Research and analysis

The Universal Credit Survey 2025

Published 25 June 2026

A report of research carried out by Ipsos on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

DWP research report no. 1128

Crown copyright 2026. 

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. View this licence or write to:

Information Policy Team
The National Archives
Kew
London
TW9 4DU

or email psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk. 

This document/publication is also available on the GOV.UK website 

If you would like to know more about DWP research email socialresearch@dwp.gov.uk. 

First published March 2026. 

ISBN 978-1-78659-954-4

Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions or any other government department.

Voluntary statement of compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics

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

Trustworthiness

The research conducted by Ipsos for the Department for Work and Pensions demonstrates trustworthiness through its commitment to independence and transparency. Being an independent market research agency, Ipsos ensured that the findings are impartial and unbiased. Furthermore, rigorous data security measures were implemented to protect respondent anonymity, adhering to ethical standards and safeguarding sensitive information.

Quality

This study was conducted in line with the Market Research Society Code of Conduct. Quantitative data was weighted to adjust for non-response bias, ensuring that the results are representative of the Universal Credit customer population by age, gender, conditionality group and length of time on Universal Credit.

Value

The research findings provided insights into the characteristics of Universal Credit customers as well as their knowledge and awareness of Universal Credit and its incentives, customer attitudes towards work and progression, and barriers to working or earning more. This information is valuable to DWP to understand the Universal Credit customer population. The findings also hold value for other organisations, policymakers, and researchers interested in social welfare and policy implementation.

Acknowledgements

This research was commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and would not have been possible without the contributions of Adina Huma and Salma Afzal from the Universal Credit Analysis Division in DWP. We extend our thanks for their project leadership and contributions throughout the process.

Authors

This report was written by researchers at Ipsos Public Affairs:

Stephen Finlay, Research Director

Daniel McGrady, Associate Director

Connie Rennie, Research Manager

Chloe Snook, Senior Research Executive

Executive summary

Introduction

Universal Credit (UC) is a means-tested single monthly payment for households living in the UK who are either out of work or in work with low earnings. It was introduced to simplify the welfare system by replacing six legacy benefits: income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA), Income Support (IS), income-related Employment Support Allowance (ESA), Housing Benefit, Working Tax Credit (WTC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC).

UC customers consist of customers who were formerly claiming DWP legacy benefits and/or tax credits and moved to UC through voluntary, natural or managed migration, and customers who did not move to UC from legacy benefits. Throughout this report we refer to customers who moved from legacy benefits as part of the managed migration process as “Move-customers”, and those who did not, are referred to as “non-Move customers”.

DWP commissioned Ipsos to conduct a large-scale quantitative survey of UC customers to obtain the latest data on the characteristics of UC customers, their knowledge and understanding of UC, their aspirations towards work and progression and their barriers to working or earning more.

Research aims

DWP commissioned Ipsos to conduct the Universal Credit Survey in 2025. The survey aimed to: 

• investigate customer knowledge, awareness and understanding of UC and its incentives
• capture customer attitudes towards work and progression
• better understand customer barriers to working or earning more, and their perceptions of support from the Jobcentre Plus

Additionally, DWP commissioned Ipsos to conduct a randomised control trial in tandem with the survey to investigate the impact of incentives on survey response rates.

Methodology

In April 2025, DWP supplied Ipsos with a sample of 120,000 UC customers sourced from DWP administrative data. The sample frame had been stratified by region, UC conditionality and length of time on UC before the sample was randomly selected. After cleaning the sample, 20,000 cases were randomly allocated as a reserve sample, to be used in the event of low response rates. A further 500 cases were randomly allocated to the pilot sample. The remaining cases (98,697) were allocated to the mainstage survey sample.

Ipsos developed the questionnaire to address the research questions. They were guided by prior relevant questions from surveys of UC customers and priority areas of enquiry provided by DWP and their stakeholders. Cognitive testing and a survey pilot were carried out to further refine the questionnaire before fieldwork began.

The survey was predominantly an online email survey with telephone interviews used to target non-responding groups and ensure that the survey was inclusive and accessible for those who could not take part online. Ipsos launched online mainstage fieldwork on 22 May 2025. All UC customers with an email address were sent an email with a unique link to complete the survey. Telephone interviews began on 30 May 2025. The reserve sample was invited to take part on the 25 June 2025.

Fieldwork was carried out until 13 July 2025. Ipsos used email and text reminders to improve response rates throughout the fieldwork period. In total, eight email reminders and three text reminders were sent over the course of fieldwork. In total 9658 UC customers completed the survey (7,106 online, 2,552 by telephone).

Survey responses were weighted to ensure the sample was representative of the population of UC customers based on age, gender, UC conditionality regime and length of time on UC. The data was analysed to identify subgroup differences across customer demographics, customer characteristics, and economic profiles. Statistical significance testing was conducted at the 5% level, meaning there is less than a 5% chance that results deemed significantly different differ due to chance.

Findings

Knowledge, awareness and understanding of Universal Credit

UC customers generally had a good understanding of: their claimant commitments (88% understood what would happen if they didn’t do what was on their claimant commitment); advances (70% knew that UC customers can request an advance); and the UC childcare support offer (64% were aware of this feature). There also was a high level of understanding around what household changes should be reported to UC, with 93% correctly identifying that moving to a new address should be reported. There was a lower level of awareness of some passported benefits (61% were unaware of support for utility bills).

There was mixed understanding about what capital should be reported to UC, with UC customers generally agreeing that larger forms of capital should be reported such as property other than the home they live in (77%) but less agreeing that smaller forms of capital should be reported such as money borrowed from others (19%).

There were some customer groups who showed consistently better understanding of UC such as women, carers and customers who had been on UC for longer compared to their counterparts, such as their claimant commitment and the rules around working on UC.

There was a high level of misunderstanding around working hours on UC, with 30% of UC customers unsure whether it was true or not that UC customers cannot work for more than 16-hours per week and claim UC (a false statement).

Working customers had a better understanding of their claimant commitment and the rules around working hours on UC, however there was still some misunderstanding amongst these customers with only 66% knowing they could work more than 16 hours on UC. This was more predominant for those working less than 16 hours, only half (51%) of whom said they could work more than 16 hours. On the other hand, non-working customers and those who were struggling to cope financially were more likely to be aware of advances and passported benefits, likely due to a heavier reliance on these.     

Additionally, household composition had an impact on which parts of UC customers were aware of and used. Couples and parents had a higher level of awareness of general aspects of UC, whereas single customers and those without children (who were also more likely to be struggling financially) were more aware of advances and passported benefits.

Compared with non-Move customers, Move customers had a lower level of understanding of some general aspects of UC such as their claimant commitments, passported benefits, and how to interpret UC statements such as how payments are calculated and how deductions are made. Move customers also showed a low level of awareness of the Transitional Element (only applicable to Move customers), with around four in ten (42%) not knowing if they were receiving it or not at the time of the survey.

Experiences of claiming Universal Credit

Among non-Move customers, the most common reasons for claiming UC were changes in work (35%), health (29%), and life (29%) circumstances. Men were more likely to report health changes as reasons for claiming UC, while women more frequently reported changes in life circumstances. Older customers were more likely to claim due to health reasons, while younger customers more frequently cited needing money and wanting support finding work.

Recent UC customers^{[footnote 1]} used GOV.UK (27%) and help from friends or relatives (18%) as the main sources of support when making a claim. However, a notable proportion reported having no support (22%). Move customers, parents, couples, and employed customers were more likely than their comparators to report having no support with making a claim.

Over half (54%) of non-Move customers who claimed after 1 April 2024 waited at least two weeks after their circumstances changed to apply for UC. Common reasons for delaying included uncertainty about eligibility (34%), the belief they would find a job quickly (25%), and not knowing how to claim (24%). Women, parents and couples were more likely to be unsure of their eligibility compared to their comparators. Whereas men, younger customers and those without children, were more likely than their comparators to believe they would find work quickly.

One in three (34%) recent customers applied for a new claim advance. Of those, 67% reported being able to manage their repayments while one in four (26%) struggled with repayments. Six in ten (60%) UC customers did not apply for a new claim advance. Those who did not apply for an advance reported having enough money (27%), not wanting an advance (25%), concerns about repayment (18%), and lack of awareness about the option (17%) as reasons. Women and parents were more likely to be worried they would not be able to pay the advance back, while younger customers and single customers were more likely to report they had money and felt they could get by.

Aspirations for work and progression

Almost half of all UC customers (46%) agreed that they are always financially better off working on UC however many hours they work.

Over two in five (44%) of all non-working UC customers reported that even with the right support, paid work was not a realistic goal for them.

Having a mental or physical health condition or learning difficulty (45%), childcare (20%), lack of affordable work options (15%) and lack of relevant skills, qualification or experience (15%) were the most prevalent barriers to working or increasing earnings at work.

Support to manage a physical or mental health condition (26%), help finding and paying for further or higher education courses (16%), support finding training opportunities (16%) and help with the cost of travel to and from work (15%) were the most common enablers to finding work or increasing earnings.

UC customers with a health condition (52%) were more likely than those without (21%) to report that even with the right support, paid work was not a realistic goal in the next 12 months. Those with a mental health condition were more likely than their comparators to report a lack of jobs in the local area, difficulty with flexible working options and needing support with training and travel to work.

Almost four in ten (38%) UC customers with children 16 and under reported that childcare affected their ability to work or increase their earnings and one in five (21%) selected that access to affordable or good quality childcare would help them to find work or increase their earnings.

Knowledge and awareness of work incentives and aspirations for work

Over half (57% of those eligible for a work allowance and 52% who were not eligible) correctly identified that currently for every £1 you earn over your work allowance, your UC payment is reduced by 55p.

Seven in ten (69%) of those who were eligible for a work allowance did not know they qualified with only 15% recognising their eligibility. Of those aware, one in four (24%) knew how much their household can earn per month before their UC payments were tapered away, while three in ten (30%) gave an incorrect answer and the largest proportion did not know (46%).

Those who perceived they were financially better off working on UC generally had better knowledge of the work allowance than those who did not perceive they were better off working on UC. However, they did not have more accurate knowledge of the UC taper rate.

UC customers who were not working but considered work to be a realistic goal for them in the next 12 months had consistently better knowledge of the work allowance and taper rate. This was compared to those who did not think work was a realistic goal for them.

Work coach support

Around half (49%) of all UC customers had contact (either by email, letter, text, video, telephone, face to face or journal message) with a work coach in the past six months (at the time of completing the survey) and of these customers, around half (53%) said they had contact at least once a month. Among those in the Intensive Work Search regime, 81% had contact with a work coach in the past six months.

The most common types of support received from work coaches were finding jobs (17%) and help with developing a CV (15%).

Two in five (42%) of those who received support from their work coach in the last six months and were not working felt the support they received from work coaches brought them closer to finding a job. Over half (55%) felt supported by their work coach to prepare for work and move into employment.

Over four in ten (45%) of UC customers who were working and received support from their work coach in the last six months agreed that the support they received helped them to progress in work, change career, or increase their hours or earnings.

Of those who received support from their work coach in the last six months, six in ten (62%) agreed that the help received was tailored to their needs and circumstances.

Men, younger people, those from an ethnic minority background and those without a health condition were more likely than their comparators to have received job and skill-related support such as help finding jobs and CV writing. Furthermore, these groups were more likely to agree that the support they received helped them to get closer to finding a job or progress in work.

Compared with other regimes, customers in the intensive work search regime that had contact with a work coach in the last six months were more likely to have spoken to a work coach at least once a month. These customers were also more likely to report receiving multiple forms of support and were the most positive about the support they received. Those in the no work-related requirements were less likely to report receiving any of the support, although these customers are not required to see a work coach. However, they may request or be offered support on a voluntary basis.

Glossary of terms

Term	Description
Accessibility Needs type	UC holds information on any reasonable adjustments customers may have including any accessibility needs adjustments such as: Large print or braille communications, British Sign Language, interpreters, home visits (in exceptional cases), adjusted appointment formats or timings.
Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET)	A fixed earnings amount that determines the intensity of support customers receive to find more or better-paid work. It is set at both an individual and a household level.
Benefit cap	The benefit cap is a limit on the total amount of benefit you can get. It applies to most people aged 16 or over who have not reached State Pension Age.
Budgeting advance	Budgeting Advances are to help finance intermittent/unforeseen expenses (for example, essential household items) or expenses related to maternity, obtaining or retaining employment. Budgeting Advances are available to UC customers who have been in receipt of UC continuously for at least six months. Since December 2024, new customers must repay their advances over a maximum period of 24 months.
Claimant commitment	The Claimant Commitment (CC) is a contractual concept between the individual and the State. It records customers’ obligations in one place, clarifying both what people are expected to do in return for UC support, and exactly what will happen if they fail to comply. Accepting a CC is a basic condition of entitlement.
Claim type	UC claims are categorised as a single claim or a couple claim, depending on if the claimant lives with a partner, and with or without children age 16 and under. The claim type is used to calculate the amount of UC support a customer is entitled to.
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI)	A survey method where telephone interviewers use computers to guide them through the questionnaire and record responses directly into an online system.
Conditionality Earnings Threshold (CET)	This is calculated using the number of hours a customer is expected to undertake work-related activities and the National Minimum Wage or National Living Wage rate that applies to them (dependant on their age), they will be working enough, and conditionality is no longer applied.
Earning Enough	Universal Credit claimants with earnings above their Conditionality Earnings Threshold are placed in the Earning Enough regime. They are not required to have any contact with jobcentre staff
Gainfully self-employed	Gainful self-employment means that self-employment is the customer’s main employment, that their earnings are from a trade, profession or vocation, and the work is organised, developed, regular and carried out in expectation of profit. UC customers must also provide evidence of their self-employment work and expenses when asked to do so.
Housing Element	If you’re eligible for UC, you can get an extra amount of money to pay towards your housing costs.
Initial Assessment Period (Five week wait)	After UC customers make a claim to UC the first calendar month is the initial assessment period. At the end of that period, entitlement for that month is calculated and paid 7 days later. This time is often referred to as the 5 week wait. UC payments thereafter are made monthly in arrears.
Intensive Work Search	Universal Credit claimants with no earnings or with earnings below the Average Earnings Threshold (AET) are placed into the Intensive Work Search regime. They are required to carry out work-related activities usually including regular meetings with jobcentre work coaches to continue receiving UC.
Labour market regime	Classifications to determine the level of work-related support and requirements for UC customers based on their individual circumstances and household earnings. The regimes define what is expected of a customer, such as whether they must search or prepare for work. There are six regimes: No work-related requirements; Earning enough; Work Focused Interview or Work Preparation; Light touch (out of work) or (in work); and Intensive Work Search. These are further explained below.
Legacy benefits	The six benefits that UC is replacing: Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, income-related Employment and Support Allowance, Housing Benefit, Child Tax Credit, and Working Tax Credit.
Light Touch Regime	Universal Credit claimants with earnings between the AET and their Conditionality Earnings Threshold are placed in the Light Touch regime. They are not currently required to have any contact with jobcentre staff.
Means-tested benefit	A benefit where eligibility depends on the claimant’s income and capital (savings).
Minimum income floor	The Minimum Income Floor is the minimum amount a customer in gainful self-employment is treated as having earned each month when calculating their UC payment. The level of the Minimum Income Floor is equivalent to what a person in employed work in similar circumstances to the customer could expect to earn at National Living or Minimum Wage.
New claim advance	A payment is available if a customer urgently needs support during their first assessment period. Most customers can request an advance of up to 100% of the monthly amount they are due to receive. The customer pays it back from their future monthly UC payments over a maximum period of 24 months. This means they get less UC each month until it is paid back.
No Work Related Requirements Regime (NWRR)	For customers in the NWRR there is no expectation for customers to work at present as this regime includes those too ill to work, over state pension age or are lead carers of a child aged under one.
Passported benefits	Certain benefits and support schemes that are granted to customers of certain benefits (for example, free NHS prescriptions, Council Tax reductions and support with utility bills). Customers lose access to passported benefits if their earnings or income increases above the threshold for that specific passported benefit or if they do not claim or lose entitlement to the benefit they were ‘passported’ with.
Personal independence Payment (PIP)	A tax-free, non-means-tested benefit that contributes towards the extra costs of long-term ill health or a disability for working aged people (16 to the day before State Pension age when first claiming) who need help with mobility and/or daily living costs. It is replacing Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for people aged 16 to 64 on 8 April 203, or who reach age 16 after that date, and is available to those both in and out of work. It is available in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not in Scotland where Adult Disability Payment (ADP) can be claimed instead.
Taper rate	The UC taper rate is the percentage that UC payments are reduced by as households increase their earnings. The current taper rate is 55%, meaning that for every £1 earnt, UC payments are reduced by 55p. For households entitled to a work allowance, the taper rate is applied to earnings above the work allowance. The taper is applied to earnings net of tax, national insurance contributions and occupational or personal pension contributions.
Transitional Element	The Transitional Element is a transitional protection measure; an additional amount added to an eligible Move customers’ UC award to ensure, at the point they move, they are not receiving a lower benefit entitlement than their previous legacy benefits. It is awarded from their first assessment period. It can end or erode as it is not intended as permanent replication of legacy benefits.
Universal Credit (UC)	A single payment replacing six legacy benefits, aimed at simplifying the benefits system.
Universal Credit Health Journey	A claimant is considered to be on the UC health journey when they have reported a health condition which restricts their ability to work and has either provided acceptable medical evidence such as a fit note or received a current Work Capability Assessment (WCA) outcome of Limited Capability for Work (LCW) or Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity (LCWRA). Customers found fit for work following a WCA will no longer be on the health journey, but any requirements will continue to be tailored to take into consideration the impacts of their health condition.
Universal Credit Helpline	This is the telephony helpline available set up by DWP for all those either currently claiming UC or planning to make a claim to UC and would like more information.
Work Allowance	The amount of net earnings a UC customer can earn before UC payments are reduced by the taper rate of 55%. Households with children or limited capability for work because of a health condition or disability are entitled to a work allowance.
Work Preparation	Customers are expected to prepare for work whilst taking their capabilities and circumstances into account. This regime includes customers who are the lead carer of a child aged 2 or those who are determined as having a limited capability for work (LCW).

