain the older age demographic of this group.

Care experienced claimants were comparatively younger (30% aged 16 to 24 compared to 11% of those with other disadvantaged experiences).

Gender

The majority of UC claimants within the four disadvantaged groups were male (57%; 43% were female), based upon data held on the UC database. Among UC claimants not in one of the four disadvantaged groups, only 37% were male (63% female).

Differences within the four disadvantaged groups by gender

ex-offenders were particularly likely to be male (80% compared to 38% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences)
claimants with experience of multiple disadvantage were more likely to be male (69%) than those with only one disadvantaged experience (52%)

Household composition

In terms of household type, UC claimants who had experienced at least one of the four disadvantages were more likely to be single (90% compared to 78%) and have no children (68% compared to 43%).

Differences within the four disadvantaged groups by household composition

Multiple disadvantage: more likely to be single (93%) and without children (79%) than those in just one disadvantaged group (88% and 64% respectively).

Region

Compared to the geographic distribution of the UC population as a whole, UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were slightly more likely to be residing in the North West of England (16% compared to 14% of UC claimants not in one of the four disadvantaged groups).

UC Health Journey

UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were more likely to be on the UC health journey (48% compared to 28% of other UC claimants who did not identify as belonging to one of the 4 disadvantaged groups).

Differences within the four disadvantaged groups by household composition

Multiple disadvantage: Claimants in more than one disadvantaged group were more likely to be on the UC Health Journey (57%) than those with one disadvantaged experience (44%).

UC claim length

The overall profile of UC claim length for claimants in the four disadvantaged groups was relatively similar to the profile for claimants not in a disadvantaged group. The only difference was disadvantaged claimants were less likely to have a claim length of 2 to 4 years (23% compared with 27% for all claimants). The full profile of UC claim length is provided in Figure 3.3.

UC Labour Market Regime

Looking at their UC Labour Market Regime, UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were more likely to belong to the No Work Related Requirements Conditionality Regime (44%), or the Intensive Work Search conditionality regime (33%) compared to UC claimants who do not have experience of these disadvantages.

Differences within the four disadvantaged groups by UC Labour Market Regime

Substance dependent in last 2 years: more likely to be in the No Work Related Requirements regime (55% compared to 35% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences)
Ex-offenders: more likely to be in the No Work Related Requirements regime (53% compared to 35% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences)
Homeless in the last 2 years: more likely to be in the Intensive Work Search regime (43% compared to 25% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences)
Claimants with multiple disadvantaged experiences: more likely to be in the No Work Related Requirements regime (51%) than those with one disadvantaged experience (41%)

More information on the profile of the four disadvantaged groups is provided in Annex 1.

The following infographic summarises the key demographic differences between UC claimants with one or more of the four disadvantages, and those without.

Figure 3.3 Profile of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups compared to those not in a disadvantaged group

Figure 3.3 Profile of UC claimants the four disadvantaged groups compared to those not in a disadvantaged group

UC Labour Market Regime	In a disadvantaged group	Significant difference compared with those not in a disadvantaged group	Not in a disadvantaged group
Working Enough	8%	Less likely	18%
Summary: Light Touch in work or Out of Work)	7%	Less likely	15%
NWRR	44%	More likely	34%
Summary: Work Focused Interview or Work Preparation	9%	More likely	7%
IWS	33%	More likely	25%

UC claim length	In a disadvantaged group	Significant difference compared with those not in a disadvantaged group	Not in a disadvantaged group
Up to 6 months	17%	Not applicable	17%
6 months to 1 Year	13%	Not applicable	11%
1 to 2 Years	17%	Not applicable	17%
2 to 4 Years	23%	Less likely	27%
4+ Years	29%	Not applicable	27%

On the UC Health Journey	In a disadvantaged group	Significant difference compared with those not in a disadvantaged group	Not in a disadvantaged group
On the UC Health Journey	48%	More likely	28%

Government Office Region	In a disadvantaged group	Significant difference compared with those not in a disadvantaged group	Not in a disadvantaged group
On the UC Health Journey	48%	More likely	28%
North East	5%	Not applicable	5%
North West	16%	More likely	14%
Yorkshire and the Humber	10%	Not applicable	10%
East Midlands	7%	Not applicable	8%
West Midlands	11%	Not applicable	11%
Wales	6%	Not applicable	5%
East of England	8%	Not applicable	9%
London	17%	Not applicable	17%
Southwest	8%	Not applicable	8%
Southeast	12%	Not applicable	12%

Demographics	In a disadvantaged group	Significant difference compared with those not in a disadvantaged group	Not in a disadvantaged group
16 to 24	18%	More likely	11%
25 to 35	27%	Less likely	29%
36 to 49	31%	Less likely	36%
50+	24%	Not applicable	24%
Male	57%	More likely	37%
Female	43%	Less likely	63%
Has children	32%	Less likely	57%
No children	68%	More likely	43%
Single	90%	More likely	78%
Couple	10%	Less likely	22%

3.4 Employment status of the four disadvantaged groups

The majority of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were not in employment (72%). Over a third of all claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were long-term sick or disabled (37%). In total, 15% were unemployed and looking for work and 8% were unemployed but not job seeking.

Around a quarter of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were in employment (27%). A fifth were employed full-time or part-time (21%), 4% were self-employed and 2% were employed but not working at the time. Figure 3.4 shows the employment status of disadvantaged claimants.

Differences of employment status within the four disadvantaged groups

Ex-offenders: more likely not to be in employment than claimants with other disadvantaged experiences (79% vs. 69%). They were also more likely to be long-term sick or disabled (49% compared to 32% of those in other disadvantaged groups).

Substance dependent in the past 2 years: more likely not to be in employment than claimants in the other 3 disadvantaged groups (79% vs. 69%). They were also more likely to be long-term sick or disabled (53% compared to 29% of those in other disadvantaged groups).

Figure 3.4 Employment status of disadvantaged UC claimants

Category	Percentage	In employment or not in employment
Employed full-time or part-time	21%	In employment 27%
Self-employed	4%	In employment 27%
Employed, but not currently working	2%	In employment 27%
Long-term sick or disabled	37%	Not in employment 72%
Unemployed but looking for a job	15%	Not in employment 72%
Unemployed and not looking for a job	8%	Not in employment 72%
Full-time carer	4%	Not in employment 72%
Full-time parent	4%	Not in employment 72%
Student or Pupil	3%	Not in employment 72%
Retired	1%	Not in employment 72%
Volunteering	0%	Not in employment 72%

Q. How would you describe your current working status?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups (3,340).

3.5 Employment history of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups

In terms of their employment history, just under half of Universal Credit claimants in the four disadvantaged groups had worked relatively consistently (45% had worked with at most a few breaks of 3 months or more since leaving education). Just under a quarter had spent most of their employment history not working (23%).

Figure 3.5 below shows the employment history of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups.

Figure 3.5 Employment history of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups

Employment history	Percentage	Notes
Worked solidly without a break of 3 months or more and working currently	8%	45% Summary: mostly worked
Worked solidly without a break of 3 months or more until recently	18%	45% Summary: mostly worked
Worked solidly with a few breaks of 3 months or more	19%	45% Summary: mostly worked
Spent about as much time working as not working	17%	Empty cell
Spent most of my time not working	23%	Empty cell

Q. Which of the following best describes your experience of any paid work since leaving education?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups (3,340).

Differences of employment history within the four disadvantaged groups

Care experienced: more likely to have spent most of their time not working since leaving education (30%) than claimants in the other 3 disadvantaged groups (20%). This may be related to their younger age profile.

3.6 Overlap with other experiences of disadvantage

Whilst this study focuses on just four forms of disadvantage, in the main survey, disadvantaged claimants were also asked about other experiences that could disadvantage them in the labour market. Around 1 in 3 (35%) disadvantaged UC claimants had also experienced domestic abuse, while more than one in 8 (13%) had experienced financial abuse or exploitation from a non-family member. In total, 7% had been a refugee.

The incidence of these other disadvantages is shown in Figure 3.6, alongside the number of each of these disadvantages experienced by claimants in the four disadvantaged groups.

Figure 3.6 Experience of other types of disadvantage and number of other disadvantages experienced

Other forms of disadvantage as a proportion of the disadvantaged UC claimant population	Percentage	Number of markers of other disadvantages	Percentage
Has experience of domestic abuse	35%	3+	2%
Has experienced financial abuse or exploitation from a non-family member	13%	2	12%
Has been a refugee	7%	1	32%
Served in the British armed forces	3%	None	50%
Has experienced modern slavery or human trafficking	3%	Not applicable	Not applicable
A part of the Afghan or Ukrainian resettlement schemes	1%	Not applicable	Not applicable

Q. Since you were 16, have you experienced any of the following?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups (3,340).

In total, almost half of all claimants in the four disadvantaged groups had experienced at least one of these other forms of disadvantage (46%). This breaks down to a third (32%) who had experienced one other type of disadvantage, 12% who had experienced 2, and 2% had experienced 3 or more.

Differences of experiences of other types of disadvantage within the four disadvantaged groups

Care experienced claimants: more likely to have experienced domestic abuse (41%) than those in the other 3 disadvantaged groups who were not care experienced (32%).

Substance dependent in the past 2 years: more likely to have experienced domestic abuse than claimants in the other 3 disadvantaged groups who had not experienced substance dependency in the past 2 years (40% vs. 32%). They were also less likely to have been refugees (2%) than other claimants in disadvantaged groups (9%).

Claimants who had experienced homelessness in the past 2 years: more likely to have been a refugee (12%) than those in the other 3 disadvantaged groups who had not experienced homelessness in the past 2 years (4%).

Ex-offenders: particularly likely not to have experienced any of these disadvantages (58%) compared to those in the other 3 disadvantaged groups (46%).

3.7 Mental and physical health

Overall health

Overall, Universal Credit claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were more likely to rate their health as bad (44%) than good (30%), with around a quarter rating their health neutrally at 3 out of 5 (24%). Figure 3.7 displays the rating that claimants in the four disadvantaged groups gave for their health.

Figure 3.7 How would you rate your health?

Response	Percentage	Notes
1 – Very bad	23%	44% Summary: bad
2	20%	44% Summary: bad
3	24%	Empty cell
4	17%	30% Summary: good
5 – Very good	14%	30% Summary: good

Q. Firstly, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very bad and 5 is very good, how would you rate your health?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups (3,340).

Differences of overall health rating within the four disadvantaged groups

substance dependency in past 2 years: around 6 in 10 (57%) rated their health as bad compared to 37% of disadvantaged claimants not in this group
ex-offenders: half (50%) rated their health as bad compared to 41% of disadvantaged claimants not in this group
care experienced: a third rated their health as good (33%) compared to 29% of disadvantaged claimants not in this group
homelessness in the past 2 years: 33% rated their health as good compared to 28% of disadvantaged claimants not in this group

Long-term health conditions and disabilities

Seven in ten (70%) UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups had a physical or mental health condition lasting or expected to last 6 months or more.

The specific health conditions and disabilities experienced are shown in Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.8 Incidence of illnesses, health conditions or disabilities lasting or expected to last 6 months or more

Illness, health condition or disability	Percentage	Type
Depression, stress or anxiety	52%	Mental health
Physical disability or injury affecting your arms, legs, neck or back	30%	Physical health
Chronic or progressive conditions	27%	Physical health
Any other mental health condition	17%	Mental health
Any other physical health condition or disability	16%	Physical health
Autistic spectrum disorder or ADHD	15%	Learning difficulty or neurodiversity
Sensory impairment or communication problems	15%	Physical health
Any other neurodiverse condition, such as dyslexia or dyspraxia	13%	Learning difficulty or neurodiversity
Any other health condition or disability	11%	Mental health
Schizophrenia, psychotic disorder or bipolar	10%	Mental health
Learning difficulties such as speech and language delay	6%	Learning difficulty or neurodiversity
None	31%	Empty cell
Prefer not to say or Don’t know	1%	Empty cell

Q. Do you have any of the following illnesses, health conditions or disabilities lasting or expected to last 6 months or more?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups (3,340).

Differences in long-term health conditions and disabilities within the four disadvantaged groups

substance dependency in the past 2 years: 8 in 10 had a physical or mental health condition lasting or expected to last 6 months or more (80%), compared to 65% of those who did not have substance dependency experiences in the past 2 years
ex-offenders: more likely to have had a physical or mental health condition lasting or expected to last 6 months or more (76%) than among claimants with other disadvantaged experiences (67%)
homelessness in the past 2 years: lower rates of having had a physical or mental health condition lasting or expected to last 6 months or more (65%) than those who had not experienced homelessness in this time frame (73%)

Physical health

Claimants were only asked about specific physical or mental health conditions, learning difficulties or neurodiversity if they stated that they had physical or mental health conditions, disabilities, or illnesses lasting or expected to last for 6 months or more.

Half of all claimants in the four disadvantaged groups had a physical health condition lasting or expected to last 6 months or more (51%): most commonly this was a physical disability or injury affecting their arms, legs, neck or back (30%) or a chronic or progressive condition (27%).

Differences in physical health conditions within the four disadvantaged groups

ex-offenders: 6 in 10 had physical health conditions (60%), compared to 47% of other claimants with disadvantaged experiences
substance dependency issues in the past 2 years: more likely to report physical health issues (59%) than other claimants with disadvantaged experiences (47%)

Mental health

Almost 6 in 10 claimants in the four disadvantaged groups had a mental health condition lasting or expected to last 6 months or more (57%). Half of all claimants in the four disadvantaged groups had depression, stress or anxiety (52%).

Differences in mental health conditions within the four disadvantaged groups

Substance dependency in past 2 years: particularly likely to have a mental health condition (73% compared to 50% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences). They were also more likely to have experienced depression, stress or anxiety (66% compared to 46% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences). They were also more likely to have schizophrenia, psychotic disorder or bipolar (16% compared to 7% of other disadvantaged claimants).

Ex-offenders: 13% of ex-offenders had schizophrenia, psychotic disorder or bipolar, compared to 9% of other disadvantaged claimants.

Learning difficulty or neurodiversity

A quarter of claimants with disadvantaged experiences had a learning difficulty or neurodiversity (26%)^{[footnote 2]}. Across all claimants in the four disadvantaged groups, 15% had autistic spectrum disorder or ADHD, 6% had learning difficulties such as speech and language delay; and 13% had any other neurodiverse condition, such as dyslexia or dyspraxia.

Substance dependency: 31% of this group had a learning difficulty or neurodiversity (compared to 23% of all other disadvantaged claimants).

Impact of health on day-to-day activities

Overall, two-thirds of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups had conditions or illnesses that reduced their ability to conduct day-to-day activities (64% overall; 17% a little and 47% a lot).

Differences in the impact of health on day-to-day activities within the four disadvantaged groups

Substance dependency in the past 2 years: three quarters had conditions or illnesses that reduced their ability to conduct day-to-day activities (76% compared to 59% of claimants in the other 3 disadvantaged groups).