List of abbreviations

Abbreviation	Description
DWP	Department for Work and Pensions
NHS	National Health Service
PIP	Personal Independence Payment
UC	Universal Credit

Introduction

Background

Universal Credit (UC) is a single monthly payment for households living in the UK who are out of work or have low earnings. It was introduced to simplify the welfare system by replacing six legacy benefits. UC is means-tested; and payments are adjusted according to income changes. Most UC customers manage their claim online, and some by telephone, and must meet certain conditions such as work-related activities, to receive payments. 

UC replaces income-based Jobseekers Allowance (JSA), Income Support (IS), income-related Employment Support Allowance (ESA), Housing Benefit, and tax credits (Working Tax Credit (WTC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC)). Households claiming legacy benefits may choose to make a claim to UC (voluntary migration) or claim UC if experiencing a change of circumstance to maintain their working age income related benefit entitlement (natural migration).

The remainder of the legacy benefit population, who do not move voluntarily or through natural migration, will be informed that they must claim UC to maintain their benefit entitlement (managed migration). In this report, we refer to customers who joined UC through the migration process as “Move customers”. Any UC customers who did not move from legacy benefits as part of the managed migration process are referred to as “non-Move customers”.

Previous UC surveys are now not representative of the population of UC customers, due to the Pandemic changing the UC caseload and customers moving from legacy benefits to UC through the managed migration process since 2022. To collect up to date data on the full UC customer population, DWP commissioned Ipsos to conduct a large-scale quantitative survey of UC customers across England, Scotland and Wales. The survey aimed to obtain the latest data on the characteristics of UC customers, their knowledge and understanding of UC, their aspirations for work and progression, and their barriers to working or earning more.

Research aims

DWP commissioned Ipsos to conduct the Universal Credit Survey in 2025. The survey aimed to: 

• investigate UC customer knowledge, awareness and understanding of UC and its incentives
• capture UC customer attitudes towards work and progression, and map this against customer knowledge about UC incentives and support
• uncover customer barriers to working or increasing their earnings

Additionally, DWP commissioned Ipsos to conduct a randomised control trial in tandem with the survey to investigate the impact of incentives on survey response rates. The methodology and findings of the Incentives Trial are reported in Section 8 of this report.

Survey methodology

Sample

DWP supplied Ipsos with a random sample of 120,000 UC customers sourced from DWP administrative data, drawn in March 2025. The sample was stratified by region, UC conditionality and length of time on UC and then randomly selected from the strata.

The sample included the following information:

• contact details (name, address, email address, phone number)
• age
• gender
• details about UC claim (date of claim, whether it is a single claim or couple claim, whether the customer had an additional need (such as Braille) or not, length of time on UC)
• presence and age of children
• UC characteristics (work allowance eligibility, advances, deductions, health journey status, benefit cap status, carer status, appointee details, conditionality regime, UC housing element status)
• details of other related DWP benefits (for example, a live PIP claim)

The sample was then cleaned which involved removing cases from Ipsos’ ‘Do Not Contact List’ (a list made up of people who had previously opted out of further Ipsos research). After cleaning and removing duplicates by household, 20,000 cases were randomly allocated as reserve sample to be used in the event of lower-than-expected response rate, 500 cases were randomly allocated to the survey pilot sample, and the rest (98,697) were allocated to the mainstage survey sample.

Questionnaire development

Ipsos developed the questionnaire to address the research questions. They were guided by prior relevant questions from surveys of UC customers and priority areas of enquiry provided by DWP and their stakeholders. The questionnaire was reviewed and updated iteratively by Ipsos and DWP.

Cognitive testing

Ipsos conducted cognitive testing interviews on a selection of survey questions in March 2025, testing those questions which had not been previously used in surveys of the UC population or which contained complex or technical language. The interviews involved reading out or displaying the survey questions to a small sample of participants to test if the language was intelligible, and that the questions and responses were interpreted in the way that was intended. It further tested whether the responses were understandable, relevant and covered a broad range of suitable options.

In total, 10 current or former UC customers were recruited using free find recruitment to take part in one-hour cognitive interviews carried out either via MS Teams (with screen sharing equivalent to online survey testing) or via telephone (equivalent to telephone interview testing). A £40 shopping voucher was offered to compensate participants for their time. The questionnaire was amended using the feedback from the cognitive testing.

Piloting

Ipsos conducted a pilot of the survey with 500 UC customers prior to launching mainstage fieldwork. The pilot was carried out to further test the survey, its functionality, and levels of engagement. The findings from the pilot informed further refinements of the questionnaire before mainstage fieldwork.

Fieldwork

The survey was predominantly an online email survey with telephone interviews used to target lower response groups and ensure that the survey was inclusive and accessible for those who could not take part online.

Ipsos launched online mainstage fieldwork on 22 May 2025. All UC customers with an email address were sent an email with a unique link to complete the survey. Telephone interviews started on the 30 May 2025. The reserve sample was invited to take part on the 25 June 2025. Fieldwork was carried out until 13 July 2025.

Ipsos used email and text reminders to improve response rates throughout the fieldwork period. In total, eight email reminders and three text reminders were sent over the course of fieldwork.

Ipsos ensured that the survey was accessible on personal computers, laptops, mobile phones, iPads, and desktops to enhance response rates. Additionally, follow-up calls were conducted on weekdays, evenings, and weekends to capture working customers to boost response rates.

In total 9,658 UC customers completed the survey (7,106 online, 2,552 telephone). All surveys were completed by the UC customers themselves; there were no customers whose appointee (if they had one) completed on their behalf.

Data weighting and analysis

Weighting was applied to adjust for differences in non-response that may cause bias. Survey responses were weighted to ensure the sample was representative of the population of UC customers based on age, gender, UC conditionality group and length of time on UC. The weights applied are detailed in the appended Technical Report. Weighted data tables were produced including cross-breaks for comparison of total and subgroup base sizes.

Coding was applied to nine questions which included “Other specify” codes. This process involved checking if verbatim responses fit into the existing codes or whether new codes or responses should be added. A new code was included if it covered five or more mentions.

When reporting on sub-groups, the report notes whether results from sub-groups differ from the alternative subgroups in a statistically significant way, with statistic testing relying on an assumption that the weighted sample achieved is as good as a random probability sample. Statistical significance testing is used to determine whether differences in results are likely to be due to a genuine difference between groups, as opposed to chance variation. The threshold used in this research is the 5% level, meaning there is less than a 5% chance that results deemed significantly different differ due to chance. This is a standard level of significance used in social sciences.

Incentives Trial

Ipsos conducted a randomised controlled trial to measure the impact of different incentive packages and methods on survey response rates. The methodology and findings from the Trial are included in Chapter 8.

How to read the findings

Throughout this report, charts and tables are used to display the findings of survey questions. In most charts and tables, we have hidden response options such as ‘don’t know’ and ‘prefer not to say’. The exception to this is where ‘don’t know’ is considered a valid response to the question, for example, questions that ask UC customers about their knowledge and awareness of a UC feature.

Charted and tabulated values may not add up to 100% when: ‘don’t know’ and ‘prefer not to say’ options are excluded; rounding of weighted data leads to percentages above 100%; and questions are multi-code which means respondents could select multiple response options from a list.

In some cases where questions allow multiple responses (multi-code questions), the full lists have been truncated for reporting purposes, for example, only codes selected by 10% or more respondents shown. This is noted in the chart and table captions where applicable.

Tables are used to display subgroup differences. The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

All reported subgroup differences are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. In general, significant differences between groups are reported using the phrase “compared to”, for example, “women were more likely than men to report ‘yes’ (46% compared to 34%)”.

Only subgroup differences where the base size of the subgroup is >=100 are reported. The base size for each chart or table is displayed and described in the chart caption.

Some response options have been grouped together in net responses. For example, the response options “Strongly agree” and “somewhat agree” in a Likert scale may be combined into the net “agree”. Netted responses are labelled as a ‘NET’ in the relevant chart or table and described in the surrounding text.

Data on the characteristics of UC customers is a combination of data from DWP administrative datasets which were included in the sample and from responses to survey questions. In cases where Ipsos had multiple data points for the same characteristic, for example whether the UC customer has caring responsibilities, preference is given to the self-reported survey data when identifying subgroup differences. Where sample data on characteristics is reported, this is noted in the text and in the relevant chart or table.

1. Characteristics of Universal Credit customers

This chapter presents the characteristics of UC customers, including demographic characteristics (such as age, gender, ethnicity), economic characteristics (such as work status), and UC characteristics (such as claim type and conditionality regime). The findings in this section are from self-reported survey data and DWP administrative records of UC customers.

1.1 Demographic profile

Around three in five (58%) UC customers were female, and two in five (42%) were male (DWP data).

Two in three UC customers were age 25 to 49 (64%) (Figure 1.1). The remaining UC customers were age 50 to 64 (24%), under 25 (10%) and 65 or over (2%).

Figure 1.1 Age of UC customers

Age Band	Percentage
Under 25	10%
25 to 49	64%
50 to 64	24%
65 or over	2%

Notes for Figure 1.1: Age band (DWP data), Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Single code.

As shown in Figure 1.2, around seven in ten (72%) UC customers were from a white ethnic background, over one in ten (12%) were Asian or Asian British, one in ten (10%) were Black, African, Caribbean or Black British, a small proportion (4%) were of a mixed or multiple ethnic backgrounds or of an unspecified ethnic background (1%).

Figure 1.2 Ethnic background of UC customers

How would you describe your ethnic background?	Percentage
White	72%
Asian / Asian British	12%
Black / African / Caribbean / Black British	10%
Mixed / multiple ethnic groups	4%
Other ethnic group (Please specify)	1%
Foreign language	0%
Prefer not to say	1%
NA	0%

Notes for Figure 1.2: How would you describe your ethnic background? Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Single code.

UC customers’ regions are displayed in Figure 1.3. The highest proportion of UC customers were from London (18%). Around one in ten were from the South East, North West, West Midlands, East of England, Yorkshire and The Humber, South West, and smaller proportions were from East Midlands, Scotland, Wales and the North East.

Figure 1.3 Region of UC Customers

Region of UC Customers	Percentage
London	18%
South East	12%
North West	11%
West Midlands	10%
East of England	9%
Yorkshire and The Humber	9%
South West	8%
East Midlands	7%
Scotland	7%
Wales	4%
North East	4%

Notes for Figure 1.3: Government office region (DWP data), Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Single code.

DWP administrative data included a carer flag which denotes if someone in the household is a carer and the household is eligible for the carer’s element of UC. One in five (20%) UC customers were identified as having a carer in the household. In the survey we asked UC customers if they had caring responsibilities, which identifies whether the individual responding to the survey had caring responsibilities. Around three in ten (29%) self-reported that they had caring responsibilities. The people they cared for are displayed in Figure 1.4. “Carers” is used throughout the report to refer to UC customers who self-reported as carers in the survey.

Figure 1.4 Caring responsibilities of self-reported carers

Who do you care for?	Percentage
Child	58%
Parent	21%
Relative	15%
Husband / wife / partner	11%
Unrelated adult	6%
Other	3%

Notes for Figure 1.4: Caring responsibilities, Unweighted base:  All who self-reported as carers (n=2879), Multi-code, Unrelated under 18 year old and Prefer not to say not displayed.

Figure 1.5 Self-reported health condition of UC customers

Around three in five (61%) UC customers self-reported they had a health condition (Figure 1.5). One in four (26%) reported they had both a physical and mental health condition, around one in five (18%) reported having a physical health condition only, and 16% reported they had a mental health condition only. Around two in five (39%) UC customers reported that they did not have a health condition.

Self-reported health condition of UC customers	Percentage
Yes - both physical and mental health condition	26%
Yes - physical condition	18%
Yes - mental health condition	16%
NET: Any health condition	61%
No health condition	39%

Notes for Figure 1.5: Do you have any physical or mental health conditions, disabilities or illnesses lasting or expected to last for 12 months or more? Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Single code, Prefer not to say not displayed.

Of those who self-reported any type of health condition, over half (56%) reported they had lived with it over a year. One in four (25%) reported their health condition fluctuates, while around one in ten (12%) had their condition since birth. A small proportion reported they had had their health condition between six months to a year (4%), or for less than six months (2%).

Based on DWP administrative data, over half (52%) of UC customers had children age 16 and under and half (48%) did not. Throughout this report we refer to customers with children age 16 and under as “parents”.   

We asked customers for their highest education or professional qualification. Around three in ten (28%) reported they had GCSEs, O Levels, CSEs, Scottish National 5, NVQ 1-2, BTEC (firsts) or equivalent, one in five (20%) had A-levels, Scottish Highers, NVQ 3, BTEC (nationals or diplomas) or equivalent, around one in five (18%) had a degree or above or no formal qualifications (17%). One in ten (10%) had non-UK qualifications. Less than one in ten reported they had other training or qualifications below GCSE level (6%).

1.2 Vulnerable groups

The survey presented a series of sensitive questions to understand if UC customers were in any vulnerable groups. Due to low sample sizes, we did not use these vulnerability groups for response comparisons throughout the report.

Less than one in ten UC customers (7%) self-reported that they were looked after by children’s services before the age of 18. Six per cent self-reported they had a criminal conviction. The same proportion (6%) reported they had a substance dependency in the last two years. One in ten (11%) reported they had experienced homelessness in the past two years. Around 5% reported they had experienced more than one of these.

1.3 Economic profile

Over half (53%) of UC customers reported they were not working (Figure 1.6). Under half (48%) reported they were working, with around two in five (39%) employed, and less than one in ten (9%) self-employed.