Ex-offenders:7 in 10 had conditions or illnesses that reduced their ability to conduct day-to-day activities (70%, compared to 62% of those who are not ex-offenders).

Homeless in the past 2 years: less likely to have had conditions or illnesses that reduced their ability to conduct day-to-day activities (59%) than those who had not (68%).

3.8 Ethnicity

Close to 3 quarters (72%) of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were white.

Figure 3.9 breaks down the ethnicity of UC claimants the four disadvantaged groups by disadvantage.

Figure 3.9 Ethnicity profile of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups, broken down by disadvantage

Disadvantage group	White	Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups	Black or African or Caribbean or Black British	Asian or Asian British	Other ethnic group
All disadvantaged claimants	72%	5%	11%	7%	3%
Care Experienced	71%	6%	11%	6%	3%
Ex-Offender	84%	4%	6%	5%	1%
Homelessness	63%	5%	15%	10%	5%
Substance Dependent	85%	4%	5%	3%	1%

Q. How would you describe your ethnicity?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups (3,340). Figures below 5% not shown in chart.

Differences of ethnicity within the four disadvantaged groups

homeless in the past 2 years: more likely to be black (15% compared to 8% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences)
substance dependency in the past 2 years: more likely to be white (85% compared to 67% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences)
ex-offenders: more likely to be white (84% compared to 67% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences)

3.9 Qualifications

A quarter (26%) of all UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups had no qualifications. The full qualification profile of UC claimants with disadvantaged experiences is provided in Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.10 Qualification profile of UC claimants with disadvantaged experiences

Qualification level	Percentage
No qualifications	26%
Fewer than 5 GCSEs at grade A to C or 9 to 4, NVQ Level 1 or equivalent	17%
5 or more GCSEs of grade A to C or 9 to 4 or equivalent, NVQ Level 2 or equivalent, intermediate apprenticeship	17%
A or T-Levels or equivalent, NVQ Level 3 or equivalent, advanced apprenticeship	14%
Undergraduate degree, Masters or PhD	13%
Don’t know or prefer not to say	8%

Q. Which of the following reflects the highest qualification that you have attained?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups (3,340).

Ex-offenders: had the greatest proportion of individuals with no qualifications among the 4 disadvantaged groups (34% compared to 22% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences.

Homeless in the past 2 years: less likely to have no qualifications (24% compared with 27% of claimants from the other 3 disadvantaged groups who had not experienced homelessness in the past 2 years). They were also more likely to have A or T-Levels or equivalent as their highest qualification (16%) and to hold a degree (17%) compared to claimants with other disadvantage experiences.

3.10 Digital skills and confidence

Access to the internet

The vast majority (92%) of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups had access to the internet through a personal device or computer.

ex-offenders (7%) were more likely to have no means of accessing the internet than claimants in the other 3 groups who were not ex-offenders (3%)
those who had experienced a substance dependency in the past 2 years (6%) were more likely to have no means of accessing the internet (compared to 3% of claimants in the other 3 groups who had not experienced substance dependency in the past 2 years).

Confidence using the internet

The majority of Universal Credit claimants in the four disadvantaged groups said they felt confident using the internet (76%), although a fifth (22%) were not confident.

Figure 3.11 shows the confidence of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups.

Figure 3.11 Confidence using the internet

Response	Percentage	Notes
Not sure	2%	Empty cell
Not at all confident	9%	22% Summary: not confident
Not that confident	13%	22% Summary: not confident
Fairly confident	31%	76% Summary: confident
Very confident	45%	76% Summary: confident
Prefer not to say	1%	Empty cell

Q. How confident, if at all, do you feel in your ability to use the internet?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups (3,340). Figures below 5% not shown.

Ex-offenders: less likely to be confident using the internet (66% compared to 80% of other disadvantaged claimants).

Experience of substance dependency in the past 2 years: less likely to be confident using the internet (69% compared to 79% of other disadvantaged claimants).

Ease of managing UC online accounts

Nearly 1 in 5 UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups found it difficult to manage their UC online account (18%).

Substance dependent in last 2 years: a higher proportion (25%) had difficulty managing their benefit claim using their UC online account than those who had not experienced substance dependency in the past 2 years (15%).

Ex-offenders: a higher proportion (21%) had difficulty managing their benefit claim using their UC online account than other disadvantaged claimants (17%).

Question 7

4. Disadvantaged groups in employment

Accepted Answer

This chapter explores the experiences of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups who were in employment (including self-employment), analysing their future aspirations, the barriers they faced to staying in employment, and their experience and interest in receiving support.

Summary

A quarter of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were in employment, including self-employment (27%).
Disadvantaged claimants in employment were less likely to have experienced substance dependency (23%) or be an ex-offender (22%) than those not in employment (35% and 32% respectively). They were also more likely to be aged 25 to 35 (32% compared to 25%), female (54% compared to 39%) and from ethnic minority backgrounds (66% were white compared to 75%). A greater proportion had achieved some level of qualification, and they tended to have better health than those not in employment.
In terms of types of employment, it was most common for employed claimants to have a permanent, open-ended contract (55%), while a minority (21%) were on zero hours or temporary contacts and 15% were self-employed. Ex-offenders were more likely to be self-employed (28%) than those who were not ex-offenders (12%).
The most common goal for the next 2 years amongst those in employment was to change jobs; this coincides with the fact that around half of claimants in employment were interested in receiving support to increase their earnings (46%) or were already receiving it (8%).
A third of those in employment reported that physical or mental health conditions or disabilities were a barrier to staying in employment (34%). Those with the experience of substance dependency in the past 2 years were more likely to report this as a barrier (58%).
Of the four disadvantages, those who had experienced homelessness in the past 2 years were most likely to consider their experience as a barrier to staying in employment. They were also most likely to be interested in receiving support (42% interested in support to find stable housing).

4.1 Profile

Around a quarter (27%) of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were in employment. Those in employment were less likely to have experienced substance dependency than those not in employment (23% compared to 35%). There was also a lower proportion of ex-offenders among those in employment (22%), compared with those not in employment (32%). UC claimants from the four disadvantaged groups in employment were also less likely to have multiple disadvantaged experiences (17%) than those not in employment (31%).

Age

UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment had a younger age profile than those not in employment. Almost a third of those in employment were between 25 to 35 (32%) and just 16% were 50 and over, compared with 25% aged 25 to 35 and 27% aged 50 and over among those not in employment.

Gender

A higher proportion of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment were female (54%) than for those not in employment (39%).

Household composition

UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment were more likely to have children (51%) than those not in employment (25%).

Mental and physical health issues

UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment were less likely to have mental and physical health conditions:

48% rated their health as good (compared to 24% of those not in employment)
48% had a health condition expected to last 6 months or more (compared to 78% of those not in employment)
40% were limited to in their ability to carry out their day-to-day activities (compared to 73% of those not in employment)
30% had a physical health condition and 36% had a mental health condition (compared to 59% and 65% respectively of those not in employment)

Learning difficulty and neurodiversity

Fourteen per cent had a learning difficulty or neurodiversity (compared to 30% of those not in employment).

Ethnicity

UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment were also more likely to be from an ethnic minority background. Over 1 in 10 (15%) of those in employment were black, compared with 9% not in employment and 66% were white compared with 75% for those not in employment.

Qualifications

There was a higher level of educational attainment among those in employment, with only 14% having no qualifications, compared with 30% of those not in employment.

Internet access and confidence

Claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment were more likely to have access to the internet (98%) and feel confident using it (90%) than those not in employment (93% and 71% respectively).

Figure 4.1.1 and Figure 4.1.2 shows the demographics of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment compared with those not in employment.

Figure 4.1.1 Profile of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment compared to those not in employment

Figure 4.1.2 Profile of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment compared to those not in employment

Disadvantaged Groups	In employment	Significant difference compared with those not in employment	Not in employment
Care Experienced	33%	Empty cell	33%
Ex-Offender	22%	Less likely	32%
Substance Dependent	23%	Less likely	35%
Homelessness	42%	Empty cell	40%
Multiple types of disadvantage	17%	Less likely	31%

Other types of disadvantage	In employment	Significant difference compared with those not in employment	Not in employment
Domestic Abuse	35%	Empty cell	35%
Financial abuse or exploitation from a non-family member	12%	Empty cell	13%
Been a refugee	9%	Empty cell	7%

Government Office Region	In employment	Significant difference compared with those not in employment	Not in employment
North East	4%	Empty cell	6%
North West	15%	Empty cell	17%
Yorkshire and the Humber	7%	Less likely	11%
London	20%	More likely	15%
Southwest	9%	Empty cell	8%
Southeast	13%	Empty cell	11%

Qualifications	In employment	Significant difference compared with those not in employment	Not in employment
No qualifications	14%	Less likely	30%
Fewer than 5 GCSEs at grade A to C or 9 to 4, NVQ Level 1 or equivalent	17%	Empty cell	18%
5 or more GCSEs of grade A to C or 9 to 4 or equivalent, NVQ Level 2 or equivalent, intermediate apprenticeship	19%	Empty cell	16%
A or T-Levels or equivalent, NVQ Level 3 or equivalent, advanced apprenticeship	18%	More likely	13%
Undergraduate degree, Masters or PhD	18%	More likely	11%

Demographics	In employment	Significant difference compared with those not in employment	Not in employment
16 to 24	18%	Empty cell	19%
25 to 35	32%	More likely	25%
36 to 49	34%	More likely	30%
50+	16%	Less likely	27%
Male	46%	Less likely	61%
Female	54%	More likely	39%
Has children	51%	More likely	25%
No children	49%	Less likely	75%
Single	87%	Less likely	91%
Couple	13%	More likely	9%
Black	15%	More likely	9%
Mixed	5%	Empty cell	5%
White	66%	Less likely	75%
Other	3%	Empty cell	3%

Internet access and confidence	In employment	Significant difference compared with those not in employment	Not in employment
Have access to the internet	98%	More likely	93%
Feel confident using the internet	90%	More likely	71%
Find managing their benefit claim using their UC Online account easy	82%	More likely	71%

UC claim length	In employment	Significant difference compared with those not in employment	Not in employment
Up to 6 months	18%	Empty cell	17%
6 months to 1 Year	14%	Empty cell	12%
1 to 2 Years	20%	Empty cell	17%
2 to 4 Years	24%	Empty cell	23%
4+ Years	24%	Less likely	31%

Mental and physical health	In employment	Significant difference compared with those not in employment	Not in employment
On the UC health Journey	17%	Less likely	59%
Rate their health as ‘Good’	48%	More likely	24%
Have a health condition expected to last 6 months or more	48%	Less likely	78%
Are limited in their ability to carry out day-to-day activities	40%	Less likely	73%
Have a physical health condition	30%	Less likely	59%
Have a mental health condition	36%	Less likely	65%
Have a learning difficulty or neurodiversity	14%	Less likely	30%

Type of employment	In employment	Significant difference compared with those not in employment	Not in employment
A permanent or open ended job	55%	Empty cell	Empty cell
A temporary fixed term or seasonal job	9%	Empty cell	Empty cell
A zero hours job	12%	Empty cell	Empty cell

4.2 Employment type

Employment status and type

Most UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups who were in employment were in full-time or part-time work (79%). The proportion of those in self-employment was 15%, rising to 28% for ex-offenders, as shown in Table 4.1

Table 4.1 Current working status

Employment status	Total	Homeless	Substance Dependent	Ex-Offender	Significant difference compared with those not in employment	Care Experienced
Base	873	324	173	157	Empty cell	407
Employed full-time or part-time	79%	80%	83%	68%	Less likely	79%
Employed but not currently working – e.g. on sick leave, maternity leave	6%	6%	4%	4%	Empty cell	7%
Self-employed	15%	14%	13%	28%	More likely	14%

Q. How would you describe your current working status?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment (873).

The most common contract type for employed UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups was being in a permanent or open-ended job (55%). A further fifth (21%) were in relatively ‘insecure’ work, where the amount of work they get may vary (12% had a zero-hours contract) or only cover a fixed period (9% had a temporary or seasonal contract) as shown in Figure 4.2.

Differences of working status within different demographics

Claimants aged 16 to 24 were more likely to be working on zero-hours contracts (19%) or temporary contracts (17%) than those 25 and over.

White claimants were less likely to be working zero-hours contracts (10%) and on temporary contracts (6%) than the overall population.

Figure 4.2 Type of employment contract

Type of employment contract	Percentage
Permanent or open-ended	55%
Self-employed	15%
Zero-hours	12%
Temporary or seasonal	9%
Don’t know or Prefer not to say	5%

Q. What type of contract is your current job?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment (873).

Around a third of employed UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups had worked solidly since leaving education without a break (31%) (Figure 4.3). Work history was correlated with employment status, as they were more likely than those not in employment to have mostly worked since leaving education (62% compared to 39% respectively).

Figure 4.3 Experience of work since leaving education

Experience of work since leaving education	Percentage
Worked solidly without a break of 3 months or more and working currently	31%
Worked solidly without a break of 3 months or more until recently	8%
Worked solidly with a few breaks of 3 months or more	23%
Spent about as much time working as not working	16%
Spent most of my time not working	13%
Summary: mostly been in work	62%

Q. Which of the following best describes your experiences of any paid work since leaving education?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment (873).

4.3Future aspirations

When asked about their goals and aspirations for the next 2 years, work-related goals were the most common focus for those in employment with over a third (36%) reporting that their goal was to change jobs or to get a job (Figure 4.4). This was followed by moving or buying a home (19%), caring for family (17%) and studying (14%). Many claimants were also interested in improving their finances and getting out of debt (14%), as well as keeping their job (12%), and starting a business or becoming self-employed (8%).

Figure 4.4 Future goals

Future goals	Percentage
Change jobs or get a job	36%
Move house or buy a house	19%
Care for my family	17%
Continue studying or return to my studies or gain qualifications	14%
Improve my finances or get out of debt	14%
Keep my job	12%
Start a business or become self employed	8%
Be physically healthy	7%
Have a nice or better life (including vague goals or comments)	6%
Be happy or improve my mental health	5%
Survive or stay alive	5%

Q. What are your main goals or aspirations for the next 2 years?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment who shared a goal (764).

Differences within the four disadvantaged groups regarding future goals

Homelessness

Those with experience of homelessness in the past 2 years were more likely to report changing jobs or getting a job to be their main goal (41% compared with 31% all others).

I am looking for a better job. If I find it, I will stop working in food delivery and start the new job to pay for the house and my special needs.

(Male UC claimant, 25 to 34, Experienced homelessness in the past 2 years)^{[footnote 3]}.

These claimants were also more likely to aspire to study (19% compared with 10% of all others).

Secure a home, financial security, having savings for emergencies. Generally, be secure and stable.

(Female UC claimant, 25 to 34, Experienced homelessness in the past 2 years).

Ex-offenders

Ex-offenders were more likely to be self-employed (28% compared with 12% of all others) and, in relation to their future goals, were more likely to have an aspiration to start a business or become self-employed (13% compared with 6% of all others).

I can’t get a full-time job because of my age and other things. I went back to education, but it helped me but didn’t help me get jobs. I’m looking to open a business and try that now. I’m tired of applying for jobs that get rejections.

(Male UC claimant, 45 to 54, Ex-offender).

Substance dependency

Those with experience of substance dependency in the past 2 years were more likely to have the goal of improving their physical health (11% compared with 5% of all others). This aligns with their increased likelihood of rating their health bad, as discussed in Chapter 5.

4.4 Barriers to staying in work

UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment were asked about the types of barriers that have made it difficult for them to stay in their job over the last 6 months (Figure 4.5). A third (31%) reported no barriers to staying in work. The most common reported barrier was physical or mental health conditions or disabilities, with a third (34%) feeling this impacted their ability to stay in employment.

Figure 4.5 Barriers to staying in work

Barriers to staying in work	Percentage
None of these	31%
Physical or mental health conditions or disabilities	34%
Not having the right skills or qualifications for the jobs available	19%
Few jobs available where you live	17%
Lack of confidence in applying for jobs	16%
Lack of suitable or affordable childcare	15%
Need to take care of an elderly, ill or disabled friend or relative	11%
Having a learning difficulty or neurodiverse condition	11%
Lack of recent experience of working	10%
Employers discriminating against you because of your experiences or background	9%
Your age	8%

Q. Over the last 6 months, have any of the following made it difficult for you to get a job or stay in your job?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment (873).

Substance dependency in the past 2 years: more likely to cite a physical or mental health condition or disability as a barrier to staying in work (58% compared with 27% of all others). This aligns with mental or physical health conditions being more common within this group, as discussed in Chapter 3.

Ex-offenders: more likely to report employer discrimination because of their background (16% compared with 7% of all others).

Claimants with multiple disadvantages: more likely more likely to report employer discrimination because of their background (7% for one disadvantage, 19% for 2 and 29% for 3 to 4 disadvantages).

Claimants with a learning difficulty or neurodivergence: also more likely to report employer discrimination because of their background (17%).

Claimants were also asked about whether they felt their experience of disadvantage had made it more difficult to stay in employment (Figure 4.6). On balance, claimants were more likely to say this had not made it more difficult to stay in work, than say it had done. The exception to this was the experience of being homeless, with 2 in 5 (41%) of those who had faced this in the past 2 years saying it had made staying in work more difficult.

Figure 4.6 Disadvantages and whether they acted as a barrier to stay in a job

Disadvantages and whether they acted as a barrier to stay in a job	Made it more difficult (4/5)	3	Little to no impact (1/2)	Don’t know
Experience of being homeless	41%	13%	37%	9%
Experience of substance dependency	27%	12%	55%	6%
Experience of the criminal justice system	24%	7%	66%	3%
Experience of being in care	17%	14%	59%	10%

Q. To what extent has your experience of [disadvantage] made it more difficult to stay in your job on a scale of 1 to 5?

Base: Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment that experienced specific disadvantages: Homelessness (324), Substance Dependency (173), Ex-Offender (157), Care Experienced (407).

4.5 Support needs

Access to support

A clear majority (80%) of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment had people they could trust and go to for help and support, if they had a serious problem.

More than half (56%) said they could go to a family member, with a similar proportion saying they had a friend or friends they could trust for support (53%). Around a quarter (27%) said there was a professional they could approach, and 13% said their trusted person was someone else. Almost a fifth (18%) said they had no one they could go to if they had a serious problem.

Whether claimants had a support network also varied by certain characteristics:

white claimants were less likely to have no-one they could approach for help (15%) compared to other claimants (23%)
a fifth of claimants without children (21%) had no-one for support compared to 15% of those with children
UC claimants with experience of homelessness in the past 2 years were less likely to have at least one person they could approach for help (76% compared to 83% of claimants with the other 3 disadvantaged experiences)

GP registration

Almost all employed UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups were registered with a GP (97%).

Those who were younger, aged 16 to 24, were less likely to be registered with a GP (92% vs 100% for those aged 36 and over).

Interest in future support

UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment were asked if they would be interested in receiving support specific to their disadvantage, or their health if living with a disability or health condition.

The levels of interest in support is shown in Figure 4.7.

Homelessness in the past 2 years: highest levels of interest in support related to their disadvantages. Over two-fifths of this group (41%) were interested in support with finding stable housing.
Ex-offenders: lowest rates of interest in support with disadvantages. Less than 1 in 12 (7%) were interested in support to help them stay away from crime.

Figure 4.7 Interest in support with disadvantages (in employment)

Disadvantage support	Yes - interested	Already receiving support	Not interested	Don’t know
Finding stable housing	41%	28%	27%	4%
Managing mental health	31%	28%	36%	4%
Managing physical health	27%	26%	43%	4%
Managing substance dependency	21%	24%	48%	6%
Help with being a care leaver	20%	20%	50%	11%
Staying away from crime	7%	9%	82%	2%

Q. Would you be interested in receiving the following type of support to help you: [disadvantage]. Figures below 5% not shown.

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment who: have experienced homelessness in the last 2 years (324); health condition (413); care leavers (166); substance dependency in the last 2 years (173); ex-offenders (157).

In terms of support related to work, as can be seen Figure 4.8. UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment were most likely to be interested in receiving support to increase their earnings (46%), possibly indicating why many had goals and aspirations around changing job.

Figure 4.8 Interest in support with work (in employment)

Support with work	Yes - interested	Already receiving support	No	Don’t know
Increasing your earnings	46%	8%	41%	5%
Accessing education or training	32%	9%	56%	4%
Improving your confidence	30%	9%	57%	4%
Managing money and debt	29%	9%	58%	4%
Improving your digital skills	27%	7%	61%	5%
Searching for jobs	19%	11%	67%	3%
Work experience or volunteering opportunities	19%	9%	68%	4%
Writing a CV or job application	18%	11%	68%	3%

Q. Would you be interested in receiving the following type of support?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged group in employment (873); Increasing your earnings: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment, excluding those who stated ‘Other’ when asked about their employment status (842).

Beyond earnings, interest in support with work was relatively low among those in employment. That said, there was evidence of some unmet need in terms of skills and confidence. Around 3 in 10 said they were interested in accessing education or training (32%) or improving their confidence (30%). Around a quarter (27%) expressed interest in improving their digital skills.

Homelessness in the past 2 years: more likely to express interest in every form of employment support except improving confidence. For example, interest in receiving support to increase their earnings was 51% compared to 43% among those who had not experienced homelessness.

Substance dependent in the past 2 years: more likely to show interest in managing money and debt (36% compared to 27% of claimants in the other three disadvantaged groups).

Care experienced: less likely to show interest in managing money and debt (23% compared to 32% of claimants in the other 3 disadvantaged groups).

Ex-offenders: less likely to be interested in all work-related support options discussed, with the exceptions of increasing their earnings, and managing money and debt.

Interest in accessing education or training was significantly lower among those aged 50 or older (21%), although this was not the case for improving digital skills (28%).

Claimants from a black ethnic minority background were more interested in receiving support with accessing education or training (50% compared with 24% of white claimants). This difference may be explained by the higher proportion of Black / Black British claimants aged 16 to 24 (22% compared with 14% of white claimants). Black or Black British claimants were also more interested in receiving digital skills support (48% compared with 18% of white claimants).

4.6 Experience of Jobcentre Plus

Contact with work coaches

In total, 54% of employed claimants had contact with their work coach over the previous 6 months. This was particularly common for those experiencing homelessness in the past 2 years (61% compared to 50% of those in one of the four disadvantaged groups who had not).

Perceptions of work coaches

Just over half (55%) of claimants in employment who had spoken with their work coach in the previous 6 months felt their work coach understood their needs

Overall, 6 in 10 employed claimants who had spoken to their work coach in the previous 6 months felt comfortable discussing their circumstances with their work coach (62%) (Table 4.2).

Three quarters (74%) of employed claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups expressed satisfaction with the support they had received from their work coach (34% very satisfied).

Differences in perceptions of work coaches

Claimants who saw the same work coach consistently were more satisfied with their support than claimants who saw different work coaches (89% satisfied compared with 54% satisfied).

Male claimants were more likely to feel that their work coach understood their needs (62% compared to 49% of women).

Table 4.2 Statements about work coaches, broken down by disadvantage

Statement	Total	Homeless	Substance Dependent	Ex-Offender	Care Experienced
Base	470	189	96	78	218
I speak with the same work coach every time I have an appointment (% agree)	44%	42%	44%	49%	44%
I feel comfortable discussing my circumstances with my work coach (% agree)	62%	62%	57%	66%	61%
My work coach understands my needs (% agree)	55%	55%	47%	57%	55%
I am satisfied with the support I have received from my work coach (% agree)	74%	73%	72%	77%	69%

Q. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: [Statement]

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups in employment that have spoken to their work coach in the past 6 months (470).

Perceptions of work coach support

Employed claimants with disadvantaged experiences who had spoken with their work coach in the past 6 months were also asked if their work coach had provided help or referrals specific to their disadvantage.

Differences in perceptions of work coach support within the four disadvantaged

Homelessness in the past 2 years: most likely to have received help or referrals relating to their disadvantage (15%), which aligns with the finding that this group was most interested in receiving support with finding stable housing.

Experience of managing Universal Credit claim

Employed claimants who had experienced disadvantage were asked if they had experienced problems with their benefit claim in the previous 6 months, and had to contact DWP about it. A quarter (25%) said they had, and there was no difference in relation to the disadvantage that they had experienced.

Differences in experience of managing a Universal Credit claim between demographic groups

Claimants more likely to have experienced a problem with their UC claim included those aged 25 to 35 (31%); and black claimants (36%).

This was followed by the care experienced group (9%), those with a substance dependency (8%) and ex-offenders (4%).

Question 8

5. Disadvantaged groups not in employment

Accepted Answer

This chapter reports on UC claimants in 1 of the four disadvantaged groups who are not in employment, covering their work aspirations, their barriers to finding employment, and the types of support they were interested in.

Summary

Nearly three-quarters of UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups were not in employment (72%).
Most UC claimants in 1 of the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment said this was because of long-term sickness or a disability (51%). This was more common for those that had experienced substance dependence in the past 2 years (67%) and ex-offenders (62%).
The most common goal for the next 2 years was gaining employment (33%), followed by getting physically healthy (17%), and moving or buying a house (16%).
Mirroring this, over half (55%) of those not in employment thought that work was a possibility with the right support. One in 5 (20%) thought they were ready to work now. However, the longer a claimant’s claim length, the less likely they were to feel that it was an option (67% for a UC claim of up to 6 months, 46% for a claim of 4 years or more).
The majority of those not in employment stated that physical or mental health conditions or disabilities were the main barrier for finding employment (72%).
Of the four disadvantages, experience of homelessness in the past 2 years was most commonly reported as a barrier to employment (59% of this group said that this experience had been a barrier to finding work). This was followed by substance dependency in the past 2 years (47%), being an ex-offender (44%) and being care experienced (31%).
Most claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups were not interested in support for handling disadvantages, or were already receiving this support. The group most commonly interested in support was those that had experienced homelessness in the past 2 years: 44% were interested in support with finding stable housing. Among those with health conditions, 34% were interested in receiving support for managing their mental health and 29% for their physical health.
The majority of those not in employment were not interested in receiving support with skills that could help them move towards employment.

5.1 Profile

The majority (72%) of UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups were not in employment.

Differences in proportion not in employment within the four disadvantaged groups

Substance dependency: a higher proportion of claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment had experienced substance dependency in the past 2 years (35%) than among those who were in employment (23%).

Ex-offenders: a higher proportion of those not in employment were ex-offenders (32%) than amongst disadvantaged claimants in employment (22%).

Multiple disadvantages: a higher proportion of those not in employment had experienced multiple disadvantages (31%) than for those in employment (17%).

Age

Claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment were more likely to be aged 50 or over (27%) than claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups who were in employment (16%).

Sex

Claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment were noticeably more likely to be male (61%) than those who were in employment (46%).

Household composition

Claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment were also more likely to have no children (75% vs 49%).

UC Claim length

Claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment were more likely to have a claim length of 4 years or more (31%) than those in employment (24%).

UC Labour Market Regime

The majority of UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment were in the No Work Related Requirements (54%) or Intensive Work Search (33%) UC Labour Market Regimes. A further 10% were in the Work Focused Interview or Work Preparation Labour Market Regimes.

Mental and physical health

Claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment were more likely to be affected by mental or physical health conditions, and to rate their health less positively:

just 24% rated their health as good (compared to 48% of those in employment)
78% had a health condition expected to last 6 months or more (compared to 48% of those in employment): 59% had a physical health condition and 65% had a mental health condition
73% had a health condition that significantly limited their ability to carry out day-to-day activities (compared to 40% of those in employment)

Learning difficulty and neurodiversity

Around a third of claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment had a learning difficulty or neurodiversity (30%, compared to 14% of those in employment).

Ethnicity

A higher proportion of claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment were white (75%) than among those in employment (66%).

Qualifications

A higher proportion of claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment had no qualifications (30%) than for those who were in employment (14%).

Internet access, confidence and ability to use UC online account

Claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment were also less likely to have access to the internet (93%) and to be confident in using it (71%) than those in employment (98% and 90% respectively).

A full profile of claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment is provided in Figure 5.1 below, with comparisons provided to those who are in employment.