Figure 1.6 Work status of UC customers

Employment status	Percentage
Not working	53%
NET: Working	48%
Employed	39%
Self-employed	9%

Notes for Figure 1.6: Which of the following best describes your current work status? Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Single code, Prefer not to say not displayed.

Of those who worked, less than one in ten (8%) reported they worked more than one job.

As shown in Figure 1.7, around one in three (36%) working UC customers reported they worked more than 30 hours per week, around one in five (18%) reported they worked between 16 and 20 hours, and less than one in five worked less than 16 hours (14%), between 21 and 25 hours (13%), and between 26 and 30 hours (11%).

Figure 1.7 Work hours of UC customers

How many hours do you currently work each week in total?	Percentage
Less than 16 hours	14%
Between 16 and 20 hours	18%
Between 21 and 25 hours	13%
Between 26 and 30 hours	11%
More than 30 hours	36%
Too difficult to calculate / hours often vary	8%

Notes for Figure 1.7: How many hours do you currently work each week in total [IF NUMBERJOB = 1 across all jobs? Unweighted base: All who work (n=4610), Single code, Prefer not to say not displayed.

Around three quarters (77%) of working UC customers reported they had a permanent contract with a fixed or minimum number of hours per week and around one in ten (13%) reported they had a zero-hour contract. A small proportion were on a fixed term contract (5%) or seasonal contract (1%).

Eight in ten (80%) working UC customers reported they had worked in their current job for a year or more, around one in ten (8%) reported they were working between six months and less than a year, and around one in ten (9%) reported they worked in the current job for less than six months.

The top sectors that UC customers worked in were: hospital or other health related services, school or college, and retail (all 11%). Less than one in ten worked in social care, restaurants, hotels or other food services, warehousing or delivery, a cleaning company or construction (Figure 1.8).

Figure 1.8 Job sector

Which of the following industries or sectors do you work in?	Percentage
Hospital / other health services (e.g. GP surgery)	11%
School / college	11%
Retail (clothes, supermarket, department store etc)	11%
Social care	8%
Restaurant / hotel / other food and accommodation services	8%
Warehousing / distribution / delivery	6%
Cleaning company	6%
Construction	5%

Notes for Figure 1.8: Which of the following industries or sectors do you work in? Unweighted base: All who work (n = 4610), Single code, Responses selected by 5% and over displayed).

Of those who were not working, the most common reason UC customers were out of work was due to long term sickness or a disability (43%) (Figure 1.9). Around one in five (18%) said they were not working but were currently looking for work. UC customers were also not working because they were a full-time carer (14%) or a full-time parent (7%). A small proportion said they were not working and not looking for work, or were in full time education, retired, waiting to take up employment or on a government training programme.

Figure 1.9 Reasons for not working

Which of the following best describes your current circumstances?	Percentage
Long-term sick/disabled	43%
Not working, but currently looking for work	18%
Full-time carer	14%
Full-time parent	7%
Not working, and not looking for work	6%
In full or part-time education	2%
Retired	2%
Waiting to take up employment already accepted so currently not working	2%
On a government training/employment programme	1%
Other	6%

Notes for Figure 1.9: Which of the following best describes your current circumstances? Unweighted base: All not working (n=5034), Single code, Prefer not to say not displayed.

Of those who were not working, eight in ten (80%) had been out of work for over a year. Over four in ten (44%) had been out of work for more than five years. Around one in ten (9%) last worked less than six months ago, and 8% last worked between six months and one year ago.

Half (50%) of UC customers reported that they were not coping at all or were struggling to cope financially in the last 12 months, comprised of four in ten (40%) who reported that it was difficult to cope and one in ten (10%) who reported that they were not coping financially at all (Figure 1.10). Two in five (38%) reported that they were managing ok. Around one in ten (11%) reported they were managing well, comprised of less than one in ten (8%) who reported they were managing fairly well and 3% who reported they were managing very well financially.

Figure 1.10 How UC customers are coping financially

How has your household been coping financially over the last 12 months?	Percentage
NET: Not coping at all/Difficult to cope	50%
Not coping at all	10%
It is difficult to cope	40%
Managing okay	38%
NET: Managing very/fairly well	11%
Managing fairly well	8%
Managing very well	3%

Notes for Figure 1.10: How has your household been coping financially over the last 12 months, Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Single code, Prefer not to say not displayed.

1.4 UC profile

DWP administrative data included a range of details of customers’ UC claims. This section describes the variables provided with the sample relating to customers’ UC claims.

Over eight in ten (83%) customers had been claiming UC for over one year (they had claimed before April 2024). Under one in five (17%) had been claiming UC for less than one year (they claimed after 1 April 2024). In this report we refer to those who had claimed more recently as “recent customers” and those who claimed before April 2024 as “non-recent customers”.

UC customers consist of a mix of those who made a fresh claim for UC (including via voluntary and natural migration), as well as those formerly claiming DWP legacy benefits and/or tax credits and invited to claim UC via a migration notice. In this report, we refer to customers who joined UC through the managed migration process as “Move customers” and all others are referred to as “non-Move customers”.

Based on DWP administrative data at the time the sample was drawn, 86% of UC customers were non-Move customers, and 14% were Move customers, consisting of 12% who had been formally claiming Working Tax Credits and or Child Tax Credits with another benefit and 2% formally claiming DWP legacy benefits only. The sample for this survey was drawn in March 2025, during the managed migration process. Since then, more legacy benefit customers have migrated to UC. Therefore, the proportion of Move customers reported on is reflective of the sample in March 2025 and likely to be lower than the proportion at the time of reporting.

Table 1.1 illustrates the difference up to end of March 2025 and post March 2025 in claims made to UC amongst different type of legacy benefit.

Table 1.1 Claims to UC amongst Move to UC customers

	Tax Credits only	DWP benefits	Total
Jul 2022 to end Mar 2025	703,768	789,905	1,493,684
Apr 2025 to end Sep 2025	25	372,076	372,103

Source for Table 1.1: Move to UC dataset, Stat-Xplore

The UC conditionality regime, or work-related group, determines the specific work-related activities a customer must perform to receive their benefits, the level of contact they will have with their work coach, and the support they will receive. Customers are placed into one of six different regimes based on their personal circumstances.

Based on DWP administrative data, four in ten (42%) UC customers were in no work-related requirements (Figure 1.11). Around one in four (24%) were in intensive work search, one in six (16%) were in earning enough conditionality, one in ten (10%) were in light-touch (in work), 6% were in work-focused interview or work preparation and 1% were in light-touch (out of work).

The composition of the UC caseload in terms of conditionality group may also be impacted by Move to UC. Figures from People on Universal Credit caseload within Stat-Xplore show that customers in no work requirements have increased from the four in ten in March 2025 to nearly five in ten in October 2025, partly reflecting the number of ESA customers moving to UC since April 2025.

Figure 1.11 Conditionality regime

UC Conditionality	Percentage
Earning enough	16%
Intensive Work Search	24%
Light-touch (out of work)	1%
Light-touch (in work)	10%
No work-related requirements	42%
Work-focused interview/Work preparation	6%

Notes for Figure 1.11: UC conditionality (DWP data), Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Single code.

UC customers can claim as a single customer or as a couple. Based on DWP data, nearly two in three (65%) UC customers were single customers, which consisted of around one in four (27%) with children and around four in ten (38%) without children^{[footnote 2]}. Around one in three (35%) were couples, with one in four (25%) with children, and one in ten (10%) without children.

2. Knowledge, awareness and understanding of Universal Credit

This chapter explores UC customers’ knowledge, awareness and understanding of UC rules and features, including: the UC claimant commitment, the UC customer statement, UC advances, reporting change of circumstances under UC, requirements for self-employed customers and the Transitional Element for Move customers. Finally, the chapter looks into UC customers’ awareness and use of UC childcare support.

2.1 Chapter summary

UC customers generally had a good understanding of: their claimant commitments (88% understood what would happen if they didn’t do what was on their claimant commitment); advances (70% knew that UC customers can request an advance); and the UC childcare support offer (64% were aware of this feature). There was also a high level of understanding around what household changes should be reported to UC, with 93% correctly identifying that moving to a new address should be reported.

There was a lower level of awareness of some passported benefits (61% were unaware of support for utility bills).

There was mixed understanding about what capital should be reported to UC, with UC customers generally agreeing that larger forms of capital should be reported such as property other than the home they live in (77%) but less agreeing that smaller forms of capital should be reported such as money borrowed from others (19%).

There were some customer groups who showed consistently better understanding of UC such as women, carers and non-recent customers compared to their counterparts, such as their claimant commitment and the rules around working on UC.

There was a high level of misunderstanding around working hours on UC, with 30% of UC customers being unsure whether it was true or not that UC customers cannot work for more than 16-hours per week and claim UC (a false statement).

Working customers had a better understanding of their claimant commitment and the rules around working hours on UC, however there was still some misunderstanding amongst these customers with only 66% knowing they could work more than 16 hours on UC. This was more predominant for those working less than 16 hours, only half (51%) of whom said they could work more than 16 hours. On the other hand, non-working customers and those who were struggling to cope financially were more likely to be aware of advances and passported benefits, likely due to a heavier reliance on these.

Additionally, household composition had an impact on which parts of UC customers were aware of and used. Couples and parents had a higher level of awareness of general aspects of UC, whereas single customers and those without children (who were also more likely to be struggling financially) were more aware of advances and passported benefits.

Compared with non-Move customers, Move customers had a lower level of understanding of some general aspects of UC such as their claimant commitments, passported benefits, and how to interpret UC statements such as how payments are calculated and how deductions are made. Move customers also showed a low level of awareness of the Transitional Element (only applicable to Move customers), with around four in ten (42%) not knowing if they were receiving it or not at the time of the survey.

2.2 General understanding of UC

We asked UC customers about their general understanding of UC including their claimant commitments and how UC payments are calculated.

As shown in Figure 2.1, overall, UC customers had a good understanding of their claimant commitments with nearly nine in ten (88%) agreeing (selecting either strongly or somewhat agree) that they understood what would happen to their benefits if they didn’t do what is on their claimant commitment. The same proportion (88%) agreed that they understood what is required of them to keep receiving their UC payments.

Over eight in ten (82%) agreed that their UC statement makes it clear if any deductions [to their payments] were being made.

There was a slightly lower level of understanding around how UC payments are calculated with three in four (76%) UC customers agreeing that they understood how their UC payments were calculated on their statement.

Figure 2.1 Understanding of UC

Understanding of UC	Net Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Net Disagree
I understand what would happen to my benefits if I don’t do what’s in my claimant commitment	88%	7%	3%
I understand what’s required of me to keep receiving Universal Credit payments	88%	7%	3%
I understand how my Universal Credit payments are calculated on my Universal Credit statement	76%	13%	10%
My Universal Credit statement makes it clear if any deductions are being made	82%	10%	6%

Notes for Figure 2.1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Single code, Don’t know not displayed.

There were some small differences in customers’ general understanding of UC. Women, carers, and those without a health condition had a consistently higher understanding of these aspects of UC than their comparators.

Additionally, non-recent and non-Move customers also had a better understanding of these aspects of UC, suggesting that customers’ familiarity with UC may increase with time on UC.

Those eligible for a work allowance also had consistently better understanding of UC than those who were not eligible.

2.3 Knowledge of five-week wait and UC advances

To explore what UC customers understood about UC advances and wait times, we presented several statements and asked customers to select whether they were true, false or if they were unsure. The statements shown in Figure 2.2 are about the UC new claim advance, the budgeting advance, and the wait time to receive UC payments (currently there is a five week wait to receive the first UC payment). Some of the statements were intentionally incorrect to increase reliability of responses.

UC customers had a good understanding of the UC new claim advance, with seven in ten (70%) correctly reporting that it was true they could apply for an advance and a quarter (25%) being unsure. Around three in four (74%) correctly reported that the advance needed to be paid back, with three in ten (29%) unsure.

UC customers were less sure about the UC budgeting advance. Nearly half (49%) reported they were unsure if they could request an advance after their first UC payment.

Over six in ten (62%) correctly identified that there was a five week wait until their first UC payment and around three in ten (28%) were unsure.

Figure 2.2 UC customers’ understanding of UC advances and wait times

UC customers’ understanding of UC advances and wait times	True	False	Unsure
You can request an advance on your first Universal Credit payment	70%	5%	25%
You need to pay back Universal Credit advances	74%	7%	19%
After your first Universal Credit payment you cannot request an advance to help with unexpected costs (budgeting advance)	25%	26%	49%
After you have made your Universal Credit claim there is at least a 5 week wait until your first payment	62%	10%	28%

Notes for Figure 2.2: For each of the following statements, please tell me if you think it is true, false, or you’re unsure, Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), After you have make your Universal Credit claim there is at least a five week wait until your first payment Unweighted base: those who claimed UC after April 2024 (n=1898), Single code.

As with general aspects of UC, similar groups showed a higher understanding of advances and wait times including women and carers. Women were more likely than men to be aware of the new claim advance (71% compared to 68%), that they need to pay back their advance (76% compared to 72%), and the five week wait for the first payment (68% compared to 65%). Carers also had a higher awareness of the new claim advance (72%), and the five-week wait (73%) than non-carers (69% and 58% respectively).

2.4 Awareness and use of passported benefits

Passported benefits are benefits or schemes some customers are eligible for because of their entitlement to certain DWP benefits or tax credits, such as help with health costs (including free NHS prescriptions), free school meals and support with utility bills. The eligibility criteria for each passported benefit and the support provided is determined by the Government department, devolved administration or company that owns it. DWP works closely with passported benefit owners to increase their awareness of UC and the needs of UC customers.

We asked UC customers whether before the survey, they were aware that if they claimed UC they may also be eligible to receive the three specified passported benefits above. For those passported benefits which UC customers were aware of, we asked them if they were currently claiming them. Please note, the question does not distinguish between those who are and are not eligible, so ‘no’ responses may include those who believe they are not eligible. However, the results provide indicative evidence of awareness as customers may also have selected ‘Don’t know’ if they were unsure.

There was mixed awareness of passported benefits. UC customers were most likely to be aware of the free NHS prescriptions (80% were aware, 19% were not). Seven in ten (70%) reported they were aware of Council Tax reductions, (29% were not). Less than four in ten (37%) were aware they could get support with utility bills (61% were not).

Figure 2.3 UC awareness of UC passported benefits

UC awareness of UC passported benefits	Yes, fully aware	Aware, but not in detail	No, not aware
Free NHS prescriptions	59%	21%	19%
Council Tax Reduction	45%	25%	29%
Support with utility bills through your energy supplier or accessing cheaper phone and broadband	16%	21%	61%

Notes for Figure 2.3: Before the survey today, were you aware that if you claim Universal Credit, you might also be eligible to receive…, Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), ‘Free NHS prescriptions’ asked to all respondents in England (n=8520), Single code, Don’t know not displayed.

As with UC advances, carers had a higher level of awareness of passported benefits as shown in Table 2.1. Additionally, those with a health condition also had a higher awareness of some passported benefits.

Table 2.1 Proportion of UC customers fully aware of passported benefits by health condition and caring responsibilities

	Has a health condition	No health condition	Carer	Non-carer
Free NHS Prescriptions	64%	52%*	65%	58%*
Council Tax Reduction	48%	42%*	52%	44%*

Notes for Table 2.1: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), ‘Free NHS prescriptions’ asked to all respondents in England (n=8520). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

In line with their better general awareness of UC, non-recent and non-Move customers had better awareness of passported benefits compared with their comparators. Again, these results show that customers who have been on UC longer have a better understanding of the additional benefits available to them.  

Table 2.2 Proportion of UC customers fully aware of passported benefits by claim data and move status

	Non-recent customers	Recent customers	Move customers	Non-Move customers
Free NHS Prescriptions	61%	53%*	51%*	61%
Council Tax Reduction	47%	39%*	40%*	46%
Help with Utility Bills	17%	14%*	12%*	17%

Notes for Table 2.2: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). ‘Free NHS prescriptions’ asked to all respondents in England (n=8520). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Amongst those who were aware of them, there was mixed use of passported benefits displayed in Figure 2.4. Free NHS prescriptions were used most widely by seven in ten (69%) UC customers (who were aware). Council tax reductions were claimed by around half (56%) of customers. Support with utility bills was least widely claimed by under three in ten (28%).

Figure 2.4 Passported benefits claimed

Are you currently claiming?	Yes	No	Don’t know
Free NHS prescriptions	69%	26%	5%
Council Tax Reduction	56%	34%	11%
Support with utility bills through your energy supplier or accessing cheaper phone and broadband options, for example BT Home Essentials	28%	59%	13%

Notes for Figure 2.4: Are you currently claiming… , Unweighted base: All who were aware of passported benefits (n=6845, 6861, 3572), Single code.

2.5 Knowledge of working on UC

We asked UC customers whether it was true or false that you cannot work for more than sixteen hours per week while claiming UC. Since the 16-hour work limit no longer applies, this is an incorrect statement.

As shown in Figure 2.5, almost half (45%) of UC customers correctly identified this statement as false, meaning they believed they could work more than sixteen hours on UC. Around one in four (24%) incorrectly thought there was a sixteen-hour work limit, and three in ten (30%) were unsure. Put together, over half (54%) of UC customers were not aware that they could work more than 16 hours while claiming UC.

Figure 2.5 UC understanding of the 16-hour work limit

Statement	True	False	Unsure
You cannot work for more than 16-hours per week and claim Universal Credit	24%	45%	30%

Notes for Figure 2.5: For each of the following statements, please [CAWI: mark each statement as] [CATI: tell me if you think the statement is] true, false, or you’re unsure, Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Single code.

Similar to the findings on the general aspects of UC, women, those without a health condition and carers were all more likely than their counterparts to understand that you can work more than 16 hours while claiming UC (Table 2.3).

Table 2.3 Proportion correctly identifying the 16-hour work limit was false

	Women	Men	No health condition	Health condition	Carer	Non-Carer
You cannot work for more than 16 hours per week and claim Universal Credit (percentage identifying the statement as false)	53%	35%*	55%	38%*	47%	34%*

Notes for Table 2.3: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

In line with their better general awareness of UC, non-recent customers were more likely than recent customers to know that you can work more than 16 hours per week and claim UC (Table 2.4). However, unlike previous patterns of awareness, Move customers were more likely than non-Move customers to understand these rules. This may reflect that Move customers were predominantly former Tax Credits customers and therefore likely to be working.

Table 2.4 Proportion correctly identifying the 16-hour work limit was false by claim date and move status

	Non-recent customers	Recent customers	Move customers	Non-Move customers
You cannot work for more than 16 hours per week and claim Universal Credit (percentage identifying the statement as false)	47%	36%*	51%	44%*

Notes for Table 2.4: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

2.6 Knowledge of UC reporting

Reporting capital

According to DWP guidance^{[footnote 3]}, any changes to the various forms of capital presented in the survey must be reported. As shown in Figure 2.6, there were mixed responses on what UC customers understood should be reported under UC. UC customers were more likely to report that a change in larger forms of capital such as property other than the home they live in (77%), savings and investments (69%) or business accounts and assets (55%) needed to be reported. UC customers were less likely to report that smaller forms of capital such as money to pay off debts (34%), money saved for a small or big expense (33%) and money borrowed from others (19%) should be reported.

Figure 2.6 Reporting changes to forms of capital

For each of the following types of capital, please select whether you think a change to them needs to be reported to Universal Credit	Yes, a change should be reported
Property other than the home I live in	77%
Savings and investments including money in trusts or from inheritance	69%
Business accounts and assets	69%
Compensation payments (e.g. workplace injury payments)	55%
Money invested into an ISA (e.g. Help to Save)	53%
Cash in a bank or building society account at the end of your Universal Credit assessment period	47%
Money to pay off debts	34%
Money saved for a purpose for small or big expenses (e.g. a new phone, holiday, medical care or children)	33%
Money which has been borrowed from others, for example family and friends	19%

Notes for Figure 2.6: For each of the following types of capital, please select whether you think a change to them needs to be reported to Universal Credit, Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Single code, No, a change does not need to be reported and Don’t know not displayed.

Reporting change of circumstances

UC customers should report all changes to household circumstances to UC. UC customers responded that changes such as moving into a new address (93%), having a child (90%), moving in with a partner (89%), moving out of a joint household (87%), becoming a carer or taking on caring responsibilities (86%), changes to a health condition (83%) and adults or non-dependent children moving into the household (80%) should be reported to UC.

Figure 2.7 Reporting changes to household circumstances

For each of the following changes in your household circumstances, please select whether you would need to report it to Universal Credit, or not?	Yes, should be reported
Moving to a new address	93%
Having a child	90%
Moving in with a partner	89%
Moving out from a joint household	87%
Becoming a carer / taking on caring responsibilities for a family member	86%
Changes in a health condition or a new health condition	83%
Adults or non-dependent children moving into or out of your household	80%

Notes for Figure 2.7: For each of the following changes in your household circumstances, please select whether you would need to report it to Universal Credit, or not? Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Single code, No, does not need to be reported and Don’t know not displayed.

2.7 Knowledge and awareness and customers’ economic situation

Customers’ working status and perceptions of their financial circumstances had an impact on their level of understanding of UC. Customers who were struggling to cope financially had a higher understanding of the UC advances (78%) than those who were managing well (69%).

They were also more likely than those who were managing financially to understand that they needed to pay back an advance (78% compared to 69%) and were less likely to be unsure about the budgeting advance, (47% compared to 51%). This suggests that awareness of advances may be driven by an increased need for additional support through an advance.

On the other hand, those who were managing financially had a better understanding of the UC claimant commitments and UC statements. They were more likely than those struggling to cope, to understand what would happen to their benefits if they don’t do what’s in their claimant commitment (91% compared to 86%), understand what’s required of them to keep receiving their UC payments, (93% compared to 85%), agree that the UC credit statement makes it clear if deductions have been made (85% compared with 70%), and understand how UC payments are calculated on their UC statement (85% compared with 70%).

Non-working UC customers were more aware of the five-week wait for their first payment (64% compared to 59% of employed and 56% of self-employed customers). UC customers who were not working were more likely than employed and self-employed customers to be aware of all passported benefits (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5 Proportion of UC customers fully aware of passported benefits by working status

	Not Working	Employed	Self-employed
Free NHS Prescriptions	69%	48%*	52%*
Council Tax Reduction	51%	38%*	41%*
Help with Utility Bills	18%	15%*	13%*

Notes for Table 2.5: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), ‘Free NHS prescriptions’ asked to all respondents in England (n=8520). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

This was also true for those who were working less than 16 hours. They were more likely than all other work hour patterns to be fully aware of free NHS prescriptions (62%), Council Tax reductions (51%) and utility bill support (18%).

Working and non-working UC customers had different understanding of what needs to be reported to UC while claiming UC. Working customers were more likely than non-working customers to say that changes to various forms of capital needed to be reported. Similarly, working UC customers were more likely than non-working UC customers to respond that most changes to household circumstances needed to be reported, for example adults or non-dependent children moving in or out of the house (84% compared to 77%).

However non-working customers were more likely to report that a change in health condition needed to be reported (84% compared to 81% of working UC customers). Those who were not working were much more likely to have a health condition (75% compared to 44% of those working). As such changes to health conditions are more likely to be relevant to those customers, and therefore more likely to be reported by them.

The rules around working on UC were clearer for those who were working and had more stable work situations. Working UC customers were more likely than not working UC customers to understand that they could work more than 16 hours while claiming UC (66% compared to 27% said it was false that you cannot work more than 16 hours while claiming UC). Furthermore, employed customers had a better understanding (67% compared to 61% self-employed).

Working customers on a permanent contract were more likely to understand they could work more than 16 hours (70%) than those on a fixed term contract (63%), a seasonal contract (53%) and a zero-hour contract (53%).

The number of hours impacted this understanding as well. Those who worked between 21 and 25 hours (76%) and between 26 and 30 hours (74%) had the highest understanding that they can work more than 16 hours while claiming UC.

Those who worked less than 16 hours had the lowest understanding that they could work more than 16 hours with around half (51%) believing that they could work more than 16 hours. This suggests that there is a population of UC customers who work less than 16 hours because they don’t understand that they are able to work more while claiming UC, or that their UC payments may inhibit them from working more such as worrying they might lose their UC payments.

Unexpectedly, only two thirds of those working between 16 and 20 hours (66%), and more than 30 hours (66%) said that they could work more than 16 hours. This suggests there is some confusion about the 16-hour work limit, even for those who work over that limit.

2.8 Knowledge and awareness and household composition

Household composition including whether a customer was single or in a couple, and whether they had children or not, impacted customers’ awareness and understanding of UC. Couples and parents had a better understanding of general aspects of UC, and the rules around working on UC, whereas single customers and those without children had a better understanding of, and were more likely to use, advances and passported benefits.

Parents had a slightly higher level of knowledge than those without children around the general aspects of UC such as their claimant commitments, (90% compared to 87%) and what’s required to keep receiving their UC payments (90% compared to 87%).

Furthermore, parents and couples were also more likely to understand the rules around working on UC (Table 2.6). They were more likely to understand that they can work more than 16 hours while claiming UC. Parents (38% compared to 69%) and couples (47% compared to 56%) were less likely to be not working than their counterparts which might explain this higher level of awareness.

Table 2.6 Proportion correctly identifying the 16-hour work limit was false by parents and claim type

	Parents	Non-parents	Couple Customers	Single Customers
You cannot work for more than 16 hours and claim Universal Credit	58%	31%*	49%	43%*

Notes for Table 2.6. Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Where parents and couples had a better understanding of their claimant commitments, and the rules around working on UC, single customers and those without children had a higher understanding of advances and passported benefits.

Table 2.7 Proportion of UC customers fully aware of passported benefits by parents and claim type

	Parents	Non-parents	Couple Customers	Single Customers
Free NHS Prescriptions	55%*	64%	54%*	62%
Council Tax Reduction	44%*	47%	40%*	48%
Help with Utility Bills	17%*	15%	15%*	17%

Notes for Table 2.7: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), ‘Free NHS prescriptions’ asked to all respondents in England (n=8520). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Of the customers who were aware of passported benefits, those without children, and single customers were also more likely to be claiming most passported benefits as shown in Table 2.8.

Table 2.8 Proportion of UC customers claiming passported benefits by parents and claim type

	Parents	Non-parents	Couple Customers	Single Customers
Free NHS Prescriptions	63%*	74%	62%*	72%
Council Tax Reduction	54%*	58%	45%*	61%
Help with Utility Bills	27%	29%	24%*	30%

Notes for Table 2.8. Unweighted base: All respondents aware of passported benefits (n=6845, 6861, 3572). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Single customers were also more likely than those in a couple to use an advance (36% compared to 31%). Single customers (51% compared to 47%) and those without children (52% compared to 48%) were more likely than their counterparts to be struggling or not coping financially, so it follows that they would more likely be aware of and need advances or passported benefits.

2.9 Knowledge and awareness of the Transitional Element (Move customers)

For eligible Move customers, the Transitional Element is an additional amount added to the UC award, so their UC entitlement is not lower than their total legacy amount at the point they move to UC. The Transitional Element is not time limited, but neither was it designed to be permanent. It can be eroded or ended in any subsequent assessment period after it is initially awarded with an increase in the customer’s underlying UC award reducing the level of Transitional Element in payment by the same amount. Similarly, it can terminate where a customer’s UC award ends or the circumstances of their original claim changes.

We asked all Move customers whether they were receiving the Transitional Element. At the time of the survey, over two in five (42%) were unsure if they were or not. Less than one in five (38%) reported that they were not receiving the Transitional Element and around one in five (19%) reported that they were.

Figure 2.8 Awareness of receiving the Transitional Element

Statement	Yes	No	Don’t know
Are you receiving the Transitional Element?	19%	38%	42%

Notes for Figure 2.8: Are you receiving the Transitional Element? Unweighted base: All Move customers (n=1543), Single code, Prefer not to say not displayed.

Move customers who were in couples, (45% compared to 40% of single customers) and self-employed (49% compared to 40% of employed customers), were more likely than their counterparts to report they didn’t know if they were receiving the Transitional Element.

UC customers who reported they were receiving the Transitional Element were asked if they were aware that the Transitional Element may reduce or come to an end if they have a significant change in circumstances. Around two in five (39%) reported they were fully aware, three in ten (29%) reported they were aware but not in detail, and around one in three (32%) reported that they were not aware.

2.10 Knowledge and awareness of requirements for self-employed customers

The survey also asked UC customers who were gainfully self-employed which of the types of expenses shown in Figure 2.9 they would report as part of their monthly reporting to UC. Please note, customers may not report certain expenses if they do not incur them.

Less than five in ten reported they would report business travel (49%), phone, mobile or internet bills (47%) or accounting fees (36%) as business expenses, and one in three or less reported they would report stock and goods for resale (30%), electricity or gas bills (26%), assets that do not lose their value (9%), full mortgage costs (7%). Around one in five (18%) reported they would not report any of the listed expenses, and one in seven (14%) reported they would report all of them.

Figure 2.9 Self-employment expenses that self-employed UC customers think should be reported

Which of these, if any, would you report as expenses as part of your monthly reporting under Universal Credit?	Percentage
Business travel	49%
Phone, mobile and internet bills for an office	47%
Accounting fees	36%
Stock and goods for resale	30%
Electricity/gas bills when working from home (where business is based)	26%
Assets that do not lose their value over time, such as shares	9%
Full mortgage cost for home, where the business is based	7%
None of these	18%
All of these	14%

Notes for Figure 2.9: Which of these, if any, would you report as expenses as part of your monthly reporting under Universal Credit? Unweighted base: All self-employed customers (n=883), Multi-code.

Those with a health condition were more likely than those without to report the top six self-employment expenses including business travel (53% compared to 45%), phone, mobile and internet bills for an office (51% compared to 44%), accounting fees (41% compared to 33%), stocks and goods for resale (37% compared to 24%), electricity/gas bills when working from home (29% compared to 23%), and assets that do not lose their value over time such as shares (11% compared to 6%). Those without a health condition were more likely than those with to report none of the listed expenses (21% compared to 13%).

UC customers who were struggling to cope financially were also more likely than those who were not to report four of the top six self-employment expenses including phone, mobile and internet bills for an office (49% compared to 28%), accounting fees (38% compared to 26%), stock and goods for resale (32% compared to 20%), and electricity/gas bills when working from home (28% compared to 13%). Those who were managing financially were more likely than those who were not to report none of the listed expenses (29% compared to 16%).

Minimum income floor

The survey asked gainfully self-employed UC customers how much they agreed with two statements relating to the Minimum Income Floor (MIF). The MIF is an assumed minimum level of earnings that a gainfully self-employed customer is treated as having earned each Assessment Period, when calculating their UC award. The amount is equivalent to what an employed person in a similar situation would earn on the National Living Wage (or National Minimum Wage if 21 or under), after tax and National Insurance. If a customer earns below this level, their UC award will not rise to make up the difference; if a customer earns above this level, their actual earnings will be used when calculating their UC award.

As shown in Figure 2.10, three in four (76%) self-employed customers reported that they either strongly or somewhat agreed that they understood what the Minimum Income Floor is. A similar proportion, three in four (74%), reported that they either strongly or somewhat agreed that they understood how Universal Credit payments may be affected by the Minimum Income Floor.

Figure 2.10 Understanding of the Minimum Income Floor

Statement	NET Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	NET Disagree
I understand what the ‘minimum income floor’ is	76%	10%	12%
I understand how my Universal Credit payments may be affected by the minimum income floor	74%	13%	11%

Notes for Figure 2.10: If you’re self-employed, your Universal Credit payment may be calculated using an assumed level of earnings, which is called a minimum income floor. To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements about the minimum income floor? Unweighted base: All gainfully self-employed customers (sample) (n=526), Single code, Don’t know not displayed

Parents were more likely than those without children to report they knew what the minimum income floor is (79% compared to 64%) and how the income floor may affect their UC payments (77% compared to 62%).