Figure 5.1 Profile of claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment compared to those in employment: Not in employment - 72% of disadvantaged UC claimants

Figure 5.1 Profile of claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment compared to those in employment

Disadvantaged Groups	Not in employment	Significant difference compared with those in employment	In employment
Care Experienced	33%	Empty cell	33%
Ex-Offender	32%	More likely	22%
Substance Dependent	35%	More likely	23%
Homelessness	40%	Empty cell	42%
Multiple types of disadvantage	31%	More likely	17%

Other types of disadvantage	Not in employment	Significant difference compared with those in employment	In employment
Domestic Abuse	35%	Empty cell	35%
Financial abuse or exploitation from a non-family member	13%	Empty cell	12%
Been a refugee	7%	Empty cell	9%

Government Office Region	Not in employment	Significant difference compared with those in employment	In employment
North East	6%	Empty cell	4%
North West	17%	Empty cell	15%
Yorkshire and the Humber	11%	More likely	7%
East Midlands	7%	Empty cell	8%
West Midlands	11%	Empty cell	11%
Wales	7%	More likely	4%
East of England	8%	Empty cell	9%
London	15%	Less likely	20%
Southwest	8%	Empty cell	9%
Southeast	11%	Empty cell	13%

Qualifications	Not in employment	Significant difference compared with those in employment	In employment
No qualifications	30%	More likely	14%
Fewer than 5 GCSEs at grade A to C or 9 to 4, NVQ Level 1 or equivalent	18%	Empty cell	17%
5 or more GCSEs of grade A to C or 9 to 4 or equivalent, NVQ Level 2 or equivalent, intermediate apprenticeship	16%	Empty cell	19%
A or T-Levels or equivalent, NVQ Level 3 or equivalent, advanced apprenticeship	13%	Less likely	18%
Undergraduate degree, Masters or PhD	11%	Less likely	18%

Demographics	Not in employment	Significant difference compared with those in employment	In employment
16 to 24	19%	Empty cell	18%
25 to 35	25%	Less likely	32%
36 to 49	30%	Less likely	34%
50+	27%	More likely	16%
Male	61%	More likely	46%
Female	39%	Less likely	54%
Has children	25%	Less likely	51%
No children	75%	More likely	49%
Single	91%	More likely	87%
Couple	9%	Less likely	13%
Asian	6%	Empty cell	8%
Black	9%	Less likely	15%
Mixed	5%	Empty cell	5%
White	75%	More likely	66%
Other	3%	Empty cell	3%

Demographics	Not in employment	Significant difference compared with those in employment	In employment
Have access to the internet	93%	Less likely	98%
Feel confident using the internet	71%	Less likely	90%
Find managing their benefit claim using their UC Online account easy	71%	Less likely	82%

UC claim length	Not in employment	Significant difference compared with those in employment	In employment
Up to 6 months	17%	Empty cell	18%
6 months to 1 Year	12%	Empty cell	14%
1 to 2 Years	17%	Empty cell	20%
2 to 4 Years	23%	Empty cell	24%
4+ Years	31%	More likely	24%

Mental and physical health	Not in employment	Significant difference compared with those in employment	In employment
On the UC health Journey	59%	More likely	17%
Rate their health as ‘Good’	24%	Less likely	48%
Have a health condition expected to last 6 months or more	78%	More likely	48%
Are limited in their ability to carry out day-to-day activities	73%	More likely	40%
Have a physical health condition	59%	More likely	30%
Have a mental health condition	65%	More likely	36%
Have a learning difficulty or neurodiversity	30%	More likely	14%

UC Labour Market Regime	Not in employment	Significant difference compared with those in employment	In employment
NWRR	54%	Empty cell	Empty cell
Work Prep / WFI	10%	Empty cell	Empty cell
IWS	33%	Empty cell	Empty cell

5.2 Employment status

The most common employment status for UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment was long-term sick or disabled (51%), as shown in Table 5.1. The second most common employment status was unemployed but currently looking for a job (21%). A minority (11%) of UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups stated they were unemployed and not looking for a job.

By far the 2 largest labour market regimes for UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment were No Work-Related Requirements (54%) and Intensive Work Search (33%). One in 10 were in the Work Focused Interview or Work preparation regimes (10%).

Table 5.1 Summary of employment status amongst claimants not in employment broken down by disadvantage type

Employment status	Total	Homeless	More or less likely	Substance Dependent	More of less likely	Ex-Offender	More or less likely	Care Experienced	More or less likely
Base	2,427	882	Empty cell	713	Empty cell	638	Empty cell	1,148	Empty cell
Unemployed but looking for a job	21%	28%	More likely	14%	Less likely	16%	Less likely	22%	Empty cell
Unemployed and not looking for a job	11%	13%	More likely	11%	Empty cell	11%	Empty cell	11%	Empty cell
Long-term sick or disabled	51%	42%	Less likely	67%	More likely	62%	More likely	44%	Less likely
Full-time parent	6%	8%	More likely	2%	Less likely	2%	Less likely	9%	More likely
Full-time carer	6%	4%	Less likely	4%	Less likely	7%	Empty cell	7%	Empty cell
Student or pupil	3%	4%	Empty cell	1%	Less likely	1%	Less likely	7%	More likely

Q. How would you describe your current working status?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups not in employment (2,427).

Differences in employment status within disadvantaged groups

Substance dependent in last 2 years: particularly likely to be long-term sick or disabled (67% compared with 43% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences).

Ex-offenders: this group were more likely to be long-term sick or disabled (62% compared with 46% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences).

Homeless in the last 2 years: claimants in this disadvantaged group were more likely to be unemployed but currently looking for a job (28% compared with 17% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences).

Care leavers: more likely to be unemployed but currently looking for a job (26% compared with 21% of claimants with other disadvantaged experiences).

Time since employment

The length of time since their last paid work varied among claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment (Table 5.2). Nearly two-fifths had last been in employment under one year ago (17%). Over half were long term unemployed, having not been in work for 3 years or more (53%).

Table 5.2 Summary of last time in employment broken down by disadvantaged group

Last time in employment	Total	Homeless	More or less likely	Substance Dependent	More or less likely	Ex-Offender	More or less likely	Care Experienced
Base	2,350	850	Empty cell	695	Empty cell	626	Empty cell	1,105	Empty cell
Less than 1 year ago	17%	22%	More likely	14%	Less likely	11%	Less likely	16%	Empty cell
Between 1 year and less than 3 years ago	21%	27%	More likely	20%	Empty cell	18%	Less likely	19%	Less likely
Between 3 years and less than 5 years ago	16%	16%	Empty cell	20%	More likely	17%	Empty cell	13%	Less likely
Between 5 years and less than 10 years ago	16%	11%	Less likely	18%	Empty cell	22%	More likely	15%	Empty cell
More than 10 years ago	17%	11%	Less likely	19%	Empty cell	24%	More likely	18%	Empty cell
I have never worked before	4%	5%	Empty cell	2%	Less likely	3%	Less likely	6%	More likely

Q. How long is it since you last had paid work (either full or part time)?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups who stated that they were not in employment in the survey (2,350).

Differences in time since employment within disadvantaged groups

Homelessness in the past 2 years: more likely to have been in employment within the last 3 years (49% compared with 31% for all others).
Ex-offenders: were more likely to have never worked before or been out of employment 5 years or more (49% compared with 31% for all others).^{[footnote 4]}

Employment history

Looking at employment history more broadly, just under 3 in 10 (28%) of UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not currently in employment had spent most of their time since leaving education not working. One in 5 (21%) had worked solidly without a break of 3 months or more until recently.

Figure 5.2 shows the employment history of UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment.

Figure 5.2 Employment History

Employment history	Percentage	Notes
Worked solidly without a break of 3 months or more until recently	21%	39% Summary: mostly worked
Worked solidly with a few breaks of 3 months or more	17%	Empty cell
Spent about as much time working as not working	18%	Empty cell
Spent most of my time not working	28%	Empty cell
Don’t know or Prefer not to say	16%	Empty cell

Q. Which of the following best describes your experiences of any paid work since leaving education?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups not in employment (2,427).

Differences in employment history within disadvantaged groups

Care experienced: more likely to have spent most of their time since leaving education not working (35% compared with 24% for those in one of the four other disadvantaged groups who were not care experienced). It is worth noting that this group were also younger (60% being 35 and under compared to 36% of UC claimants not in employment in one of the other disadvantaged groups), which may influence their employment history.

5.3 Future aspirations

Overall goals and aspirations

When asked about their goals and aspirations for the next 2 years, employment was the most common goal for those not in employment, with one third (33%) stating their goal was to get a job.

Complete a couple of online courses within social care - the aim is to get some qualifications in that industry. Get myself a full-time job and start enjoying life! Understand more about the social care sector and whether specific job roles would be a fit for me.

(Female UC claimant, 16 to 19, Care Experienced).

Physical wellbeing was another key area claimants not in employment were focused on, with 17% stating their goal was to ‘be physically healthy’.

To complete my therapy, become stable enough to go back to college. To be happy and healthy and not spiral back into mental health crisis. To find out what is wrong with my physical health and be able to manage it better.

(Female UC claimant, 20to 24, Care Experienced, Experienced homelessness in the past 2 years).

The next most common goal was to move house or buy a house (16%). The full list of the main goals of UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment is provided in Figure 5.3.

Buying a house, it’s the dream. I would like to buy a 3 to 4 bed Bungalow with green garden, around £150k maximum up to £200k in a quiet area but not too quiet. I am looking for mortgage so the first priority for the next 2 years [is] to get together the deposit.

(Male UC claimant, 35 to 44, Experienced homelessness in the past 2 years).

Figure 5.3 Future goals

Future goals	Percentage
Get a job	33%
Be physically healthy	17%
Move house or buy a house	16%
Continue or return to studies or gain qualifications	12%
Be happy or improve my mental health	12%
Care for my family	11%
No future goals	7%
Survive or stay alive	7%
Have a nice or better life	5%
Improve my finances or get out of debt	5%
Stability or security or normality	5%
Don’t know	6%

Q. What are your main goals or aspirations for the next 2 years?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups not in employment who shared a goal (2,155).

Differences in overall goals and aspirations within disadvantaged groups

Homeless in the past 2 years: employment was more commonly a priority for this group (39% compared with 28% for all others). This group were also more likely to have a goal of moving or buying a house (27% compared with 8% for those in other disadvantaged groups).

Ex-offenders: more likely to note being physically healthy as a goal and aspiration (20% compared with 15% for those in other disadvantaged groups).

Substance dependent in the past 2 years: more likely to have a goal and aspiration related to being physically healthy (20% compared with 15% for those in other disadvantaged groups).

Work aspirations

Over half (55%) of those not in employment felt that returning to work was a possibility with the right support, with 1 in 5 (20%) feeling they were ready to return to work immediately. A third of UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment felt that paid work was not a realistic goal for them (34%).

A full breakdown of views around proximity to work across disadvantaged groups can be seen in Table 5.3 below.

Self-reported distance from employment	Total	Homeless	More or less likely	Substance Dependent	More or less likely	Ex-Offender	More or less likely	Care Experienced
Base	2,350	850	Empty cell	695	Empty cell	626	Empty cell	1105
Paid work is not a realistic goal for me, my circumstances rule it out as an option now and in the future	34%	25%	Less likely	40%	More likely	43%	More likely	32%
With the right support work is a realistic goal for me within the next 12 months	15%	19%	More likely	14%	Empty cell	11%	Less likely	14%
With the right support work is a realistic goal for me, but not in the next 12 months	19%	20%	Empty cell	20%	Empty cell	19%	Empty cell	21%
I could return to work now if the right job was available or if I had the right support	20%	26%	More likely	14%	Less likely	16%	Less likely	19%
Summary: Returning to work is a possibility	55%	65%	More likely	48%	Less likely	46%	Less likely	54%

Table 5.3 Self-Reported distance from employment broken down by disadvantaged group

Q. Which of the following is closest to how you currently feel about paid work?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups who stated that they were not in employment in the survey (2,350).

Differences in work aspirations between disadvantaged groups

Ex-offenders: more likely to feel that paid work was not a realistic goal for them (43% compared with 29% for all others).

Substance dependent in last 2 years: more likely to view paid work as an unrealistic goal for them (40% compared with 30% for all others).

Differences in work aspirations by Labour Market Regime

Around half (47%) of unemployed claimants in the four disadvantaged groups who were in the No Work Related Requirements Labour Market Regime thought work was not a realistic goal for them. Conversely, one-third (33%) said employment was a possibility in the future if they had support, with a further 8% of claimants in this Labour Market Regime stating that they could be ready to work now with the right support.

Half (50%) of disadvantaged claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment in the Intensive Work Search regime did not feel ready to work at the time of the survey (16% felt that their circumstances ruled out work as an option now and in the future).

Views on proximity to work broken down by UC Labour Market Regime can be seen below in Figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4 Self-reported distance from employment broken down by UC Labour Market Regime

Self-reported distance from employment	Ready to work now	With the right support, work is a realistic goal within the next 12 months	With the right support, work is a realistic goal but not within 12 months	Work is not a realistic goal	Don’t Know or Prefer not to say
No Work-Related Requirements	8%	11%	22%	47%	13%
Work Preparation/Work Focused Interview	17%	21%	20%	30%	12%
Intensive work search	39%	20%	14%	16%	10%

Q. Which of the following is closest to how you currently feel about paid work?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups who stated that they were not in employment in the survey: No Work-Related Requirement (1,194), Work Preparation/Work Focused Interview (226), Intensive Work Search (857).

Differences in work aspirations by claim length

Two thirds (67%) of claimants with a UC claim length of up to 6 months felt returning to work was a possibility, compared to 46% of those who had a claim length of 4 years or more. It is worth noting that those with shorter UC claims tended to be younger (31% of those with a claim length of up to 6 months were aged 16-24), whereas those with a longer claim tended to be older (35% of those with a claim length of 4 years or over were aged 50+).

5.4 Barriers to work

Perceived barriers to work

Physical or mental health conditions or disabilities were the barriers to work most commonly faced by UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups in the previous 6 months (mentioned by 72%). This was particularly the case among those who felt paid work was not a realistic goal for them (88%).

Other barriers to employment included:

not having the right skills or qualifications for the jobs available (33%)
lack of confidence in applying for jobs (30%)
lack of recent work experience (28%)
having a learning difficulty or neurodiverse condition, for example, dyslexia or dyspraxia (26%)
few jobs available where they lived (26%)
employers discriminating against them as a result of their experiences or background (19%)

Claimants who believed they could work immediately most commonly cited their lack of skills, qualifications and experience as a barrier to gaining employment (49%), as well as a lack of jobs available where they lived (45%). While less prevalent, around two-fifths of those ready to work immediately still referenced their physical or mental health condition or disability as a barrier to employment (43%). Figure 5.5 shows the work-related barriers faced by claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment.

Figure 5.5 Barriers to work over the last six months for claimants in the four disadvantaged groups not in employment

Figure 5.5 Barriers to work over the last 6 months for claimants in the four disadvantaged groups not in employment

Barriers to work over the last 6 months	Percentage
Physical or mental health conditions or disabilities	72%
Not having the right skills or qualifications for the jobs available	33%
Lack of confidence in applying for jobs	30%
Lack of recent experience of working	28%
Having a learning difficulty or neurodiverse condition, for example, dyslexia or dyspraxia	26%
Few jobs available where you live	26%
Employers discriminating against you because of your experiences or background	19%
Need to take care of an elderly, ill or disabled friend or relative	16%
Your age	16%
Lack of suitable or affordable childcare	12%
None of these	5%

Q. Over the last 6 months, have any of the following made it difficult for you to get a job?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups not in employment (2,427).

Differences in barriers to work by the four disadvantaged groups

Substance dependent in last 2 years: having a physical or mental health condition or disability was more commonly reported as a barrier to work over the last 6 months (84% compared with 65% for all others). This group was also more likely to report a lack of confidence in applying for jobs (35% compared with 28% for all others).

Ex-offenders: more likely to have physical or mental health conditions or disabilities as a barrier to work over the past 6 months (77% compared with 69% for all others).

Homeless in the past 2 years: more likely not to have the right skills or qualifications for the jobs available (37% compared with 30% for all others).

Care Experienced: more likely to have a learning difficulty or neurodiverse condition (31% compared with 24% of all others).

Table 5.4 displays the barriers to employment experienced by claimants in the four disadvantaged groups, broken down by group.