Those without a health condition were more likely than those with a health condition to report they knew what the minimum income floor is (80% compared to 67%) and how the income floor may affect their UC payments (80% compared to 64%).

The Minimum Income Floor is usually applied after a 12 month start up period. As such, time on UC impacted self-employed customers’ understanding of it. Non-recent customers were more likely than recent UC customers to report they knew what the minimum income floor was (78% compared to 60%) and understand how it impacts their UC payments (76% compared to 62%). Similarly, non-Move customers who were had generally been claiming UC for longer than Move customers, were more likely to report they know what the minimum income floor is (79% compared to 63%) and understand how it impacts their UC payments (77% compared to 62%).

2.11 Awareness and use of UC childcare support

Use of childcare

We asked parents which types of childcare they used (findings displayed in Figure 2.11). Of those, over half (53%) reported they do not use childcare and under half (45%) reported they did. The most reported form of childcare was family and friends (22%), after school or breakfast or holiday club (15%) and nursery (14%).

Figure 2.11 Use of childcare

Which, if any, of the following types of childcare do you use?	Percentage
I don’t use childcare	53%
NET: Uses childcare	45%
Family and friends	22%
After school/breakfast/holiday club	15%
Nursery	14%
Registered childminder	4%
Nanny	1%
Other (please specify)	1%

Notes for Figure 2.11: Which, if any, of the following types of childcare do you use? Unweighted base: All with children under 16 (n=4845), Multi-code, Don’t know and Prefer not to say not displayed.

Awareness of UC childcare support

UC customers who are working can be reimbursed up to 85% of their childcare costs. As shown in Figure 2.12, we asked parents if they were aware of this. Around two in five (39%) parents reported they were fully aware, and a one in four (25%) reported they were aware but not in detail. Around one in three (35%) reported they were not aware of this.

We also asked if they were aware that DWP may be able to help pay their first set of childcare costs upfront. Fewer UC customers were aware of this. One in four (26%) reported they were fully aware, almost one in four (23%) were aware but not in detail, and half (50%) were not aware.

Figure 2.12 Awareness of childcare support

Awareness of childcare support before the survey	Yes, fully aware	Aware, but not in detail	No, not aware
Universal Credit can pay up to 85% of your childcare costs if you work	39%	25%	35%
DWP may be able to help pay your first set of childcare costs, upfront, if you start work or increase your hours	26%	23%	50%

Notes for Figure 2.12: Before the survey today, were you aware or not that…, Unweighted base: All with children under 16 (n=4845), Single code, Don’t know not displayed.

Women were more likely than men to be either fully aware or aware but not in detail that DWP could cover 85% of childcare costs (70% compared to 50%) and that DWP may be able to help with upfront costs (51% compared to 43%).

Single customers were more likely than couples to be fully aware or aware but not in detail that DWP could cover 85% of childcare costs (70% compared to 58%) and that DWP may be able to help with upfront costs (51% compared to 47%).

Those who used formal childcare were also more likely to be fully aware or aware but not in detail that DWP could cover 85% of childcare costs (80%) compared to those who used informal childcare (67%) and those who do not use any childcare (67%).

Those without a health condition were more likely than those without to be fully aware or aware but not in detail that DWP could cover 85% of childcare costs (66% compared to 62%) and that DWP may be able to help with upfront costs (52% compared to 46%).

Non-recent customers were more likely than recent customers to be fully aware or aware but not in detail that DWP could cover 85% of childcare costs (66% compared to 53%) and that DWP may be able to help with upfront costs (50% compared to 41%).

Non-Move customers were more likely than Move customers to be fully aware or aware but not in detail that DWP could cover 85% of childcare costs (66% compared to 55%) and that DWP may be able to help with upfront costs (50% compared to 42%).

3. Experiences of claiming Universal Credit

This chapter explores the UC customers’ motivations for claiming UC, whether they received support with making a claim, if they delayed making a claim or not, and whether they applied for a UC new claim advance.

3.1 Chapter summary

Among non-Move customers, the most common reasons for claiming UC were changes in work (35%), health (29%), and life (29%) circumstances.

Men were more likely to report health changes as reasons for claiming UC, while women more frequently reported changes in life circumstances. Older customers were more likely to claim due to health reasons, while younger customers more frequently cited needing money and wanting support finding work.

Recent customers used GOV.UK (27%) and help from friends or relatives (18%) as the main sources of support when making a claim. However, a notable proportion reported having no support (22%). Move customers, parents, couples, and employed customers were more likely than their comparators to report having no support with making a claim.

Over half (54%) of recent and non-Move customers waited at least two weeks to apply for UC after their circumstances changed. Common reasons for delaying included uncertainty about eligibility (34%), the belief they would find a job quickly (25%), and not knowing how to claim (24%). Women, compared to men, parents compared to those without children, and couples compared to single customers were more likely to be unsure of their eligibility. On the other hand, men, younger customers, and those without children were more likely to expect to find work quickly.

One in three (34%) recent customers applied for a new claim advance. Of those, 67% reported being able to manage their repayments and one four (26%) struggled with repayments. Women, those aged 25 to 49 and those with a health condition were more likely to report struggling with repayments.

Six in ten (60%) UC customers did not apply for a new claim advance. Those who did not apply for an advance reported having enough money (27%), not wanting an advance (25%), concerns about repayment (18%), and lack of awareness about the option (17%) as reasons. Women and parents were more likely to be worried they would not be able to pay the advance back, while younger customers and single customers were more likely to report they had money and felt they could get by.

3.2 Reasons for claiming UC

Non-Move customers were asked what their motivations were when first making a claim for UC. The top three changes in circumstances which led them to needing financial support were changes in work (35%), health (29%), and life (29%) circumstances. Other motivations included needing the money (20%) and wanting more support to find or progress in work (12%) (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Reasons for claiming UC

When you first made a claim for Universal Credit, were any of the following reasons why you made a claim?	Percentage
I experienced a change in my work circumstances and needed financial support	35%
I experienced a change in my health circumstances and needed financial support	29%
I experienced a change in my life circumstances (e.g. a divorce/separation from partner) and needed financial support	29%
I needed the money	20%
To get more support to find/progress in work	12%

Notes for Figure 3.1: When you first made a claim for Universal Credit, were any of the following reasons why you made a claim? Unweighted base: All non-Move customers (n=8115), Multi-code, Responses selected by 5% and over displayed.

Parents, women, single customers and those with a mental health condition were all more likely to report a change in life circumstances as a reason for making a claim than their counterparts:

• 39% of parents compared with 19% of those without children
• 36% of women compared with 19% of men
• 33% of single customers compared with 21% of couples
• 31% of those who had mental health condition only compared with 22% of those who had a physical health condition only

Couples were more likely to report a change in work circumstances (39%) as a reason compared with single customers (33%).

The reasons for making a claim were impacted by customers’ age. Customers aged 25 to 49 were more likely to have experienced a change in life circumstances, while older customers were more likely to have experienced a change in health circumstances. Those aged under 25 were more likely to have needed the money or wanted support with finding or progressing in work (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Customers motivations for claiming UC by age group

	Under 25	25 to 49	50 to 64	65 or over
Change in health circumstances	22%*	25%*	42%	49%
Change in life circumstances	20%*	34%	20%*	15%*
Needed the money	30%	19%*	16%*	17%*
Wanted support finding or progressing in work	25%	11%*	9%*	8%*

Notes for Table 3.1: Unweighted base: All non-Move customers (n=8115). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

3.3 Support with claiming UC

The survey asked recent customers whether they accessed information or support when they first made a claim to UC, if they made the claim straightaway or decided to wait, and if they applied for a new claim advance. These questions were only asked of recent customers who were likely to have better recall.

The top sources of support accessed were GOV.UK (27%) and help from friends or relatives (18%). Other forms of support included speaking to an advisor at Jobcentre Plus (13%), support from a work coach (11%), accessing an online benefits calculator (10%), other forms of support (10%), and calling the UC claim helpline (9%). All sources selected by more than 5% of UC customers are displayed in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Sources of help with making a UC claim

When you first made your claim to Universal Credit, did you access any of the following sources of information or support?	Percentage
GOV.UK web pages on Universal Credit	27%
A friend or relative	18%
Advisor at the Jobcentre Plus	13%
My Work Coach	11%
Online benefits calculator	10%
Other	10%
Universal Credit claim helpline	9%
Citizens Advice	7%
Move to UC helpline	5%
Support worker	5%
I did not have support to make a claim	22%

Notes for Figure 3.2: When you first made your claim to Universal Credit, did you access any of the following sources of information or support? Unweighted base: All who claimed during or after April 2024 (n=1898), Multi-code, Responses selected by 5% and over displayed.

There were some groups who were more likely to report not having support to make a claim. This included Move customers (28%) compared with non-Move customers (16%); parents (27%) compared with those without children (18%); couples (26%) compared with single customers (20%); and those employed (25%) compared with those not working (20%).

3.4 Delaying a claim

Not all non-Move customers made a claim to UC as soon as their circumstances changed. The findings in Figure 3.3 show the proportions of those that decided to make a claim straightaway and those who waited.

Two in five (43%) reported making a claim straightaway, which was within two weeks of their circumstances changing, while a similar proportion waited more than four weeks before making a claim (37%). Around one in five waited between two to four weeks (17%). When combined, over half reported waiting at least two weeks after their circumstance had changed to make a claim to UC (54%).

Figure 3.3 Delays making a claim to UC

Delays making a claim to UC	Percentage
I made it straightaway (within two weeks)	43%
I waited a short time (between two to four weeks)	17%
I waited a more than four weeks before making a claim	37%

Notes for Figure 3.3: When your circumstances changed, did you make your Universal Credit claim straightaway, or did you wait? Unweighted base: All who claimed during or after April 2024 and non-Move customers (n=857), Single code.

The most common reasons for delaying a claim were uncertainty around eligibility (34%), thinking they would find another job quickly (25%) or not being sure how to make a claim (24%). All reasons selected by more than 5% of customers are displayed in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4 Reasons for delaying a claim to UC

Were any of the following reasons why you waited for a time before making your claim for Universal Credit?	Percentage
I didn’t think I would be eligible for Universal Credit	34%
I thought I would find another job quickly	25%
I wasn’t sure how to make a claim	24%
I was waiting for support to make a claim (from friends, family or an organisation such as Citizens	11%
I had enough money to live on	11%
Other (Please specify)	8%
I experienced difficulty using the Universal Credit claim website	5%
No reason	5%

Notes for Figure 3.4: Were any of the following reasons why you waited for a time before making your claim for Universal Credit? Unweighted base: All who claimed during or after April 2024 and non-Move customers who waited to make a Universal Credit claim (n=464), Multi-code, Responses selected by 5% and over displayed.

Those aged 25 to 49 were more likely to have made a claim straightaway (51%) compared with those aged under 25 (35%) and those aged 50 to 64 (39%).

Single customers and those with a health condition were more likely to have delayed making a claim to UC. Single customers (19%) compared with couples (13%) were more likely to have waited between two to four weeks. Customers with a health condition (40%) compared with those without (33%) waited more than four weeks.

Of those who decided to delay making a claim, there were differences among those who said the reason was uncertainty with eligibility and those who thought they would find another job quickly.

Women, parents and couples were more likely to have been uncertain about their eligibility to claim UC than their counterparts:

• parents (49%) compared with those without children (28%)
• women (45%) compared with men (24%)
• couples (39%) compared with single customers (32%)

On the other hand, men, those without children and single customers were more likely to report they thought they would find another job quickly:

• customers without children (30%) compared with parents (9%)
• men (30%) compared with women (18%)
• single customers (28%) compared with couples (19%)

As before, age range also had influence on customers’ claim behaviours. Younger people thought they would find another job quickly, while those in the 25 to 49 age group were more uncertain about their eligibility (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2 Reasons for delaying a claim to UC by age group

	Under 25	25 to 49	50 to 64	65 or over
Uncertainty about eligibility	19%*	46%	39%	25%
Thought I would find another job quickly	37%	17%*	20%*	n/a

Notes for Table 3.2: Unweighted base: All who claimed during or after April 2024 and non-Move customers who waited to make a Universal Credit claim (n=464). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Among those with a health condition, the reasons for deciding to delay making a claim differed. Those with a mental health condition only were more likely to have delayed making a claim because they thought they would find another job quickly, while those who had a physical and mental health condition were more likely to report waiting for support to make a claim (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3 Reasons for delaying a claim to UC among customers with a health condition

	Physical health condition only	Mental health condition only	Physical and mental health condition
Thought I would find another job quickly	19%*	33%	14%*
I was waiting for support to make a claim	7%*	13%*	25%

Notes for Table 3.3: Unweighted base: All who claimed during or after April 2024 and non-Move customers who waited to make a Universal Credit claim (n=464). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

3.5 Use and perception of UC new claim advances

A new claim advance payment is available if a customer urgently needs support during their first assessment period. Most customers can request an advance of up to 100% of the monthly amount they are due to receive. The customer pays it back from their future monthly UC payments over a maximum period of 24 months. This means they get less UC each month until it is paid back.

Recent customers were asked whether they applied for an advance whilst waiting for their first UC payment. As Figure 3.5 shows, six in ten (60%) said they did not apply for an advance while one in three said they had (34%). Six per cent were unsure (Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5 Applied for an advance

Applied for an advance	Yes	No	Don’t know
Did you apply for an advance whilst waiting for your first Universal Credit payment?	34%	60%	6%

Notes for Figure 3.5: Did you apply for an advance whilst waiting for your first Universal Credit payment? Unweighted base: All who claimed during or after April 2024 (n=1898), Single code.

UC customers who did not apply for an advance were asked what their reasons were, as shown in Figure 3.6.

One in four said they had money and felt they could get by (27%) or that they did not want to (25%). Two in ten in were worried they would not be able to pay the advance back (18%) or were unaware that they could have applied for an advance (17%). One in ten did not think they were eligible (11%) or did not know how to apply for an advance (9%). One in ten also said none of the above (9%) (Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.6 Reasons for not applying for an advance

Were any of the following reasons why you did not apply for an advance payment?	Percentage
I had money / could get by	27%
I did not want to	25%
I was worried I wouldn’t be able to pay it back	18%
I wasn’t aware I could apply for an advance	17%
I did not think I would be eligible for an advance	11%
None of the above	9%
I did not know how to apply for an advance	9%

Notes for Figure 3.6: Were any of the following reasons why you did not apply for an advance payment? Unweighted base: All who did not apply for an advance (n=1144), Multi-code, Responses selected by 5% and over displayed.

Despite being more likely to report needing the money as a reason for making a claim, men were less likely to have applied for an advance (31%) compared with women (37%).

Other UC customers who were more likely to have applied for an advance included customers aged 25 to 49 (37%) compared with those aged 65 or over (23%) and those aged 50 to 64 (32%); those not working (39%) compared with those in work (29%); customers with a health condition (37%) compared with those without (30%); and parents (37%) compared with those without children (32%).

There were clear differences between customers who did not apply for an advance because they were worried that they would not be able to pay the advance back compared with customers who reported they had money and felt they could get by. There was a particular pattern with age, whether customers had children or not, and if they were Move or non-Move customers.

Those who reported being worried they would not be able to pay the advance back as a reason for not applying were more likely to be:

• women (23%) compared with men (12%)
• parents (22%) compared with customers without children (14%)
• Move customers (21%) compared with non-Move customers (14%)
• those with a health condition (21%) compared to those without (14%)
• those aged 25 to 49 (20%) compared with those aged under 25 (10%)

On the other hand, customers who reported they had money and felt they could get by as a reason for not applying was more prevalent among:

• those aged under 25 (35%) compared with those aged 25 to 49 (24%)
• single customers (31%) compared with couples (21%)
• non-Move customers (31%) compared with Move customers (23%)
• those without children (30%) compared with parents (22%)

Of those who applied for an advance, seven in ten reported that the advance was helpful in supporting them get by before their UC payments started and were able to get by when they had to start repaying it (67%). However, one in four said although the advance was helpful, they had struggled to get by after the repayments started (26%) (Figure 3.7).

Figure 3.7 Helpfulness of the advance

Helpfulness of the advance	Yes, and I was able to get by when I started repaying it	Yes, but I then struggled to get by when I started repaying it	No, it was not helpful
Was this advance payment helpful in supporting you to get by before your Universal Credit payments started, or not?	67%	26%	3%

Notes for Figure 3.7: Was this advance payment helpful in supporting you to get by before your Universal Credit payments started, or not? Unweighted base: All who applied for an advance (n=650), Single code.

Men, those aged under 25, those without a health condition, and customers who were managing financially were all more likely than their counterparts to report being able to get by when they started repaying the advance. This was particularly the case for those who were managing financially, with 86% reporting being able to get by compared with those who were struggling to cope (51%).

4. Aspirations for work and progression

This section explores UC customers’ perceptions of working while on UC and their aspirations for working in the next 12 months. It also investigates what affects UC customers’ ability to work or increase their earnings and what would help UC customers to find work or increase their earnings.

4.1 Chapter summary

Almost half of UC customers (46%) agreed that they are always financially better off working on UC however many hours they work. A substantial proportion of UC customers are in the no work related requirements regime or report a health condition, and these groups are less likely to agree that work is always financially beneficial. Therefore this should be interpreted in light of the composition of the UC caseload rather than in isolation.

Over two in five (44%) non-working UC customers reported that even with the right support, paid work was not a realistic goal for them. Having a mental or physical health condition or learning difficulty (45%), childcare (20%), lack of affordable work options (15%) and lack of relevant skills, qualification or experience (15%) were the most prevalent barriers to working or increasing earnings at work.

UC customers with a health condition were more likely than those without to report that even with the right support, paid work was not a realistic goal in the next 12 months. Those with a mental health condition were more likely than their comparators to report a lack of jobs in the local area or difficulty with flexible working options and needing support with training and travel to work.

Support to manage a physical or mental health condition (26%), help finding and paying for further or higher education courses (16%), support finding training opportunities (16%) and help with the cost of travel to and from work (15%) were the most reported enablers to finding work or increasing earnings.

Almost four in ten (38%) parents reported that childcare affected their ability to work or increase their earnings and one in five (21%) selected that access to affordable or good quality childcare would help them to find work or increase their earnings.

4.2 Perceptions of work (all UC customers)

Throughout this chapter, we have grouped the responses ‘strongly agree’ and ‘somewhat agree’ into ‘agree’ and ‘somewhat disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ as ‘disagree’.

We asked UC customers to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement: ‘On Universal Credit I am always financially better off working however many hours I work’. Almost half (46%) of UC customers agreed, one in three (32%) reported that they neither agreed nor disagreed and one in five (19%) disagreed (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Perceptions of UC payments and working hours

Perceptions of UC payments and working hours	Net Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Net Disagree
On Universal Credit I am always financially better off working however many hours I work	46%	32%	19%

Notes for Figure 4.1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? On Universal Credit I am always financially better off working however many hours I work., Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). Single code.

Furthermore, around half (49%) of UC customers agreed that that they knew how much UC they will receive if their earnings increase (Figure 4.2). One in four (24%) neither agreed nor disagreed and over one in five (22%) disagreed.

Figure 4.2: Perceptions of UC payments and earnings from work

Perceptions of UC payments and earnings from work	Net Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Net Disagree
I know how much Universal Credit I will receive if my earnings increase	49%	24%	22%

Notes for Figure 4.2: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? I know how much Universal Credit I will receive if my earnings increase., Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Single code.

UC customers in the ‘all work-related requirements’ conditionality group, including both intensive work search and light touch in-work regimes, generally had more positive perceptions of working on UC and felt more knowledgeable about how working would impact their UC payments (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Perception and knowledge about working while on UC by conditionality regime

	Earning enough	Intensive work search	Light-touch (out of work)	Light-touch (in work)	No work-related requirements	Work Focused Interview/Work preparation
Agreed - on Universal Credit I am always financially better off working however many hours I work	51%	54%	49%	54%	37%*	42%*
Agreed - I know how much Universal Credit I will receive if my earnings increase	52%*	56%	50%	57%	43%*	49%*

Notes for Table 4.1: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Length of time on UC was a moderate factor in perceptions of working on UC. Non-recent customers were more likely to agree that they were better off working on UC (47%) and that they know how much UC they will receive if their earnings increase (51%) compared with recent customers (42% and 44% respectively).

UC customers who were working had more positive perceptions of working on UC and felt more knowledgeable. They were also more likely to agree that they were better off working on UC (52%) and that they know how much UC they will receive if their earnings increase (54%) compared with non-working UC customers (40% and 45% respectively).

For those UC customers who were working, agreeing that they were better off working on UC tended to decrease with working hours. UC customers working less than 16 hours were the least likely to agree that they were financially better off working on UC (47%) compared to those working more than 30 hours who were the most likely to agree (54%).

4.3 Aspirations for work (non-working UC customers)

We asked UC customers who were not working to select a statement which best described their views on working within the next 12 months. Over two in five non-working UC customers reported that even with the right support, paid work is not a realistic goal for them (44%). A further one in five reported that with the right support paid work might be a realistic goal for them, but not in the next 12 months (19%).

Three in ten non-working UC customers reported that work was a realistic goal for them in the next 12 months (30%), a combination of ‘with the right support paid work is a realistic goal for them within the next 12 months (20%) and even without support, paid work is a realistic goal for them (10%) (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3: Perception of work as a realistic goal in the next 12 months

Which of the following statements best describes your current situation?	Percentage
Even with the right support, paid work is not a realistic goal for me	44%
With the right support paid work is a realistic goal for me within the next 12 months	20%
NET: Realistic goal in next 12 months	30%
With the right support paid work might be a realistic goal for me but not in the next 12 months	19%
Even without support, paid work is a realistic goal for me	10%

Notes for Figure 4.3: Which of the following statements best describes your current situation? Unweighted base: All not working (n=5034), Single code.

Customers in a couple were more likely to say that even with the right support, paid work was not a realistic goal (48%) compared with single customers (42%).

Non-working customers in the earning enough regime and the ‘all work-related requirements’ conditionality group (intensive work search and light touch in-work regimes) were more likely than the other regimes to report that paid work is a realistic goal in the next 12 months with or without the right support. On the other hand, those in the no work-related requirements regime were most likely to report that even with the right support, paid work was not a realistic goal compared with all other regimes. However, there was a small percentage of customers in this group that reported it was a realistic goal in the next 12 months (15%) (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 Customers who believed paid work is a realistic goal in the next 12 months across regimes

	Earning enough	Intensive work search	Light-touch (out of work)	Light-touch (in work)	No work-related requirements	Work Focused Interview/Work preparation
Paid work is a realistic goal in the next 12 months (with or without support)	66%	63%	38%*	63%	15%*	33%*

Notes for Table 4.2: Unweighted base: All not working (n=5034). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

4.4 Barriers to work and increasing earnings

The survey asked non-working UC customers what affects their ability to work and asked working UC customers what affects their ability to increase their earnings at work. Figure 4.4 displays the options selected by 10% and over of UC customers.

Having a physical or mental health condition or learning difficulty was the most prevalent barrier, selected by 45% of UC customers. This was followed by: childcare (20%), lack of flexible work options (15%), lack of relevant skills, qualifications or experience (15%), and commute to work (13%). Around one in ten UC customers selected ‘none of the above’ (12%).

Furthermore, 13% of UC customers with caring responsibilities also identified these as a barrier to working or increasing their earnings at work (marked with an asterisk in Figure 4.4 as this question was only asked to UC customers with caring responsibilities).

Figure 4.4: Barriers to work or increasing earnings

Do any of the following affect your ability to work/increase your earnings?	Percentage
A physical or mental health condition or learning difficulty	45%
Childcare	20%
Lack of flexible work options	15%
Lack of relevant skills/qualifications/experience	15%
My caring responsibilities*	13%
Commute to work (either distance to travel, time to travel, cost of travel, or access to transport)	13%
Lack of jobs in my local area	12%
My age	11%
None of the above	12%

Notes to Figure 4.4: Do any of the following affect your ability to work/increase your earnings at work? Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Multi-code, Codes 10% and over displayed.

There were multiple groups of UC customers who were more likely to report that a physical or mental health condition or learning disability had affected their ability to work or increase earnings impacted. This included:

• those not working (65%) compared with those employed (22%) and self-employed (28%)
• UC customers with no work-related requirements (64%) compared with UC customers in the earning enough (16%), light-touch out of work (26%), light-touch in work and intensive work search (both 36%) regimes
• those without children (61%) compared with parents (30%)
• single UC customers (49%) compared with couples (38%)

Two in five (38%) of parents reported that childcare was a barrier to increasing earnings at work. It was also a more prevalent barrier among women (29%) compared with men (7%) as well as those who were either managing okay or struggling financially (both 21%) compared with those managing well (12%).

Single customers, those without children, and non-recent customers were all more likely to be impacted by several of the listed barriers than their comparators. The types of barriers to working or increasing earnings also varied by the work status of UC customers. Employed customers were more likely to report childcare and lack of flexible work options as a barrier to increase earnings at work, while self-employed customers were more likely to report lack of jobs in the local area and their age as barriers. Those who were not working were more likely to report a physical or mental health condition and caring responsibilities as barriers to work (Table 4.3). 

Table 4.3. Barriers to work or increase earnings by work status

	Employed	Self-employed	Not working
A physical or mental health condition or learning difficulty	22%*	28%*	65%
Childcare	28%	22%*	13%*
Lack of flexible work options	18%	17%	13%*
My caring responsibilities	9%*	11%*	16%
Lack of jobs in my local area	11%*	18%	12%*
My age	9%*	12%	11%

Notes for Table 4.3: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Similarly, the barriers differed by conditionality regime. Customers in the intensive work search regime were more likely to report absence of relevant skills, a lack of jobs in the local area, travel, and their age as barriers. Those in the light-touch (out of work) regime were more likely to report childcare and lack of flexible work options. Those in the no work-related requirements regime were more likely to report a physical or mental health condition and caring responsibilities as barriers to work (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4. Barriers to work or increase earnings by regime

	Earning enough	Intensive work search	Light-touch (out of work)	Light-touch (in work)	No work-related requirements	Work Focused Interview/Work preparation
A physical or mental health condition or learning difficulty	16%*	36%*	36%*	26%*	64%	61%
Childcare	29%	14%*	34%	25%	15%*	32%
Lack of flexible work options	17%	16%	21%	19%	12%*	17%
Lack of relevant skills/qualifications/experience	14%*	22%	14%	15%*	11%*	17%*
My caring responsibilities	2%*	3%*	3%*	4%*	27%	3%*
Commute to work	14%*	18%	10%	14%*	9%*	17%
Lack of jobs in my local area	11%	21%	11%*	14%*	7%*	14%*
My age	7%*	14%	10%	13%	10%*	9%*

Notes for Table 4.4: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Those who reported that none of the listed barriers affected their ability to increase their earnings at work were more likely to be working customers (20%) compared with non-working UC customers (4%). Among those working, customers who worked more than 30 hours a week were most likely to select none of the barriers (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5 Customers who reported no barriers to working or increasing earnings by work hours

	Less than 16 hours	Between 16 and 20 hours	Between 21 and 25 hours	Between 26 and 30 hours	More than 30 hours	Hours often vary
No barriers to working or increasing earnings	8%*	12%*	14%*	21%*	30%	18%*

Notes for Table 4.5: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Earning enough on UC

We asked UC customers to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement: ‘I don’t need to work more hours because I get by okay on what I currently earn’. Less than one in four (23%) agreed, one in three (30%) reported that they neither agreed nor disagreed and over two in five (44%) reported that they disagreed (Figure 4.5).

Figure 4.5: Perception of work and current earnings

Perception of work and current earnings	Net Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Net Disagree
I don’t need to work more hours because I get by okay on what I currently earn	23%	30%	44%

Notes for Figure 4.5: To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements? I don’t need to work / work more hours because I get by okay on what I currently earn., Unweighted based: All respondents (n=9658), Single code.

UC customers who generally faced less barriers to working while on UC were more likely to agree that they do not need to work or work more hours because they get by okay on what they currently earn. Couple customers were more likely than single customers to agree (26% compared to 21%) as well as parents (26%) compared with those without children (19%). Working UC customers were more likely to report that they do not need to increase their hours (32%) than non-working UC customers were to report that they did not need to work (15%).

Of working UC customers, those on a zero-hour contract were less likely to agree that they do not need to work more hours (24%) compared with permanent contracts and fixed-term contracts (34% and 33%). UC customers working more than 30 hours per week were the most likely to agree (36%) compared to those with working 30 hours or less.

4.5 Enablers of working and increasing earnings

We asked non-working UC customers what would help them to find work and asked working UC customers what would help them to increase their earnings at work. Figure 4.6 displays the options selected by 10% and over UC customers.

Support to manage a physical or mental health condition was the most prevalent option, selected by one in four (26%) UC customers. This was followed by: help to find and pay for further or higher education courses (16%), support to find training opportunities (16%), help with the cost of travel to and from work (15%) and support to find and apply for jobs (12%).

Overall, one in ten (11%) UC customers selected affordable or good quality childcare. This option was only shown to UC customers who were parents, of which, one in five (21%) selected this option.

One in three UC customers selected that they did not need any support (32%).

Figure 4.6 Enablers to working or increasing earnings

Would any of the following, if at all, help you to find work/increase your earnings?	Percentage
Support to manage a physical or mental health condition	26%
Help to find and pay for further or higher education courses	16%
Support to find training opportunities	16%
Help with the cost of travel to and from work	15%
Support to find and apply for jobs, for example help with a CV and online/internet job searches	12%
Access to affordable/good quality childcare	11%
Nothing, I don’t need any support	32%

Notes for Figure 4.6: Would any of the following, if at all, help you to find work or increase your earnings at work? Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658), Multi-code, Codes 10% and over displayed.

As might be expected, UC customers who said that a health condition or learning disability made it harder for them to find a job or earn more were also more likely to say that getting help with their condition would assist them in finding or advancing in work. These customers included:

• those in the no work-related requirements regime (33%) compared with all other regimes
• those without children (35%) compared with parents (17%)
• single customers (29%) compared with couples (20%)
• Non-recent customers (27%) compared with recent customers (22%)
• those not in work were more likely to report that this support would help them find work (34%) than employed and self-employed UC customers were to report that this would help them to increase their earnings at work (16% and 19% respectively)

The same groups of UC customers that were disproportionately impacted by multiple barriers to finding work or increasing their earnings at work were also more likely to have selected several of the enablers they believed would support them. These were single customers, those without children, customers in the intensive work search regime (Table 4.6) and those who claimed UC before April 2024.

Table 4.6 Enablers to working or increasing earnings by regime

	Earning enough	Intensive work search	Light-touch (out of work)	Light-touch (in work)	No work-related requirements	Work Focused Interview/Work preparation
Support to find training opportunities	17%*	23%	18%	17%*	10%*	18%*
Help with the cost of travel to and from work	16%*	23%	13%*	15%*	10%*	20%
Support to find and apply for jobs	10%*	20%	15%	12%*	8%*	19%
Help to prepare for job interviews	7%*	14%	14%	8%*	6%*	13%

Notes for Table 4.6: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Similar to the barriers experienced, the types of support that would enable customers to work or increase earnings at work differed by work status. Employed customers were more likely to need support with childcare, while self-employed customers were more likely to want support with finding or paying for training opportunities and education to increase earnings at work. In contrast, those who were not working were more likely to report needing support with managing a physical or mental health condition and help with finding work (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7 Enablers to working or increasing earnings by work status

	Employed	Self-employed	Not working
Support to manage a physical or mental health condition	16%*	19%*	34%
Help to find and pay for further or higher education courses	17%*	20%	14%*
Support to find training opportunities	16%*	19%	15%*
Support to find and apply for jobs	10%*	10%*	15%
Access to affordable/good quality childcare	16%	12%*	7%*

Notes for Table 4.7: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Not needing support to increase their earnings at work was more prevalent among UC customers who were employed (36%) compared with self-employed customers (30%) and non-working UC customers (29%). Furthermore, two in five UC customers who worked between 26 and 30 hours selected that they did not need support to increase their earnings at work (40%) compared with UC customers working between 21 and 25 hours per week (34%), 16 and 20 hours (33%), less than 16 hours per week (31%) and those with varying hours (27%) (Table 4.8).