Table 5.4 Barriers to employment broken down by the four disadvantaged groups

Barriers to employment	Total	Homeless	More or less likely	Substance Dependent	More or less likely	Ex-Offender	More or less likely	Care Experienced	More or less likely
Base	2427	882	Empty cell	713	Empty cell	638	Empty cell	1148	Empty cell
Physical or mental health conditions or disabilities	72%	64%	Less likely	84%	More likely	77%	More likely	70%	Empty cell
Not having the right skills or qualifications for the jobs available	33%	37%	More likely	31%	Empty cell	29%	Less likely	35%	Empty cell
Few jobs available where you live	26%	28%	Empty cell	25%	Empty cell	25%	Empty cell	28%	Empty cell
Lack of confidence in applying for jobs	30%	30%	Empty cell	35%	More likely	30%	Empty cell	30%	Empty cell
Lack of suitable or affordable childcare	12%	15%	More likely	7%	Less likely	8%	Less likely	14%	More likely
Having a learning difficulty or neurodiverse condition	26%	25%	Empty cell	27%	Empty cell	27%	Empty cell	31%	More likely
Need to take care of an elderly, ill or disabled friend or relative	16%	16%	Empty cell	13%	Less likely	15%	Empty cell	17%	Empty cell
Lack of recent experience of working	28%	30%	Empty cell	28%	Empty cell	27%	Empty cell	31%	Empty cell
Employers discriminating against you because of your experiences or background	19%	22%	More likely	21%	Empty cell	28%	More likely	18%	Empty cell
Your age	16%	14%	Empty cell	18%	Empty cell	18%	Empty cell	15%	Empty cell

Q. Over the last 6 months, have any of the following made it difficult for you to get a job or stay in your job?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups not in employment (2,427).

Attitudinal barriers to work

Just over half (51%) of those not in employment agreed that they would be happier and more fulfilled if they were working.

However, some UC claimants in disadvantaged groups who were not in employment had concerns about whether the jobs available met their needs. When it came to flexibility, 2 in 5 (41%) felt that jobs on offer were not flexible enough for their circumstances, and this was more common for claimants with a health condition (43%) and single parents (58%).

A third (33%) of those not in employment felt that jobs on offer did not pay enough to make working financially worthwhile. Again, single parents (38%) were more likely to agree that this was the case.

Differences in attitudinal barriers to work by disadvantaged group

Homeless in the past 2 years: more likely to agree that they would be happier and more fulfilled if they were working (58% compared with 47% all others). UC claimants that had experienced homelessness also felt that jobs on offer did not pay enough to make working financially worthwhile (36% compared with 31% for all others).

A full breakdown of views by each disadvantaged group can be found in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 Statements on job flexibility, pay and fulfilment broken down by disadvantage.

Statements on job flexibility, pay and fulfilment	Total	Homeless	More or less likely	Substance Dependent	More or less likely	Ex-Offender	More or less likely	Care Experienced
Base	2350	850	Empty cell	695	Empty cell	626	Empty cell	1105
Jobs on offer do not pay enough to make working financially worthwhile (% agree)	33%	36%	More likely	34%	Empty cell	30%	Empty cell	32%
I would be happier and more fulfilled if I was working (% agree)	51%	58%	More likely	46%	Less likely	52%	Empty cell	49%
The jobs on offer are not flexible enough for my circumstances (% agree)	41%	44%	Empty cell	42%	Empty cell	38%	Less likely	40%

Q. How much do you agree with the following statement [Statement]

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups who stated that they were not in employment in the survey (2,350).

Disadvantage as a barrier to work

Disadvantaged UC claimants were also asked whether their disadvantages were a barrier to gaining employment, as shown in Figure 5.6 below. Views on this were mixed, but of the four disadvantages, those who had had experienced homelessness in the past 2 years were more likely to say that it had made finding work more difficult (59%). This was followed by substance dependency in the past 2 years (47%) and being an ex-offender (44%). Those with experience of being in care were less likely to say this disadvantage had made it more difficult to get a job (31%).

Those that had experienced three or four disadvantages, were more likely to report that each disadvantage had impacted their ability to get into work.

Figure 5.6 Disadvantages and whether they acted as a barrier to employment

Disadvantage	Made it more difficult (4/5)	Percentage	Little to no impact (1/2)	Don’t know
Experience of being homeless	59%	11%	20%	10%
Experience of substance dependency	47%	10%	30%	12%
Experience of the criminal justice system	44%	11%	33%	13%
Experience of being in care	31%	17%	37%	15%

Q. To what extent has your experience of [disadvantage] made it more difficult to get a job on a scale of 1 to 5?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups not in employment that experienced specific disadvantages: homelessness (882), substance dependency (713), ex-offender (638), care experienced (1,148).

5.5 Support needs

Access to support

The majority of those not in employment (82%) felt that they had someone they could trust and go to for help if they had a serious problem. This support came from:

family members (55%)
a friend or friends (45%)
a professional (37%)
someone else (12%)

Almost all of those not in employment were currently registered with a GP (96%).

Differences in access to support by disadvantaged group and profile

There were certain groups that were less likely to have access to some kind of support network, this included:

those that had experienced homelessness (79% compared with 85% of all others)
those who faced multiple disadvantages (79%)
those from mixed ethnicity or Black backgrounds (68% and 71% respectively)

Claimants in certain disadvantaged groups were also less likely to be registered with a GP:

those who had experienced homelessness in the past 2 years (4% not registered compared with 2% of all others)
claimants with multiple disadvantages (4% not registered compared to 2% for those in one group)
black claimants (7% not registered compared with 2% among other ethnicities)
male claimants (4% not registered compared with 1% for female claimants)

Interest in future support

UC claimants not in employment were asked about their interest in support in managing their disadvantage, as well as their physical and mental health (for those with a health condition).

The most common areas of unmet support were: finding stable housing (44% of those that had experienced homelessness were interested in receiving support); managing mental health (34% of those with a health condition); and managing physical health (29% of those with a health condition). These were also among the areas where it was more common for claimants to already be receiving support. In addition, 33% of those who had experienced substance dependency were already receiving support with this, and a further 15% were interested in receiving support.

Figure 5.7 provides a breakdown of interest in support for handling disadvantages.

Figure 5.7 Interest in support for handling disadvantages

Support for handling disadvantages	Yes - interested	Already Receiving support	Not interested	Don’t know
Finding stable housing	44%	25%	28%	3%
Managing mental health	34%	36%	25%	4%
Managing physical health	29%	32%	33%	6%
Help with being a care leaver	18%	17%	58%	7%
Managing substance dependency	15%	33%	48%	4%
Staying away from crime	9%	14%	75%	2%

Q. Would you be interested in receiving the following type of support to help you: [disadvantage]. Figures below 5% not shown.

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups not in employment who: have experienced homelessness in the last 2 years (882); health condition (1,786); care leavers (525); substance dependency in the last 2 years (713); ex-offenders (638).

Levels of interest in receiving support with moving towards employment are shown below in Figure 5.8.

The areas claimants tended to be most interested in were improving confidence (31%), accessing education or training (27%) or managing money and debt (24%). However, the majority of those not in employment were not interested in this kind of support at this stage. Interest in this kind of support amongst those that felt they were close to work was higher than others, but the majority still were uninterested.

Figure 5.8 Interest in support with moving towards employment

Support with moving towards employment	Yes - interested	Already Receiving support	No	Don’t know
Improving your confidence	31%	14%	49%	6%
Accessing education or training	27%	14%	54%	6%
Managing money and debt	24%	16%	56%	4%
Improving your digital skills	23%	10%	61%	6%
Work experience or volunteering opportunities	21%	13%	60%	6%
Searching for jobs	19%	16%	59%	6%
Writing a CV or job application	18%	17%	61%	5%

Q. Would you be interested in receiving the following type of support: [Statement]

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups not in employment (2,427).

5.6 Experience of Jobcentre Plus

Perceptions of work coaches

Among UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment, 47% had seen a work coach in the last 6 months. Overall, three quarters (76%) of claimants who have spoken to their work coach in the past 6 months were satisfied with the support they have received from them.

Of those who had seen a work coach in the last 6 months, just under half (48%) reported speaking to the same one every time they had an appointment. Just under three fifths (59%) of UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in work that had seen a work coach in the last 6 months felt that their work coach understood their needs.

Speaking to the same work coach every time was correlated with whether UC claimants felt comfortable sharing their circumstances with them; those that saw the same one were much more likely to agree that they felt comfortable (82% compared with 64% overall).

Those who saw their work coach weekly or fortnightly also felt more comfortable sharing their circumstances with their work coach (68% compared with 64% overall).

Differences in perceptions of work coaches by disadvantaged group

Experiences of homelessness in past 2 years: less likely to be satisfied with the support that they received from their work coach (72% compared with 79% of all others).

Care experienced: less likely to feel comfortable sharing their circumstances than other disadvantaged claimants (58% compared to 67% of all others).

Substance dependent in past 2 years: less likely to feel comfortable sharing their circumstances than those in a disadvantaged group who had not experienced substance dependency (56% compared to 67% of all others). They were also less likely to feel that their work coach understood their needs (50% compared with 63% for all others).

Levels of agreement with all 3 statements for the different disadvantage groups are shown in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6 Statements about work coach, broken down by disadvantage

Statements about work coach	Total	Homeless	More or less likely	Substance Dependent	More or less likely	Ex-Offender	Care Experienced	More or less likely
Base	1,138	457	Empty cell	290	Empty cell	256	571	Empty cell
How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the support you have received from your work coach? (% satisfied)	76%	72%	Less likely	72%	Empty cell	75%	77%	Empty cell
I speak with the same work coach every time I have an appointment (% agree)	48%	47%	Empty cell	44%	Empty cell	48%	50%	Empty cell
I feel comfortable discussing my circumstances with my work coach (% agree)	64%	65%	Empty cell	56%	Less likely	63%	58%	Less likely
My work coach understands my needs (% agree)	59%	57%	Empty cell	50%	Less likely	59%	60%	Empty cell

Q. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the support you have received from your work coach? How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: [Statement]?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups not in employment that have spoken to their work coach in the past 6 months (1,138).

Perceptions of work coach support

Small proportions of claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups reported that they had received support from their work coach specifically for support with their disadvantages, which can be seen below in Figure 5.9. It was most common for claimants that had experienced homelessness in the past 2 years to have received support specifically with being homeless (23%). A minority of care experienced claimants received support in relation to their disadvantage (12%), although this figure rises to 16% among self-reported care leavers.

Figure 5.9 Proportion that received support in relation to their disadvantage from their work coach in the past 6 months

Disadvantage	Percentage
Being homeless	23%
Substance dependency	21%
Being in care	12%
The criminal justice system / having a criminal record	12%

Q. In the past 6 months, have you received support from your work coach with the following?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups that have spoken to their work coach in the past 6 months who are not in employment and: homelessness (457); care experienced (571); substance dependency (290); ex-offenders (256).

Experience of managing Universal Credit claim

One in five (22%) of claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment had experienced a problem with their benefit claim and needed to contact DWP about it.

Differences in experiences of managing Universal Credit claim by disadvantaged group and other characteristics

As shown in Table 5.7 some groups were more likely to encounter problems, including:

those that had experienced homelessness in the past 2 years (25% compared with 20% for all others)
those with multiple disadvantages (25%)
those who were in employment less than 1 year ago (30%)
newer claimants with a claim length of 6 to 12 months (29%)
those in the Intensive work search Labour Market Regime (28%)

Table 5.7 Whether had to contact DWP due to a problem with benefit claim in the past 6 months, broken down by disadvantage

Contact with DWP?	Total	Homeless	More or less likely	Substance Dependent	Ex-Offender	Care Experienced
Base	2,427	882	Empty cell	713	638	1,148
Yes	22%	25%	More likely	24%	22%	22%

Q. In the past 6 months have you had any problems with your benefit claim that you needed to contact DWP about?

Base: All UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups not in employment (2,427).

Question 9

6. Segmentation - UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups not in employment

Accepted Answer

This chapter describes a segmentation analysis that was conducted among claimants in the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment.

6.1 Approach

Throughout this report, we have discussed the profile of claimants, including their employment status, barriers to employment and interest in future support. This chapter discusses a different type of analysis known as segmentation, which looks at patterns in answers given across several different questions. This analysis examines similarities and differences in people’s attitudes and experiences, and clusters people with similar attitudes together. Demographic characteristics were not included in the segmentation, so the profiles were defined exclusively by people’s attitudes and experiences, rather than their characteristics. A Latent Class Analysis was used for this segmentation.

The aim of this segmentation was to create a more detailed understanding of the attitudes and experiences of disadvantaged UC claimants and how that relates to their distance from work. To achieve this, this segmentation focused only on UC claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment.

The result was a segmentation model of 8 different segments which reflect patterns in responses across multiple different survey questions. This means that the segments describe tendencies towards certain attitudes and characteristics, and so the summaries below will not describe every individual placed into a segment perfectly.

6.2 Profiles of segments

The 8 segmentation profiles display the full spectrum of attitudes and distances from work amongst those not in employment. Four of these segments, (segments A to D) were broadly positive about their work prospects, and the majority thought they could return to work at some point. These four segments varied in the number of barriers they felt they were experiencing, and the extent to which they needed support.

Segment E’s distance from work was more complex, as they felt that it was an achievable goal in the long term, but they were not currently able to seek it out due to the barriers they felt they were experiencing.

In contrast to the first four segments (Segments A, B, C and D), the final 3 segments (Segments F, G and H) contained those who were less likely to be focused on employment. These segments commonly faced health conditions that prevented them from moving towards employment. Again, claimants in the segments that were further from work varied with the number of barriers they were facing and whether they were receiving some form of support.

As the segments progress from A to H, the age profiles tend to get older, reflecting the correlation between age and confidence in ability to work and length of time out of work.

The infographics below outline each of these segment profiles in detail. All comparison figures in these infographics are compared against all disadvantaged UC claimants.

Segments progress from closest to employment to furthest from employment

Segment A (11%)

Younger UC claimants, interested in employment, no interest in work support.

Individuals in this segment have only recently started claiming UC (28% with a claim length of up to 6 months) and are broadly interested in employment, either now (55%) or in the future (38%). They do not think they are experiencing many barriers towards employment and are not interested in additional support. The difficulties they do face are due to a lack of suitable employment opportunities in their area. This segment is closest to the labour market.

Segment B (5%)

Younger, interested in employment and additional support from DWP, more likely to be London-based.

This segment is more likely to be made up of younger people from ethnic minority backgrounds, living in London (33%); they are more likely to have experience of being a refugee (25%) and to have experienced homelessness. As with other young segments, their goals are around creating a foundation for themselves: wanting to get jobs, qualifications and buy a house. They have the most positive attitude about employment, but they are more likely to cite barriers around qualifications and lack of recent experience working.

Segment C (7%)

Younger, only recently become UC claimants, very interested in employment and support.

This is a group of people (often younger), who only recently became UC claimants (18% with a UC claim length of 6 months to a year), are more likely to have experienced homelessness and substance dependency, and believe they are facing multiple barriers 8 in 10 stated their physical or mental health conditions or disabilities are a barrier (80%). Despite these barriers, more than half spontaneously say getting a job is a goal for the next 2 years: 43% are ready to work now, and 47% say working in the future is a possibility with the right support. They may be receiving support from DWP but have unmet support needs.