Table 4.8 Customers that did not report needing support by work hours

	Less than 16 hours	Between 16 and 20 hours	Between 21 and 25 hours	Between 26 and 30 hours	More than 30 hours	Hours often vary
No support needed	31%*	33%*	34%*	40%	38%	27%*

Notes for Table 4.8: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

4.6 Work and childcare

Almost four in ten (38%) parents reported that childcare affected their ability to work or increase their earnings. Furthermore, as described in Section 4.5, one in five (21%) parents selected that access to affordable or good quality childcare would help them to find work or increase their earnings.

We also asked parents to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement: ‘Childcare is too expensive to make working worthwhile’ (Figure 4.7). Almost three in five (58%) agreed, almost three in ten (27%) reported that they neither agreed nor disagreed, and one in ten (11%) disagreed.

Additionally, over half (54%) of parents agreed it is difficult to find childcare that fits around working hours, with three in ten (29%) reporting that they neither agreed nor disagreed and over one in ten (13%) disagreed.

Figure 4.7 Perceptions of work and childcare

To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements?	Net Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Net Disagree
Childcare is too expensive to make working worthwhile	58%	27%	11%
It is difficult to find childcare that fits around working hours	54%	29%	13%

Notes for Figure 4.7: To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements? Unweighted base: All with children 16 and under (n=4845) Single code.

Women were more likely than men to agree that childcare is too expensive to make working worthwhile (60% compared to 51% men), and that it is difficult to find childcare that fits around working hours (58% compared to 45% men).

Single customers were more likely than couples to agree that it is difficult to find childcare that fits around working hours (58% compared to 50%).

Employed UC customers were more likely than self-employed and non-working customers to agree that childcare is too expensive to make working worthwhile (61% compared to 56% self-employed and 54% not working). Employed UC customers were also more likely to agree that it is difficult to find childcare that fits around working hours (57%) than non-working customers (52%).

Work and home life

We also asked UC customers to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement: ‘If I worked or worked more hours, my home life would suffer’. Over half (53%) of UC customers agreed, almost one in four (23%) reported that they neither agreed nor disagreed and around one in five (21%) disagreed (Figure 4.8).

Figure 4.8 Perception of work and home life

To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements?	Net Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Net Disagree
If I worked/worked more hours my home life would suffer	53%	23%	21%

Notes for Figure 4.8: To what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements? If I worked/worked more hours, my home life would suffer., Unweighted based: All respondents (n=9658), Single code.

Women, parents, employed customers and those working 26 hours or more per week were all more likely than their comparators to agree that if they worked more hours their home lives would suffer.

• Parents (66%) compared with those without children (39%)
• Women (59%) compared with men (44%)
• Employed customers working more hours (68%) compared with self-employed customers (62%) and non-working customers agreeing that if they worked their home life would suffer (40%)
• UC customers working more than 30 hours or between 26 and 30 hours per week (70%) compared with those working less than 26 hours

4.7 Work and health

The presence of a health condition was a consistent factor in perceptions of work, barriers to working, and support needs to find work or increase earnings.

UC customers with a health condition were less likely to agree that on UC they are always financially better off working (40%) than those without a health condition (55%). Similarly, UC customers on the UC Health Journey were also less likely to agree with this statement (36%) than those not on the Health Journey (49%).

A similar pattern emerged for whether work feels like a realistic goal. UC customers with a health condition were more likely to report that even with the right support, paid work is not a realistic goal for them (52%) compared to those without a health condition (21%). Three in five UC customers who had been on the UC Health Journey for more than one year (60%) selected this option compared with those who had been on the Health Journey for less than one year (53%) and those who were not on the Health Journey (34%).

Overall, seven in ten (71%) UC customers with a health condition reported that a health condition affects their ability to work or increase their earnings. This was particularly the case for UC customers with both a mental and physical health condition (85%) compared with a physical health condition only (64%), a mental health condition only (57%) and no health condition (5%).

UC customers with a mental health condition only were disproportionately impacted by several barriers to working or increasing earnings at work compared to other UC customers, notably: a lack of flexible work options, lack of relevant skills, qualifications and experience, commute to work and lack of jobs in the local area (Table 4.9).

Table 4.9 Barriers to work or increasing earnings by health condition

	Physical health condition only	Mental health condition only	Physical and mental health condition
Lack of flexible work options	11%*	19%	14%*
Lack of relevant skills, qualifications and experience	11%*	18%	14%*
Commute to work	11%*	16%	15%
Lack of jobs in local area	11%*	16%	10%*

Notes for Table 4.9: Unweighted based: All respondents (n=9658). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

UC customers with a physical health condition only were more likely to report that their age was a barrier to working or increasing their earnings than other customers.

UC customers with a mental and physical health condition, a physical health condition only and a mental health condition only were all less likely to report that childcare was a barrier to working or increasing their earnings compared with customers without a health condition (24%).

Those with mental and physical health conditions or a physical health condition only were less likely to have caregiving responsibilities and less likely to report that caregiving prevented them from working or earning more, compared to those without health conditions.

Two in five (40%) UC customers with a health condition reported that support to manage a physical or mental health condition would help them to find work or increase their earnings. This was particularly the case for UC customers with both a mental and physical health condition (47%) compared with a mental health condition only (39%), a physical health condition only (30%), and no health condition (4%).

UC customers with a mental health condition only were the most likely to select several enablers to working or increasing earnings compared to other UC customers. This included, help to find and pay for further of higher education courses, help with the cost of travel to and from work, support to find training opportunities and support to find and apply for jobs (Table 4.10).

Table 4.10 Enablers to working or increasing earnings by health condition

	Physical health condition only	Mental health condition only	Physical and mental health condition
Support to manage a physical or mental health condition	30%	39%*	47%
Help to find and pay for further or higher education courses	13%*	20%	15%*
Support to find training opportunities	12%*	18%	14%*
Help with the cost of travel to and from work	13%*	19%	15%*
Support to find and apply for jobs	10%*	14%	11%*
Access to affordable / good quality childcare	7%*	14%	5%*

Notes for Table 4.10: Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

5. Knowledge and awareness of work incentives and aspirations for work

This chapter explores UC customers’ knowledge and awareness of work incentives including the taper rate and the work allowance. It also investigates whether perceptions of working on UC and aspirations for work was related to knowledge and awareness of UC work incentives.

5.1 Chapter summary

Over half (57% of those eligible for work allowance and 52% who were not eligible) correctly identified that currently for every £1 you earn over your work allowance; your UC payment is reduced by 55p.

Seven in ten (69%) of those who were eligible for work allowance did not know they were eligible while 15% correctly said ‘yes’. Of those, one in four (24%) correctly identified the monetary value of their work allowance, more specifically how much their household can earn per month before their UC payments are tapered.

Those who perceived they were financially better off working on UC generally had better knowledge of the work allowance than those who did not perceive they were better off working on UC. However, they did not have more accurate knowledge of the taper rate.

UC customers who were not working but considered work to be a realistic goal for them in the next 12 months had consistently better knowledge of the work allowance and taper rate. This was compared to those who did not think work was a realistic goal for them.

5.2 Knowledge of the taper

The UC taper rate is the percentage by which the payment is reduced for each pound earned above the work allowance. The current taper rate is 55%. For every pound earned above any work allowance customers are 45p better off.

The work allowance is an amount of net earnings a household can earn before the single taper rate of 55% is applied to earnings and UC award starts to be reduced by the taper. The work allowance applies to UC customers that are:

• responsible for a child or young person
• have Limited Capability for Work

We asked UC customers whether it is true or false that their UC would be reduced by 55p for every £1 they earn. This was asked of two populations, those eligible for work allowance and those who were not. This was because the calculation for the taper rate for UC customers who were eligible for the work allowance is different to those who were not eligible for the work allowance.

Almost six in ten (57%) of those eligible for work allowance correctly identified their payments would be reduced. Four in ten (40%) were unsure and 3% said it was false (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Knowledge of the taper rate (eligible for work allowance)

Knowledge of the taper rate (eligible for work allowance)	True	False	Unsure
Currently for every £1 you earn over your work allowance your Universal Credit payment is reduced by 55p	57%	3%	40%

Notes for Figure 5.1: For each of the following statements, please tell me if you think it is true, false, or you’re unsure: Currently for every £1 you earn over your work allowance your Universal Credit payment is reduced by 55p. Unweighted base: All eligible for work allowance (n=7462), Single code.

Half (52%) of UC customers who were not eligible for work allowance said it was true that their payments would be reduced, while 6% said this is false. Four in ten (41%) were unsure if this was true or false (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.2 Knowledge of taper rate (not eligible for work allowance)

Statement	True	False	Unsure
Currently for every £1 you earn your Universal Credit payment is reduced by 55p	52%	6%	41%

Notes for Figure 5.2: For each of the following statements, please tell me if you think it is true, false, or you’re unsure: Currently for every £1 you earn your Universal Credit payment is reduced by 55p. Unweighted base: All not eligible for work allowance (n=2196), Single code.

Eligible for work allowance

Among UC customers who were eligible for work allowance, women, those without a health condition, and non-recent customers were all more likely than their counterparts to know about the taper rate. These groups also had generally better knowledge of UC and its features as discussed in Chapter 2:

• UC customers without a health condition (64%) compared to those with a health condition (52%)
• women (59%) compared with men (52%)
• Non-recent customers (58%) compared with recent customers (50%)

Additionally, those working, parents and couples were more likely than their comparators to correctly identify that their UC payments would be reduced by the taper rate:

• working customers (68%) compared with non-working (46%)
• parents (63%) compared with those without children (45%)^{[footnote 4]}
• couples (61%) compared with single customers (54%)

Those without children (52%) compared with parents (34%) and those who had a health condition (44%) compared with those without (33%) were more likely to report being unsure.

UC customers not eligible for work allowance

Among those who were not eligible for work allowance, working customers, women, and those who made a claim before April 2024 were more likely than their counterparts to report the statement as true:

• working (62%) compared with non-working (44%)
• women (58%) compared with men (49%)
• non-recent customers (56%) compared with recent customers (44%)

Aspirations for work

To develop measures for feelings and perceptions of work and to analyse how they relate to knowledge and awareness of work incentives, we grouped UC customers under the following: perceives financially better off working on UC; and considers work as a realistic goal (non-working customers only).

To measure whether customers perceived themselves to be financially better off working while on UC the survey asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: ‘I am always financially better off working however many hours I work’. UC customers who were categorised as perceiving themselves to be financially better off working while on UC were made up of those who agreed. This was a combination of those who responded, ‘strongly agree’ or ‘somewhat agree’. Similarly, those who were categorised as not having this view was made up of those who disagreed, which was a combination of ‘somewhat disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’.

Non-working UC customers were asked whether (with or without support) paid work is a realistic goal for them. Those who reported it was a realistic goal were categorised as customers who considered work to be a realistic goal, similarly, those who reported the goal was not realistic or might be realistic but could not be sure were categorised as customers who did not consider work a realistic goal.

Among those eligible for a work allowance, customers who felt work was a realistic goal were more likely to understand their UC payments would be reduced by the taper rate and selected true (58%) compared to those who did not (42%).

UC customers who perceived themselves to be financially better off while working on UC (63%) were also more likely to report this is true compared with those who did not (59%). Those who did not perceive this were more likely to be unsure (38% compared with those who did 33% perceive themselves to be better off).

Those who did not face barriers to working or earning more (63%) were more likely to report the statement was true than those who reported barriers (56%).

5.3 Knowledge and awareness of work allowance

To explore awareness of the work allowance, the survey asked UC customers who were eligible for work allowance if they believed they were eligible. Eligibility was identified from DWP data included with the sample.

Only 15% of UC customers eligible for the work allowance correctly identified that they were, with 16% incorrectly reporting they were not eligible. Nearly seven in ten (69%) were unsure if they were eligible or not (Figure 5.3).

Figure 5.3 Awareness of work allowance eligibility

To the best of your knowledge, is your household eligible for the Work Allowance?	Percentage
Yes	15%
No	16%
Don’t know	69%

Notes for Figure 5.3: To the best of your knowledge, is your household eligible for the work allowance? Unweighted base: All eligible for work allowance (n=7462), Single code.

UC customers who were aware they were eligible for the work allowance were asked how much they thought their household could earn per assessment period before their UC payments were affected. We calculated the correct answer for each customer by using their current circumstances to calculate their work allowance. The question included multiple responses (e.g., under £100, about £400) for customers to select one answer, which was then checked to see whether it was the correct or incorrect response.

Of those who were aware they were eligible, one in four (24%) provided the correct answer. Almost half (46%) did not know, while three in ten (30%) gave an incorrect answer (Figure 5.4). This means that of the total proportion of UC customers who were eligible for work allowance, just 4% were aware and correctly identified their work allowance, the same proportion were aware but incorrectly identified their work allowance (4%) and 7% were aware they were eligible but did not know the amount. 

Figure 5.4 Knowledge of work allowance

Under the Work Allowance, how much do you think your household can earn per month before your Universal Credit payments are affected?	Percentage
Correct	24%
Incorrect	30%
Don’t know	46%

Notes for Figure 5.4: Under the work allowance, how much do you think your household can earn per month before your Universal Credit payments are affected? (Recoded to check answer against sample variables). Unweighted base: All who reported being aware of work allowance (n=1087). Single code.

Working customers, those without a health condition, couples, and parents were all more likely than their counterparts to be aware they were eligible for work allowance.

Of men and women who were aware they were eligible for work allowance; women were more likely to have correctly identified how much their household can earn per assessment period before their UC payments are affected (28%) compared with men (17%).

Although working customers were more likely to be aware they were eligible for work allowance compared with non-working customers, there were no differences among groups in being able to correctly identify how much their household can earn per assessment period before their UC payments are affected.

Aspirations for work

Customers who perceived themselves as financially better off working on UC were more likely to be aware that they were eligible for the work allowance (20%) than those who did not perceive themselves to be better off working on UC (14%). For those who were aware, customers who did not perceive themselves as better off working on UC were more likely to give the correct answer (31%) than those who perceived themselves as better off working on UC (23%).

Similarly, customers who considered work as a realistic goal for them (16%) were more likely to be aware compared with customers who did not think work is a realistic goal (8%). Among those who were aware, customers who said work was not a realistic goal (60%) were more likely to be incorrect about how much they can earn per assessment period before their UC payments are affected compared with those who said work is a realistic goal (41%).

6. Work coach support

This chapter explores how recently and frequently UC customers had contact with their work coaches as well as what types of support they received and whether they considered this support useful. It should be noted that frequency of work coach contact is impacted by UC conditionality. Whilst this chapter covers findings across UC conditionality groups, Section 6.4 discusses the intensive work search and no work-related requirements regimes in more detail as these two regimes are catered to dissimilar circumstances.

6.1 Chapter summary

Half (49%) of UC customers had contact with a work coach in the past six months (at the time of completing the survey) and of these customers, half (53%) said they had contact at least once a month.

The most common types of support received from work coaches were finding jobs (17%) and help with developing a CV (15%).

Two in five (42%) of those who received support from their work coach in the last six months and were not working felt the support they received from work coaches brought them closer to finding a job. Over half (55%) felt supported by their work coach to prepare for work and move into employment.