Segment D (3%)

Younger, interested in employment and currently receiving support.

Individuals in this segment tend to be younger and already receiving additional support in several areas to help them develop their skills, self-confidence and employability. Their goals revolve around creating a foundation for themselves (by getting a job), getting qualifications, and being happy. They are more likely to be lacking in confidence in applying for jobs, a key barrier for this segment alongside few jobs being available where they live.

Segment E (12%)

Long-term sick or disabled, experienced substance dependence, interested in support to get back into employment.

Individuals in this segment are more likely to have experienced substance dependence in the past 2 years and have experienced forms of domestic (44%) and financial abuse (19%). They experience challenges with their mental health (85%), which is the main barrier for them getting into employment. If they receive support, they believe employment could be a more attainable goal in the long term. Reflecting the barriers they face; they are most likely to be interested in support to manage their mental and/or physical health.

Segment F (9%)

Long-term unemployed (LTU), health conditions, facing barriers but no interest in work support.

Individuals in this segment are more likely to be substance dependent and/or be ex-offenders, the 2 disadvantages that appear to have the strongest correlation with being far from work (32% last worked 10+ years ago). This segment tends to be older and have a long-term sickness or disability. They have experienced the largest number of barriers compared to any other segment.

Segment G (5%)

Long-term unemployed (LTU), health conditions that make employment difficult, but currently receiving support.

Individuals in this segment are long-term unemployed (29% last worked 10+ years ago) and experience a multitude of illnesses, health conditions and disabilities, which was the most commonly reported barrier to employment. In addition, around half of this segment have experienced domestic abuse (46%). As a result, these individuals are not focused on employment and instead care about being healthy, surviving, and caring for their family. These people are more likely to already be receiving support from DWP. This segment were also more likely to cite learning difficulties or neurodiversity as a barrier to employment.

Segment H (16%)

Long-term unemployed (LTU), health conditions, no interest in work or work support.

This segment typically have been out of work for a long time (26% last worked 10+ years ago) – possibly due to being more likely to have a criminal conviction (48%) and be older (46% aged 50+). Their motivation to work is very low, despite being less likely to identify concrete barriers outside of the physical or mental health conditions (which they are more likely to be facing). They are mostly focused on the ‘here and now’ – being physically healthy and having a better life or simply surviving. They show little interest in receiving support to help any difficulties they’re facing.

Figure 6.1 Segment A profile

Goals and aspirations	Segment A	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Get a job	53%	More likely	31%
Move house or buy a house	18%	Empty cell	16%
Continue studying / Return to my studies / Gain qualifications	17%	More likely	12%

Figure 6.1 Segment A profile

Attitude to work	Segment A	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Returning to work is a possibility now	55%	Empty cell	Empty cell
Returning to work Is a possibility in the future with the right support	38%	Empty cell	Empty cell
Total	92%	Empty cell	Empty cell

Barriers to work	Segment A	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Few jobs available where you live	39%	More likely	24%
Physical or mental health conditions or disabilities	38%	Less likely	61%
Not having the right skills or qualifications for the jobs available	33%	Empty cell	29%

Disadvantage profile and labour market regime	Segment A	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Homelessness	47%	More likely	41%
Substance Dependent	20%	Less likely	32%
Ex-Offender	29%	Empty cell	29%
Care Experienced	37%	Empty cell	33%
IWS	60%	More likely	33%
Work Prep/WFI	7%	Empty cell	9%
NWRR	25%	Less likely	44%

Figure 6.1 Segment A profile

Demographic	Segment A	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Male	64%	More likely	57%
Female	36%	Less likely	43%
Asian	7%	Empty cell	7%
Black	12%	Empty cell	11%
Mixed	4%	Empty cell	5%
White	73%	Empty cell	72%
Other	3%	Empty cell	3%
16 to 24	31%	More likely	18%
25 to 35	28%	Empty cell	27%
36 to 49	28%	Empty cell	31%
50+	14%	Less likely	24%

Figure 6.2 Segment B profile

Goals and aspirations	Segment B	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Get a job	70%	More likely	31%
Continue studying or Return to my studies or Gain qualifications	43%	More likely	12%
Move house or Buy a house	16%	Empty cell	16%

Attitude to work	Segment B	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Returning to work is a possibility now	56%	Empty cell	Empty cell
Returning to work Is a possibility in the future with the right support	33%	Empty cell	Empty cell
Total	88%	Empty cell	Empty cell

Barriers to work	Segment B	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Not having the right skills or qualifications for the jobs available	50%	More likely	29%
Lack of recent experience of working	34%	More likely	23%
Few jobs available where you live	25%	Empty cell	24%

Disadvantage profile and labour market regime	Segment B	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Homelessness	61%	More likely	41%
Substance Dependent	17%	Less likely	32%
Ex-Offender	13%	Less likely	29%
Care Experienced	35%	Empty cell	33%
IWS	75%	More likely	33%
Work Prep or WFI	8%	Empty cell	9%
NWRR	12%	Less likely	44%

Demographic	Segment B	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Male	65%	Empty cell	57%
Female	35%	Empty cell	43%
Asian	15%	More likely	7%
Black	37%	More likely	11%
Mixed	8%	Empty cell	5%
White	30%	Less likely	72%
Other	8%	More likely	3%
16 to 24	42%	More likely	18%
25 to 35	27%	Empty cell	27%
36 to 49	22%	Less likely	31%
50+	10%	Less likely	24%

Figure 6.3 Section C profile

Goals and aspirations	Segment C	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Get a job	55%	More likely	31%
Move house or Buy a house	24%	More likely	16%
Continue studying or Return to my studies or Gain qualifications	17%	Empty cell	12%

Figure 6.3 Segment C profile

Attitude to work	Segment C	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Returning to work is a possibility now	43%	Empty cell	Empty cell
Returning to work Is a possibility in the future with the right support	47%	Empty cell	Empty cell
Total	90%	Empty cell	Empty cell

Barriers to work	Segment C	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Physical or mental health conditions or disabilities	80%	More likely	61%
Lack of confidence in applying for jobs	74%	More likely	26%
Not having the right skills or qualifications for the jobs available	73%	More likely	29%

Disadvantage profile and labour market regime	Segment C	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Substance Dependent	40%	More likely	32%
Ex-Offender	27%	Empty cell	29%
Care Experienced	33%	Empty cell	33%
IWS	43%	More likely	33%
Work Prep or WFI	11%	Empty cell	9%
NWRR	43%	Empty cell	44%

Demographic	Segment C	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Male	62%	Empty cell	57%
Female	38%	Empty cell	43%
Asian	10%	Empty cell	7%
Black	11%	Empty cell	11%
Mixed	6%	Empty cell	5%
White	68%	Empty cell	72%
Other	4%	Empty cell	3%
16 to 24	26%	More likely	18%
25 to 35	31%	Empty cell	27%
36 to 49	27%	Empty cell	31%
50+	16%	Less likely	24%

Figure 6.4 Segment D profile

Goals and aspirations	Segment D	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Get a job	73%	More likely	31%
Continue studying or Return to my studies or Gain qualifications	26%	More likely	12%
Be happy or Improve my mental health	19%	More likely	10%

Attitude to work	Segment D	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Returning to work is a possibility now	28%	Empty cell	Empty cell
Returning to work is a possibility in the future with the right support	55%	Empty cell	Empty cell
Total	83%	Empty cell	Empty cell

Barriers to work	Segment D	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Physical or mental health conditions or disabilities	61%	Empty cell	61%
Lack of confidence in applying for jobs	42%	More likely	26%
Few jobs available where you live	40%	More likely	24%

Interest in support	Segment D	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Average number of support needs	0.76	Empty cell	2.49

Disadvantage profile and labour market regime	Segment D	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Homelessness	46%	Empty cell	41%
Substance Dependent	32%	Empty cell	32%
Ex-Offender	28%	Empty cell	29%
Care Experienced	38%	Empty cell	33%
IWS	41%	Empty cell	33%
Work Prep or WFI	16%	More likely	9%
NWRR	36%	Empty cell	44%

Demographic	Segment D	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Male	63%	Empty cell	57%
Female	37%	Empty cell	43%
Asian	3%	Empty cell	7%
Black	14%	Empty cell	11%
Mixed	7%	Empty cell	5%
White	69%	Empty cell	72%
Other	6%	Empty cell	3%
16 to 24	27%	Empty cell	18%
25 to 35	32%	Empty cell	27%
36 to 49	25%	Empty cell	31%
50+	15%	Empty cell	24%

Figure 6.5 Segment E profile

Goals and aspirations	Segment E	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Get a job	31%	Empty cell	31%
Be happy or Improve my mental health	23%	More likely	10%
Be physically healthy	22%	More likely	14%

Barriers to work	Segment E	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Physical or mental health conditions or disabilities	86%	More likely	61%
Lack of confidence in applying for jobs	26%	Empty cell	26%
Having a learning difficulty or neurodiverse condition, for example, dyslexia or dyspraxia	19%	Empty cell	22%

Interest in support	Segment E	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Average number of support needs	3.92	Empty cell	2.49

Disadvantage profile and labour market regime	Segment E	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Homelessness	41%	Empty cell	41%
Substance Dependent	48%	More likely	32%
Ex-Offender	27%	Empty cell	29%
Care Experienced	28%	Less likely	33%
IWS	22%	Less likely	33%
Work Prep or WFI	10%	Empty cell	9%
NWRR	66%	More likely	44%

Demographic	Segment E	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Male	55%	Empty cell	57%
Female	45%	Empty cell	43%
Asian	6%	Empty cell	7%
Black	7%	Less likely	11%
Mixed	5%	Empty cell	5%
White	80%	More likely	72%
Other	1%	Less likely	3%
16 to 24	12%	Less likely	18%
25 to 35	28%	Empty cell	27%
36 to 49	33%	Empty cell	31%
50+	27%	Empty cell	24%

Figure 6.6 Segment F profile

Goals and aspirations	Segment F	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Be physically healthy	22%	More likely	14%
Get a job	18%	Less likely	31%
Move house or Buy a house	17%	Empty cell	16%

Attitude to work	Segment F	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Paid work is not a realistic goal for me, my circumstances rule it out as an option now and in the future	50%	Empty cell	Empty cell

Barriers to work	Segment F	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Physical or mental health conditions or disabilities	95%	More likely	61%
Not having the right skills or qualifications for the jobs available	82%	More likely	29%
Lack of recent experience of working	78%	More likely	23%

Interest in support	Segment F	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Average number of support needs	1.60	Empty cell	2.49

Disadvantage profile and labour market regime	Segment F	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Homelessness	33%	Less likely	41%
Substance Dependent	38%	More likely	32%
Ex-Offender	38%	More likely	29%
Care Experienced	35%	Empty cell	33%
IWS	13%	Less likely	33%
Work Prep or WFI	12%	More likely	9%
NWRR	73%	More likely	44%

Demographic	Segment F	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Male	59%	Empty cell	57%
Female	41%	Empty cell	43%
Asian	5%	Empty cell	7%
Black	3%	Less likely	11%
Mixed	5%	Empty cell	5%
White	84%	More likely	72%
Other	2%	Empty cell	3%
16 to 24	19%	Empty cell	18%
25 to 35	26%	Empty cell	27%
36 to 49	24%	Less likely	31%
50+	32%	More likely	24%

Figure 6.7 Segment G profile

Goals and aspirations	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Be physically healthy	26%	More likely	14%
Survive or Stay alive	17%	More likely	6%
Care for my family	13%	Empty cell	13%

Attitude to work	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Paid work is not a realistic goal for me, my circumstances rule it out as an option now and in the future	52%	Empty cell	Empty cell

Barriers to work	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Physical or mental health conditions or disabilities	88%	More likely	61%
Having a learning difficulty or neurodiverse condition, for example, dyslexia or dyspraxia	33%	More likely	22%
Employers discriminating against you because of your experiences or background	18%	Empty cell	16%

Interest in support	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Average number of support needs	0.89	Empty cell	2.49

Disadvantage profile and labour market regime	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Homelessness	41%	Less likely	41%
Substance Dependent	36%	More likely	32%
Ex-Offender	34%	Empty cell	29%
Care Experienced	30%	Empty cell	33%
IWS	20%	Less likely	33%
Work Prep or WFI	8%	Empty cell	9%
NWRR	69%	More likely	44%

Demographic	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Male	55%	Empty cell	57%
Asian	5%	Empty cell	7%
Black	Greater than 1%	Less likely	11%
Mixed	3%	Empty cell	5%
White	87%	More likely	72%
Other	1%	Empty cell	3%
16 to 24	7%	Less likely	18%
25 to 35	22%	Empty cell	27%
36 to 49	40%	More likely	31%
50+	31%	More likely	24%

Figure 6.8 Segment H profile

Goals and aspirations	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Be physically healthy	25%	More likely	14%
No goals	16%	More likely	6%
Survive or Stay alive	16%	More likely	6%

Attitude to work	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Paid work is not a realistic goal for me, my circumstances rule it out as an option now and in the future	72%	Empty cell	Empty cell

Barriers to work	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Physical or mental health conditions or disabilities	84%	More likely	61%
Learning difficulty or neurodiverse condition	16%	Less likely	22%
Age	10%	Less likely	14%

Interest in support	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Average number of support needs	0.61	Empty cell	2.49

Disadvantage profile and labour market regime	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Homelessness	27%	Less likely	41%
Substance Dependent	38%	More likely	32%
Ex-Offender	48%	More likely	29%
IWS	16%	Less likely	33%
Work Prep or WFI	10%	Empty cell	9%
NWRR	73%	More likely	44%

Demographic	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Male	65%	Empty cell	57%
Female	35%	Empty cell	43%
Asian	3%	Less likely	7%
Black	3%	Less likely	11%
Mixed	3%	Less likely	5%
White	88%	More likely	72%
Other	2%	Empty cell	3%
16 to 24	5%	Less likely	18%
25 to 35	17%	Less likely	27%
36 to 49	32%	Empty cell	31%
50+	46%	More likely	24%

Question 10

7. Conclusions

Accepted Answer

This research found that 1 in 5 (21%) Universal Credit claimants have experienced at least one of four types of disadvantage (being an ex-offender, being care experienced, experiencing homelessness in the past 2 years, or experiencing substance dependency in the past 2 years), and that 6% of claimants have experienced multiple forms of disadvantage.

Only a minority (27%) were in employment, and around half of this group had jobs with permanent or open ended contracts (55%); but more unpredictable work is not uncommon, through zero-hours contracts (12%) or temporary or seasonal work (9%). Around a third reported no challenges to staying in work, but a further third said that their mental and physical health has caused difficulties (the main challenge for this group). Of the four disadvantages, experience of homelessness was most likely to be cited as a barrier to staying in work. In line with this, disadvantaged claimants in employment tended to be most interested in support with finding stable housing, and their mental or physical health. Over the next 2 years, these claimants were most likely to say a primary goal is getting or changing job (36%); this aligns with relatively strong interest in support to increase earnings (46% interested in this support).

The vast majority (72%) of disadvantaged claimants were not in work, but again the most common goal over the next 2 years was getting a job (33%). Over half of this group of claimants in the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment felt that returning to work was a possibility with the right support (55%).

The most common barrier to work for those claimants in one of the four disadvantaged groups who were not in employment related to physical or mental health conditions or disabilities (72%). Skills (33%) and a lack of confidence in applying for jobs (30%) were also significant barriers to employment for this group. When asked what help they would like with the specific barriers they faced, it was most common for there to be an appetite for support relating to finding stable housing (44% of those who had experienced homelessness in the past 2 years) and mental health issues (34% of those with a health condition). This was more likely to be of interest than support regarding moving towards employment: 31% were interested in support related to improving their confidence and 27% related to accessing education or training.

As shown in the segmentation analysis, there is a broad range of experiences, backgrounds, support needs, and attitudes within the population of UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups. Support regarding moving these claimants towards employment will need to address those who are closer to work, as well as those for whom support may be more varied, cross-cutting, and complex to deliver. For many claimants, addressing health issues as well as providing support related to specific disadvantaged experiences, alongside providing employment support, would be important for moving claimants towards work.

Question 11

8. Annex 1 - Profiles of individual disadvantaged groups

Accepted Answer

This section provides profiles of each of the disadvantaged groups as well as for UC claimants in multiple disadvantaged groups. This covers:

overlaps with other disadvantaged groups
experiences of other forms of disadvantage
qualifications
demographics including age, sex, household composition and ethnicity
Government Office Region
UC Labour Market Regime
UC claim length
mental and physical health
internet access and confidence in using it
employment status
employment history
breakdown of specific disadvantaged experience
attitude to work
top 3 goals and aspirations
sources of support

8.1 Substance dependent profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who are not substance dependent

8.1.1 Substance dependent profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who are not substance dependent

8.1.2 Substance dependent profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who are not substance dependent

8.1.3 Substance dependent profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who are not substance dependent

Disadvantaged Groups	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Homelessness	26%	Less likely	48%
Ex-Offender	31%	Empty cell	29%
Care Experienced	16%	Less likely	41%

Disadvantaged Groups	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Multiple types of disadvantage	52%	More likely	16%

Other types of disadvantage	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Domestic Abuse	40%	More likely	32%
Financial abuse or exploitation from a non-family member	17%	More likely	11%
Served in the British Armed Forces	3%	Empty cell	3%

Qualifications	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
No qualifications	28%	Empty cell	25%
Fewer than 5 GCSEs at grade A to C or 9 to 4, NVQ Level 1 or equivalent	19%	Empty cell	17%
5 or more GCSEs of grade A to C or 9 to 4 or equivalent, NVQ Level 2 or equivalent, intermediate apprenticeship	16%	Empty cell	17%
A or T-Levels or equivalent, NVQ Level 3 or equivalent, advanced apprenticeship	15%	Empty cell	14%
Undergraduate degree, Masters or PhD	13%	Empty cell	13%

Demographics	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
16 to 24	12%	Less likely	21%
25 to 35	22%	Less likely	30%
36 to 49	35%	More likely	29%
50+	31%	More likely	20%
Male	65%	More likely	53%
Female	35%	Less likely	47%
Has children	21%	Less likely	37%
No children	79%	More likely	63%
Single	93%	More likely	88%
Couple	7%	Less likely	12%
Asian	3%	Less likely	9%
Black	5%	Less likely	13%
Mixed	4%	Empty cell	5%
White	85%	More likely	67%
Other	1%	Less likely	4%

Government office region	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
North East	7%	More likely	4%
North West	17%	Empty cell	15%
Yorkshire and the Humber	10%	Empty cell	9%
East Midlands	7%	Empty cell	8%
West Midlands	11%	Empty cell	10%
Wales	8%	More likely	5%
East of England	6%	Less likely	9%
London	11%	Less likely	19%
Southwest	10%	Empty cell	7%
Southeast	11%	Empty cell	12%

Internet access and confidence	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Have access to the internet	93%	Less likely	95%
Feel confident using the internet	69%	Less likely	79%
Find managing their benefit claim using their UC Online account easy	66%	Less likely	77%

Disadvantage profile and labour market regime	Segment B	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Homelessness	61%	More likely	41%
Substance Dependent	17%	Less likely	32%
Ex-Offender	13%	Less likely	29%
Care Experienced	35%	Empty cell	33%
IWS	75%	More likely	33%
Work Prep or WFI	8%	Empty cell	9%
NWRR	12%	Less likely	44%

UC claim length	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Up to 6 months	14%	Less likely	19%
6 months to 1 Year	10%	Less likely	14%
1 to 2 Years	15%	Less likely	19%
2 to 4 Years	25%	Empty cell	23%
4+ Years	36%	More likely	25%

Employment status	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
In employment	17%	Less likely	25%
Self employment	3%	Less likely	5%
Unemployed but looking for a job	11%	Less likely	17%
Unemployed and not looking for a job	9%	Empty cell	8%
Long-term sick or disabled	53%	More likely	29%

Type of substance dependency (of all UC claimants	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Dependent on alcohol but not drugs in the last 2 years	14%	Less likely	18%
Dependent on drugs but not alcohol in the last 2 years	20%	Empty cell	22%
Dependent on both alcohol and drugs in the last 2 years	20%	More likely	14%

Attitude to work (Not in employment)	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Returning to work is a possibility now	14%	Less likely	24%
Returning to work is a possibility in the future with the right support	34%	Empty cell	34%

Goals and aspirations (Top 3)	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Get a job or Change Jobs	28%	Less likely	37%
By physically healthy	18%	More likely	12%
Move house or Buy a house	13%	Less likely	18%

Support of sources	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Yes - A friend or friends	45%	Empty cell	48%
Yes - Family members	55%	Empty cell	56%
Yes - A professional	39%	More likely	32%
Registered with a GP	97%	Empty cell	96%

8.2 Care Experienced profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who are not care experienced

8.2.1 Care Experienced profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who are not care experienced

8.2.2 Care Experienced profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who are not care experienced

8.2.3 Care Experienced profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who are not care experienced

Disadvantaged Groups	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Homelessness	20%	Less likely	51%
Substance Dependent	15%	Less likely	40%
Ex-Offender	20%	Less likely	34%

Disadvantaged Groups	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Multiple types of disadvantage	40%	More likely	21%

Other types of disadvantage	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Domestic Abuse	41%	More likely	32%
Financial abuse or exploitation from a non-family member	15%	Empty cell	12%
Been a refugee	7%	Empty cell	7%

Qualifications	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
No qualifications	27%	Empty cell	25%
Fewer than 5 GCSEs at grade A to C or 9 to 4, NVQ Level 1 or equivalent	19%	Empty cell	17%
5 or more GCSEs of grade A to C or 9 to 4 or equivalent, NVQ Level 2 or equivalent, intermediate apprenticeship	18%	Empty cell	16%
A or T-Levels or equivalent, NVQ Level 3 or equivalent, advanced apprenticeship	13%	Empty cell	15%
Undergraduate degree, Masters or PhD	9%	Less likely	15%

Demographics	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
16 to 24	30%	More likely	13%
25 to 35	30%	More likely	26%
36 to 49	24%	Less likely	34%
50+	17%	Less likely	27%
Male	47%	Less likely	62%
Female	53%	More likely	38%
Has children	36%	More likely	30%
No children	64%	Less likely	70%
Single	88%	Empty cell	90%
Couple	12%	Empty cell	10%
Asian	6%	Less likely	8%
Black	11%	Empty cell	11%
Mixed	6%	More likely	4%
White	71%	Empty cell	73%
Other	3%	Empty cell	3%

Government Office Region	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
North East	5%	Empty cell	5%
North West	17%	Empty cell	16%
Yorkshire and the Humber	10%	Empty cell	10%
East Midlands	8%	Empty cell	7%
West Midlands	10%	Empty cell	11%
Wales	5%	Empty cell	7%
East of England	8%	Empty cell	8%
London	15%	Empty cell	18%
Southwest	9%	Empty cell	8%
Southeast	12%	Empty cell	12%

Self-reported distance from employment	Total	Homeless	More or less likely	Substance Dependent	More or less likely	Ex-Offender	More or less likely	Care Experienced
Base	2,350	850	Empty cell	695	Empty cell	626	Empty cell	1105
Paid work is not a realistic goal for me, my circumstances rule it out as an option now and in the future	34%	25%	Less likely	40%	More likely	43%	More likely	32%
With the right support work is a realistic goal for me within the next 12 months	15%	19%	More likely	14%	Empty cell	11%	Less likely	14%
With the right support work is a realistic goal for me, but not in the next 12 months	19%	20%	Empty cell	20%	Empty cell	19%	Empty cell	21%
I could return to work now if the right job was available or if I had the right support	20%	26%	More likely	14%	Less likely	16%	Less likely	19%
Summary: Returning to work is a possibility	55%	65%	More likely	48%	Less likely	46%	Less likely	54%

UC Labour Market Regime	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
NWRR	45%	Empty cell	43%
Work Prep or WFI	9%	Empty cell	8%
IWS	32%	Empty cell	33%

UC claim length	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Up to 6 months	16%	Empty cell	18%
6 months to 1 Year	12%	Empty cell	13%
1 to 2 Years	15%	Less likely	19%
2 to 4 Years	26%	More likely	22%
4+ Years	31%	Empty cell	28%

Mental and physical health	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
On the UC health Journey	44%	Less likely	49%
Rate their health as ‘Good’	33%	More likely	29%
Have a health condition expected to last 6 months or more	67%	Empty cell	71%
Are limited in their ability to carry out day-to-day activities	61%	Less likely	66%
Have a physical health condition	47%	Less likely	52%
Have a mental health condition	55%	Empty cell	58%
Have a learning difficulty or neurodiversity	28%	More likely	24%

Employment status	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
In employment	23%	Empty cell	23%
Self employment	4%	Empty cell	4%
Unemployed but looking for a job	16%	Empty cell	15%
Unemployed and not looking for a job	8%	Empty cell	8%
Long-term sick or disabled	31%	Less likely	39%

Employment history	Substance dependent	Significant difference compared with those who are not substance dependent	Not substance dependent
Less than 1 year ago	16%	Empty cell	17%
Between 1 year and less than 3 years ago	19%	Less likely	23%
Between 3 years and less than 5 years ago	13%	Less likely	18%
Between 5 years and less than 10 years ago	15%	Empty cell	16%
More than 10 years ago	18%	Empty cell	16%
I have never worked before	6%	More likely	3%

Form of Care	Care Experienced	Empty cell	All UC claimants
Foster Care	44%	Empty cell	3%
Residential children’s home	27%	Empty cell	2%
Supported accommodation	32%	Empty cell	2%
With parents, family or friends with support from social services	44%	Empty cell	3%

Goals and aspirations (Top 3)	Care experience	Significant difference compared with those who are not care experienced	Not care experienced
Get a job or Change Jobs	34%	Empty cell	34%
Continue studying or Return to my studies or Gain qualifications	15%	More likely	11%
Move a house or Buy a house	15%	Empty cell	17%

Support of sources	Care experience	Significant difference compared with those who are not care experienced	Not care experienced
Yes - A friend or friends	47%	Empty cell	47%
Yes - Family members	51%	Less likely	57%
Yes - A professional	35%	Empty cell	33%
Registered with a GP	95%	Less likely	97%

8.3 Ex-offenders profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who are not ex-offenders

8.3.1 Ex-offenders profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who are not ex-offenders

8.3.2 Ex-offenders profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who are not ex-offenders

8.3.3 Ex-offenders profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who are not ex-offenders

Disadvantaged Groups	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
Homelessness	24%	Less likely	48%
Substance dependent	33%	Empty cell	31%
Care Experienced	23%	Less likely	37%

Disadvantaged Groups	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
Multiple types of disadvantage	57%	More likely	15%

Other types of disadvantage	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
Domestic Abuse	31%	Less likely	36%
Financial abuse or exploitation from a non-family member	12%	Empty cell	13%
Served in the British armed forces	5%	More likely	2%

Qualifications	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
No qualifications	34%	More likely	22%
Fewer than 5 GCSEs at grade A to C or 9 to 4, NVQ Level 1 or equivalent	18%	Empty cell	17%
5 or more GCSEs of grade A to C or 9 to 4 or equivalent, NVQ Level 2 or equivalent, intermediate apprenticeship	18%	Empty cell	16%
A or T-Levels or equivalent, NVQ Level 3 or equivalent, advanced apprenticeship	10%	Less likely	16%
Undergraduate degree, Masters or PhD	8%	Less likely	15%

Demographics	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
16 to 24	5%	Less likely	24%
25 to 35	19%	Less likely	31%
36 to 49	40%	More likely	27%
50+	36%	More likely	18%
Male	79%	More likely	48%
Female	21%	Less likely	52%
Has children	25%	Less likely	35%
No children	75%	More likely	65%
Single	89%	Empty cell	90%
Couple	11%	Empty cell	10%
Asian	5%	Less likely	8%
Black	6%	Less likely	13%
Mixed	4%	Empty cell	5%
White	84%	More likely	67%
Other	1%	Less likely	4%

Government Office Region	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
North East	7%	More likely	4%
North West	17%	Empty cell	15%
Yorkshire and the Humber	10%	Empty cell	9%
East Midlands	7%	Empty cell	7%
West Midlands	10%	Empty cell	11%
Wales	8%	More likely	6%
East of England	9%	Empty cell	8%
London	12%	Less likely	19%
Southwest	8%	Empty cell	8%
Southeast	11%	Empty cell	12%

Interest in support	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Average number of support needs	0.89	Empty cell	2.49

UC Labour Market Regime	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
NWRR	54%	More likely	40%
Work Prep or WFI	8%	Empty cell	9%
IWS	27%	Less likely	35%

UC claim length	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
Up to 6 months	13%	Less likely	19%
6 months to 1 Year	10%	Less likely	14%
1 to 2 Years	13%	Less likely	19%
2 to 4 Years	25%	Empty cell	23%
4+ Years	39%	More likely	24%

Mental and physical health	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
On the UC health Journey	58%	More likely	43%
Rate their health as ‘Good’	26%	Less likely	32%
Have a health condition expected to last 6 months or more	76%	More likely	67%
Are limited in their ability to carry out day-to-day activities	70%	More likely	62%
Have a physical health condition	60%	More likely	47%
Have a mental health condition	59%	Empty cell	56%
Have a learning difficulty or neurodiversity	28%	Empty cell	25%

Employment status	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
In employment	15%	Less likely	26%
Self employment	6%	More likely	3%
Unemployed but looking for a job	13%	Less likely	17%
Unemployed and not looking for a job	9%	Empty cell	8%
Long-term sick or disabled	49%	More likely	32%

Employment history	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
Less than 1 year ago	11%	Less likely	20%
Between 1 year and less than 3 years ago	18%	Less likely	23%
Between 3 years and less than 5 years ago	17%	Empty cell	16%
Between 5 years and less than 10 years ago	22%	More likely	13%
More than 10 years ago	24%	More likely	13%
I have never worked before	3%	Less likely	5%

Time since last sentence	Custodial	Community
Community sentence still ongoing	Empty cell	6%
Less than 1 year ago	6%	3%
Between 1 and more than 3 years	12%	6%
Between 3 and more than 5 years	10%	7%
Between 5 and more than 10 years	14%	13%
More than 10 years ago	57%	62%

Attitude to work (Not in employment)	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
Returning to work is a possibility now	16%	Less likely	23%
Returning to work is a possibility in the future with the right support	30%	Empty cell	36%

Demographic	Segment G	Significant difference compared with all disadvantaged UC claimants	All disadvantaged UC claimants
Male	65%	Empty cell	57%
Female	35%	Empty cell	43%
Asian	3%	Less likely	7%
Black	3%	Less likely	11%
Mixed	3%	Less likely	5%
White	88%	More likely	72%
Other	2%	Empty cell	3%
16 to 24	5%	Less likely	18%
25 to 35	17%	Less likely	27%
36 to 49	32%	Empty cell	31%
50+	46%	More likely	24%

Support of sources	Ex-offenders	Significant difference compared with those who are not ex-offenders	Not ex-offenders
Yes - A friend or friends	47%	Empty cell	47%
Yes - Family members	59%	More likely	54%
Yes - A professional	38%	More likely	32%
Registered with a GP	98%	Empty cell	96%

Type of sentence (of all UC claimants)	Ex-offenders
A suspended sentence	3%
A community sentence	3%
Time in prison	3%
Time in a young-offender institution	1%

8.4 Homelessness in the past 2 years profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who had not experienced homelessness

8.4.1 Homelessness in the past two years profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who had not experienced homelessness

8.4.2 Homelessness in the past two years profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who had not experienced homelessness

8.4.4 Homelessness in the past two years profile compared to all UC claimants in a disadvantaged group who had not experienced homelessness

Disadvantaged Groups	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
Care Experienced	16%	Less likely	45%
Substance Dependent	20%	Less likely	40%
Ex-Offender	17%	Less likely	38%

Disadvantaged Groups	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
Multiple types of disadvantage	38%	More likely	20%

Other types of disadvantage	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
Domestic Abuse	36%	Empty cell	34%
Financial abuse or exploitation from a non-family member	14%	Empty cell	12%
Been a refugee	12%	More likely	4%

Qualifications	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
No qualifications	24%	Less likely	27%
Fewer than 5 GCSEs at grade A to C or 9 to 4, NVQ Level 1 or equivalent	15%	Less likely	19%
5 or more GCSEs of grade A to C or 9 to 4 or equivalent, NVQ Level 2 or equivalent, intermediate apprenticeship	15%	Empty cell	18%
A or T-Levels or equivalent, NVQ Level 3 or equivalent, advanced apprenticeship	16%	Empty cell	14%
Undergraduate degree, Masters or PhD	17%	More likely	11%

Qualifications	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
16 to 24	22%	More likely	16%
25 to 35	34%	More likely	22%
36 to 49	29%	Empty cell	32%
50+	15%	Less likely	30%
Male	55%	Empty cell	59%
Female	45%	Empty cell	41%
Has children	32%	Empty cell	32%
No children	68%	Empty cell	68%
Single	92%	More likely	88%
Couple	8%	Less likely	12%
Asian	10%	More likely	5%
Black	15%	More likely	8%
Mixed	5%	Empty cell	5%
White	63%	Less likely	79%
Other	5%	More likely	2%

Government Office Region	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
North East	4%	Less likely	6%
North West	14%	Less likely	18%
Yorkshire and the Humber	8%	Less likely	10%
East Midlands	7%	Empty cell	8%
West Midlands	11%	Empty cell	11%
Wales	6%	Empty cell	6%
East of England	8%	Empty cell	8%
London	22%	More likely	13%
Southwest	8%	Empty cell	8%
Southeast	12%	Empty cell	11%

Internet access and confidence	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
Have access to the internet	95%	Empty cell	94%
Feel confident using the internet	80%	More likely	73%
Find managing their benefit claim using their UC Online account easy	75%	Empty cell	73%

UC Labour Market Regime	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
NWRR	35%	Less likely	50%
Work Prep or WFI	8%	Empty cell	9%
IWS	43%	More likely	26%

UC claim length	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
Up to 6 months	25%	More likely	12%
6 months to 1 Year	18%	More likely	9%
1 to 2 Years	21%	More likely	15%
2 to 4 Years	19%	Less likely	26%
4+ Years	17%	Less likely	37%

Mental and physical health	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
On the UC health Journey	37%	Less likely	55%
Rate their health as ‘Good’	33%	More likely	28%
Have a health condition expected to last 6 months or more	65%	Less likely	73%
Are limited in their ability to carry out day-to-day activities	59%	Less likely	68%
Have a physical health condition	45%	Less likely	55%
Have a mental health condition	53%	Less likely	60%
Have a learning difficulty or neurodiversity	24%	Empty cell	26%

Employment status	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
In employment	24%	Empty cell	22%
Self employment	4%	Empty cell	4%
Unemployed but looking for a job	20%	More likely	12%
Unemployed and not looking for a job	9%	Empty cell	7%
Long-term sick or disabled	30%	Less likely	41%

Employment history	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
Less than 1 year ago	22%	More likely	14%
Between 1 year and less than 3 years ago	27%	More likely	18%
Between 3 years and less than 5 years ago	16%	Empty cell	16%
Between 5 years and less than 10 years ago	11%	Less likely	19%
More than 10 years ago	11%	Less likely	21%
I have never worked before	5%	Empty cell	4%

Type of homelessness	Experienced homelessness
Sofa surfed or temporarily stayed with family or friends	60%
Slept rough	32%
Stayed overnight in temporary rented accommodation or room in a shared house	30%
Stayed overnight in a hostel, refuge, shelter or supported housing	25%
Stayed overnight in a bed and breakfast or hotel.	21%

Attitude to work (Not in employment)	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
Returning to work is a possibility now	26%	More likely	17%
Returning to work is a possibility in the future with the right support	39%	More likely	30%

Goals and aspirations (Top 3)	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
Get a job or Change Jobs	40%	More likely	29%
Move house or Buy a house	27%	More likely	9%
Continue studying or Return to my studies or Gain qualifications	17%	More likely	9%

Support of sources	Experienced homelessness	Significant difference compared with those who have not experienced homelessness	Not experienced homelessness
Yes - A friend or friends	48%	Empty cell	47%
Yes - Family members	50%	Less likely	59%
Yes - A professional	30%	Less likely	36%
Registered with a GP	96%	Less likely	97%

History of homelessness	Experienced homelessness
Within the last 2 years but over 1 year ago	21%
Within the last year, but over 6 months ago	19%
Last 6 months	22%
Currently Homeless	29%

8.5 Multiple (2+) Disadvantages profile compared to all UC claimants in just one disadvantaged group

8.5.1 Multiple (2+) Disadvantages profile compared to all UC claimants in just one disadvantaged group

8.5.2 Multiple (2+) Disadvantages profile compared to all UC claimants in just one disadvantaged group

8.5.3 Multiple (2+) Disadvantages profile compared to all UC claimants in just one disadvantaged group

Disadvantaged Groups	Multiple disadvantages	Significant difference compared to those with one disadvantage	One disadvantage
Care Experienced	49%	More likely	27%
Ex-Offender	61%	More likely	17%
Substance Dependent	60%	More likely	21%
Homelessness	57%	More likely	35%

Other types of disadvantage	Multiple disadvantages	Significant difference compared to those with one disadvantage	One disadvantage
Domestic Abuse	41%	More likely	32%
Financial abuse or exploitation from a non-family member	18%	More likely	11%
Been a refugee	5%	Less likely	8%

Qualifications	Multiple disadvantages	Significant difference compared to those with one disadvantage	One disadvantage
No qualifications	32%	More likely	24%
Fewer than 5 GCSEs at grade A to C or 9 to 4, NVQ Level 1 or equivalent	19%	Empty cell	17%
5 or more GCSEs of grade A to C or 9 to 4 or equivalent, NVQ Level 2 or equivalent, intermediate apprenticeship	18%	Empty cell	16%
A or T-Levels or equivalent, NVQ Level 3 or equivalent, advanced apprenticeship	11%	Less likely	16%
Undergraduate degree, Masters or PhD	10%	Less likely	14%

Support of sources	Multiple disadvantages	Significant difference compared to those with one disadvantage	One disadvantage
Yes - A friend or friends	45%	-	48%
Yes - Family members	48%	Less likely	58%
Yes - A professional	39%	More likely	32%
Registered with a GP	95%	Less likely	97%

Demographics	Multiple disadvantages	Significant difference compared to those with one disadvantage	One disadvantage
16 to 24	17%	Empty cell	19%
25 to 35	26%	Empty cell	28%
36 to 49	33%	Empty cell	30%
50+	24%	Empty cell	24%
Male	69%	More likely	53%
Female	31%	Less likely	47%
Has children	22%	Less likely	36%
No children	78%	More likely	64%
Single	93%	More likely	89%
Couple	7%	Less likely	11%
Asian	3%	Less likely	8%
Black	8%	Less likely	12%
Mixed	5%	Empty cell	5%
White	80%	More likely	69%
Other	2%	Less likely	4%

Government Office Region	Multiple disadvantages	Significant difference compared to those with one disadvantage	One disadvantage
North East	7%	More likely	5%
North West	16%	Empty cell	16%
Yorkshire and the Humber	10%	Empty cell	10%
East Midlands	7%	Empty cell	8%
West Midlands	10%	Empty cell	11%
Wales	8%	More likely	5%
East of England	7%	Empty cell	9%
London	13%	Less likely	18%
Southwest	9%	Empty cell	8%
Southeast	12%	Empty cell	12%

Internet access and confidence	Multiple disadvantages	Significant difference compared to those with one disadvantage	One disadvantage
Have access to the internet	92%	Less likely	95%
Feel confident using the internet	69%	Less likely	79%
Find managing their benefit claim using their UC Online account easy	65%	Less likely	77%

UC Labour Market Regime	Multiple disadvantages	Significant difference compared to those with one disadvantage	One disadvantage
NWRR	52%	More likely	41%
Work Prep or WFI	8%	Empty cell	9%
IWS	32%	Empty cell	33%

UC claim length	Multiple disadvantages	Significant difference compared to those with one disadvantage	One disadvantage
Up to 6 months	18%	Empty cell	17%
6 months to 1 Year	13%	Empty cell	13%
1 to 2 Years	14%	Less likely	19%
2 to 4 Years	25%	Empty cell	23%
4+ Years	31%	Empty cell	28%

Mental and physical health	Multiple disadvantages	Significant difference compared to those with one disadvantage	One disadvantage
On the UC health Journey	58%	More likely	43%
Rate their health as ‘Good’	24%	Less likely	33%
Have a health condition expected to last 6 months or more	76%	More likely	67%
Are limited in their ability to carry out day-to-day activities	71%	More likely	62%
Have a physical health condition	55%	More likely	49%
Have a mental health condition	65%	More likely	54%
Have a learning difficulty or neurodiversity	33%	More likely	23%

Employment status	Multiple disadvantages	Significant difference compared to those with one disadvantage	One disadvantage
In employment	13%	Less likely	26%
Self employment	4%	Empty cell	4%
Unemployed but looking for a job	16%	Empty cell	15%
Unemployed and not looking for a job	11%	More likely	7%
Long-term sick or disabled	47%	More likely	33%

Employment history	Multiple disadvantages	Significant difference compared to those with one disadvantage	One disadvantage
Less than 1 year ago	14%	Less likely	18%
Between 1 year and less than 3 years ago	21%	Empty cell	21%
Between 3 years and less than 5 years ago	18%	Empty cell	15%
Between 5 years and less than 10 years ago	17%	Empty cell	16%
More than 10 years ago	20%	More likely	16%
I have never worked before	3%	Empty cell	5%

These percentages include those that were dependent on both alcohol and drugs. ↩
These figures may be an underestimation as this question was only asked to those who stated that they had physical or mental health conditions, disabilities, or illnesses lasting or expected to last for 6 months or more. ↩
Quote attributions identify the source of a quote and explain where the source fits into the population and sampling scheme, for example by stating sex, age and disadvantaged group. ↩
It is worth noting that those who have “never worked before” includes those from younger age groups who may have been out of employment for comparatively shorter periods of time alongside those who may be older who have never had employment before. They therefore cover a range of different periods of time. ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK

Voluntary statement of compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics

Trustworthiness

Quality

Value

Executive summary

Incidence and profile of the four disadvantaged groups within the UC claimant population

Disadvantaged groups in employment

Disadvantaged groups not in employment

Segmentation analysis

Glossary and acronyms

Care experienced

Care leaver

Claimants

Conditionality group

Disadvantaged Group

Domestic abuse

DWP

Ex-offenders

Homelessness

Intensive Work Search (IWS)

Jobcentre Plus (JCP)

Labour Market regime

Multiple disadvantage

Random probability sampling (RPS)

Substance dependency

DWP Verified care leaver

Universal Credit (UC)

DWP Unverified care leaver

Work coach

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and aims

1.2 Definitions of the four disadvantaged groups

Those who had experienced homelessness

Ex-offenders

Those who had experienced a substance dependency

The care experienced

Care leavers

1.3 Report structure

Methodology

Incidence and profile of the four disadvantaged groups within the Universal Credit population

Disadvantaged groups in employment

Disadvantaged groups not in employment

Segmentation

Annexes

2. Methodology

2.1 Sample design

Random probability sampling (RPS)

Care leaver boost sampling

2.2 Screener and questionnaire development

Screener survey

Main survey

2.3 Data collection

Table 2.1 Breakdown of survey responses by RPS and care leaver boost samples

2.4 Data Weighting and Analysis

Stage one weight

Stage two weight

2.5 Comparison between disadvantaged groups

2.6 Segmentation Analysis

3. Incidence and profile of disadvantage in the Universal Credit population

Key findings

3.1 Incidence rate of each of the four disadvantages in the UC population

Figure 3.1 Number of disadvantages experienced

Figure 3.2 Incidence rates of disadvantaged groups

Table 3.1 Forms of disadvantage by disadvantaged group and all UC claimants

3.2 Co-occurrence of disadvantages

Table 3.2 Co-occurrence of disadvantages for all UC claimants and all UC claimants in the four disadvantaged groups

3.3 Profile of disadvantaged groups

Age

Differences within the four disadvantaged groups by age

Gender

Differences within the four disadvantaged groups by gender

Household composition

Differences within the four disadvantaged groups by household composition

Region

UC Health Journey

Differences within the four disadvantaged groups by household composition

UC claim length

UC Labour Market Regime

Differences within the four disadvantaged groups by UC Labour Market Regime