Over four in ten (45%) of UC customers who received support from their work coach in the last six months and were working at the time agreed that the support they received helped them to progress in work, change career, or increase their hours or earnings.

Of those who received support from their work coach in the last six months, six in ten (62%) agreed that the help received was tailored to their needs and circumstances.

Men, younger people, those from an ethnic minority background and those without a health condition were more likely than their comparators to have received job and skill-related support such as help finding jobs and CV writing and agree that the support they received helped them get closer to finding a job or progress in work.

Compared with other regimes, customers in the intensive work search regime that had contact with a work coach in the last six months were more likely to have spoken to a work coach at least once a month. These customers were also more likely to report receiving multiple forms of support and were most positive about it. Those in the no work-related requirements were less likely to report receiving any of the support, and for those that did, they were less positive about the support received.  

6.2 Contact with work coach

The contact with a work coach can mean any interaction with a customer, whether this is a face-to-face meeting, video call, a telephone call or a journal conversation. It can also include a communication via letters, text messages, or email. The frequency and duration of this contact may vary depending on the type of intervention and the customers’ labour market regime. While claimants in the no work‑related requirements regime are not required to engage with a work coach, some may choose to do so voluntarily. Reported contact levels should therefore be interpreted in the context of differing conditionality requirements across regimes. For reporting purposes, responses for the conditionality regimes Work Focused Interview  and Work Preparation regimes have been grouped throughout the report to ensure sufficient base sizes for robust analysis.

Half (49%) of all claimants reported they had contact with their work coach in the last six months while half had not (50%) (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1 Contact with work coach in the last 6 months

Have you had contact with a work coach in the last six months?	Yes	No
	49%	50%

Notes for Figure 6.1: Have you had contact with a work coach in the last six months? Unweighted base: All respondents (n=9658). Single code.

Table 6.1 Work Coach contact by labour market regime

	Earning enough	Intensive work search	Light-touch (out of work)	Light-touch (in work)	No work-related requirements	Work Focused Interview/Work preparation
Yes - have you had contact with a Work Coach in the last six months?	33%	81%	51%	50%	31%	88%

Of those who said they had contact with a work coach in the last six months, they were asked how often during that time they spoke with a work coach. This included face to face, by phone, or by video call. Around half (53%) had spoken to their work coach at least once a month, with 32% less than once a month and 15% selecting never (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.2 Frequency of contact with work coach in the last 6 months

Thinking about the last six months, how often do you normally talk to a Work Coach either face to face, by phone or by video?	Percentage
About once a week or more	8%
About once every two weeks	21%
About once a month	24%
Less than once a month	32%
Never	15%
Don’t know	1%
Prefer not to say	0%
NET: At least once a month	53%

Notes for Figure 6.2: Thinking about the last six months, how often do you normally talk to a work coach either face to face, by phone or by video? Unweighted base: All who had contact with work coach within last six months (n=4696). Single code.

6.3 Support from work coaches

We asked those who said they had been in contact with a work coach in the last six months what types of support they had received from their work coach. Finding available jobs (17%) and help and advice with writing a CV (15%) were the most common forms of support selected. Over two in five (44%) said they had not received any of the listed types of support (Figure 6.3).

Figure 6.3 Types of support received from work coach

Have you received any of the following types of support, if at all, from your Work Coach in the last six months?	Percentage
Finding available jobs	17%
Help and advice on writing a CV	15%
Advice relating to managing a health condition or disability	12%
Understanding my skills	11%
Identifying career goals	11%
Training or developing new skills	10%
Something else (please specify)	10%
None of the above	44%

Notes for Figure 6.3: Have you received any of the following types of support, if at all, from your work coach in the last six months? Unweighted base: All who had contact with work coach within last six months (n=4696). Multi-code. Responses selected by 10% and over displayed.

Men, those aged under 25, those from an ethnic minority background, those not working, those without children and those without a health condition were all more likely than their counterparts to report having support with job-seeking such as finding available jobs, advice with writing a CV, as well as help with understanding their skills and identifying career goals (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2 Support received by work coach in the last six months by gender and ethnicity

	Men	Women	White ethnic group	Ethnic minority group
Finding available jobs	22%	12%*	13%*	25%
Help and advice writing a CV	19%	12%*	13%*	21%
Understanding skills	14%	9%*	10%*	15%
Identifying career goals	14%	8%*	9%*	14%

Notes for Table 6.2: Unweighted base: All who had contact with work coach within last six months (n=4696). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Those aged under 25 were most likely than all other age groups to have reported receiving multiple forms of support. These included help with job-seeking, understanding skills and identifying career goals (Table 6.3).

Table 6.3 Support received by work coach in the last six months by age

	Under 25	25 to 49	50 to 64	65 or older
Finding available jobs	31%	15%*	14%*	9%*
Help and advice writing a CV	32%	13%*	12%*	6%*
Understanding skills	18%	11%*	9%*	7%*
Identifying career goals	20%	10%*	8%*	4%*

Notes for Table 6.3: Unweighted base: All who had contact with work coach within last six months (n=4696). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

UC customers out of work were more likely to report having advice relating to managing a health condition or disability (17%) compared with those working (6% respectively).

Among those who felt that work was a realistic goal, they were more likely to report having support with finding available jobs (27%), help and advice with writing a CV (26%), understanding skills (17%), and identifying career goals (17%) compared with those who felt work was not a realistic goal (4%, 6%, 3% and 4% respectively).

UC customers that were more likely to report that they did not receive these forms of support included:

• customers from a white ethnic background (48%) compared with those from an ethnic minority background (34%)
• women (49%) compared with men (37%)
• parents (49%) compared with those without children (39%)
• customers with a mental and physical health condition (48%) compared with those who did not have a health condition (41%)

Perception of Work coach support (non-working UC customers)

We asked non-working UC customers who received support from their work coach in the last six months whether they felt the support they received helped bring them closer to finding a job. Two in five agreed (42%), a combination of strongly agree and somewhat agree, one in four neither agreed nor disagreed (24%), while just above one in ten (13%) disagreed, a combination of somewhat disagree and strongly disagree.

Non-working UC customers were also asked whether the support helped prepare them for work and moving into employment. Over half agreed (55%), one in five neither agreed nor disagreed (18%) and one in ten disagreed (9%) (Figure 6.4).

Figure 6.4 Perceptions of work coach support

Perceptions of work coach support	Net Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Net Disagree
The help I received brought me closer to finding a job	42%	24%	13%
I feel supported by my work coach to prepare for work and move into employment	55%	18%	9%

Notes for Figure 6.4: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Unweighted base: All who received support from their work coach in the last six months and not working (n=1459). Single code.

Customers who were more likely to have received support with job-seeking, including finding available jobs and help with CV writing were also more likely to have agreed with both statements that the help received brought them closer to finding a job and the support helped prepare them for work. Men, customers without a health condition, and those from an ethnic minority background were more likely to have agreed compared with their counterparts (Table 6.4).

Table 6.4 Perceptions of work coach support by gender, ethnic background and health condition

	Men	Women	White ethnic group	Ethnic minority group	Health condition	No health condition
Agreed – the help I received brought me closer to finding a job	46%	37%*	35%*	55%	33%*	59%
Agreed – I feel supported by my work coach to prepare for work	58%	52%*	51%*	64%	47%*	72%

Notes for Table 6.4: Unweighted base: All who received support from their work coach in the last six months and not working (n=1459). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Those aged under 25 were also more likely to agree with both statements (59% and 69%) compared with those 65 or over (21% and 23%), those aged 50 to 64 (35% and 48%) and those aged 25 to 49 (38% and 54%).

Customers who did not perceive themselves to be better off working while on UC were less likely to agree with both statements (23% and 16%), compared with those who did perceive this (10% and 7% respectively). As these customers do not perceive themselves to be better off working while on UC, this could suggest they are less engaged or less likely to receive the support as they are currently not aspiring for work.

Perception of work coach support (working UC customers)

Among working UC customers who received support from a work coach in the last six months, they were asked whether the support they received from their work coach helped them to either progress in work, change careers, or increase their hours or earnings.

As shown in Figure 6.5, over two in five agreed (45%), a combination of strongly agree and somewhat agree, one in four were undecided (26% neither agreed nor disagreed), and 13% disagreed, a combination of somewhat disagree and strongly disagree.

Figure 6.5 Perceptions of work coach support

Perceptions of work coach support	Net Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Net Disagree
The help I received helped me to progress in work, change career, increase my hours or earnings	45%	26%	13%

Notes for Figure 6.5: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following? The help I received helped me to progress in work, change career, increase my hours or earnings. Unweighted base: All who received support from their work coach in the last six months and working (n=1025). Single code.

Men, those aged under 25, those from an ethnic minority background and those without a health condition were more likely than their counterparts to have agreed that the support received help them to progress in work, change careers, or increase their hours or earnings.

Perception of Work coach support (all UC customers)

We asked all UC customers who received support from their work coach in the last six months whether the support they received was tailored to their needs and circumstances.

As shown in Figure 6.6, six in ten UC customers agreed (62%), a combination of strongly agree and somewhat agree, two in five neither agreed nor disagreed (18%), and one in ten disagreed (11%), a combination of somewhat disagree and strongly disagree.

Three quarters of those who received support with understanding their skills agreed that the support was tailored to their needs and circumstances (75%), as well as seven in ten of those who received help with identifying career goals (71%), finding available jobs (69%) or training and developing new skills agreed. Two thirds who received support with writing a CV (67%) or advice relating to managing a health condition or disability (65%) agreed. 

Figure 6.6 Perceptions of work coach support: tailored support

Perceptions of work coach support: tailored support	Net Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Net Disagree
The help I received was tailored to my needs and circumstances	62%	18%	11%

Notes for Figure 6.6: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following? The help I received was tailored to my needs and circumstances. Unweighted base: All who received support from their work coach in the last 6 months (n=2485), Single code.

UC customers without a health condition were more likely to agree (68%) compared with UC customers with a health condition (57%).

UC customers who felt work was a realistic goal (67%) were more likely to agree that the help they received was tailored compared with those who did not (49%).

Work coach support with childcare

Parents who had reported seeing their work coach in the last six months, were asked whether they felt their work coach supported them in finding childcare in the local area. The responses were split proportionately, with one in five (22%) agreeing (a combination of strongly and somewhat agree), disagreeing (18%) (a combination of somewhat and strongly disagree) and neither agreeing nor disagreeing (20%) (Figure 6.7).

Figure 6.7 Perceptions of Work coach support: childcare support

Perceptions of Work coach support: childcare support	Net Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Net Disagree
My work coach supported me to find childcare in the local area	22%	20%	18%

Notes for Figure 6.7: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following? My work coach supported me to find childcare in the local area. Unweighted base: All who received support from their work coach in the last six months and have children (n=1067). Single code. ‘Not applicable’ (39%) is not displayed.

Those who reported work being a realistic goal (29%) were more likely to agree compared with those who said it was not (9%). 

6.4 Intensive work search and no work-related requirements regimes and work coach support

Conditionality groups also called “regimes” determine the work-related requirements and support an individual receives, based on their personal circumstances like work capability, caring responsibilities, or earnings. These groups define what actions a customer must take to prepare for or find work to continue receiving their benefit payments.

UC customers part of the intensive work search regime are required to attend fortnightly appointments with a work coach and are expected to take significant steps to find work or increase hours. On the other hand, those part of the no work-related requirements regime are not expected to look or prepare for work, often due to reasons such as illness, disability, or significant caring responsibilities.

Overall, compared customers in the other regimes, UC customers in the intensive work search group were more likely to have had contact with their work in the last six months, received multiple types of support, and to feel more positive about the support they received.

Eight in ten (81%) customers in the intensive work search regime reported having contact with a work coach in the last six months, more than any other regime. They were also the most likely to report having spoken to a work coach at least once a month (78%). In contrast, those part of the no work-related requirements were the least likely to report having contact with a work coach in the last six months (31%).

Additionally, it was more prevalent among customers in the intensive work search regime to report receiving multiple forms of support from a work coach than other regimes. The help mainly incorporated job-related support (Table 6.4). 

Table 6.5 Types of support received by work coach by regime 

	Earning enough	Intensive work search	Light-touch (out of work)	Light-touch (in work)	No work-related requirements	Work Focused Interview/Work preparation
Finding available jobs	11%*	30%	17%	11%*	4%*	8%*
Help and advice writing a CV	6%*	26%	14%	10%*	5%*	15%*
Understanding skills	7%*	18%	7%	9%*	3%*	13%*
Identifying career goals	6%*	17%	7%	6%*	3%*	14%

Notes for Table 6.5: Unweighted base: All who had contact with work coach within last six months (n=4696). The highest response value is represented in bold, and anything statistically significantly different from the highest value is marked with an asterisk. Findings without asterisks are not significantly different from the highest value in bold.

Conversely, customers in the no work-related requirements regime were more likely to report they did not receive these forms of support (60%) compared with the intensive work search (28%), work-focused interview or work preparation (35%) and light-touch (in work) (50%) regimes.

Among those who reported receiving support in the last six months, those in the intensive work search regime were more likely to respond positively about the outcome of the support than those in other regimes. For example, half agreed that the help received from a work coach brought them closer to finding a job (53%) compared with one in three of customers in the work-focused interview regime (33%) and a quarter of those in the no work-related requirements regime (24%).

Furthermore, two in three of those in the intensive work search regime said they felt supported by a work coach to prepare or move into employment (66%), compared with around half of customers in the work-focused interview regime (54%) and one in three of those in the no work-related requirements regime (34%).

Similarly, when asked whether the support received helped them to either progress in work, change career, or increase their hours or earnings, half of customers in the intensive work search regime agreed (51%) compared with three in ten customers in the no work-related requirements regime (29%) and four in ten of those in the earning enough (39%) regime who reported feeling the same way. 

7. Summary of key findings

This section summarises findings for some groups of UC customers who consistently demonstrated either lower levels of knowledge and understanding about UC and/or barriers to working and increasing their earnings. 

7.1 Customers with a health condition

Customers with a health condition generally reported lower levels of knowledge and understanding of UC and its features compared to those without a health condition. They had lower general understanding of UC, such as of the claimant commitment, the UC statement, and payment deductions.

Self-employed customers with a health condition were less likely to understand what the Minimum Income Floor is and how it affects their payments, and parents with a health condition were less likely to be aware of UC support with childcare costs. Customers with a health condition demonstrated greater knowledge of passported benefits compared to those without, which may be driven by an increased need for some passported benefits such as free NHS prescriptions.

Customers with a health condition also showed less confidence in working on UC. Compared to those without health conditions, they were less likely to agree that on UC they are always financially better off working, and that even with the right support, paid work was a realistic goal for them. This may be due to increased barriers to finding work or increasing their earnings.

Those with a mental health condition only were more likely than other UC customers to report several barriers, including: a lack of flexible work options; a lack of relevant skills, qualifications and experience; the commute to work; and a lack of jobs in the local areas. UC customers with a physical health condition only were more likely to report that their age was a barrier to working or increasing their earnings.

UC customers with a health condition were less likely to report accessing several forms of support from their work coach. This could be led by their conditionality regime which would impact frequency and types of support from a work coach. However, of those customers with a health condition who did receive support from their work coach in the last six months, they were less likely to feel that the support benefited them. In particular, they were less likely to feel that the support: brought them close to finding a job; prepared them for work and moving into employment; helped them to progress in work, change career and increase their earnings; and was tailored to their needs and circumstances. 

7.2 Parents 

Parents showed consistently better understanding of UC compared to those without children. They were more likely to agree that they understood their claimant commitment, their UC statement, and UC payments and deductions. They were also more knowledgeable about the rules for working on UC, including correctly identifying that not being able to work more than 16 hours per week on UC was false, understanding the Minimum Income Floor (self-employed customers), and knowing that their payments would be impacted by the taper rate.

Parents differed from those without children in their reasons for claiming UC, being more likely to claim due to a change in life circumstances, and if they delayed making a claim to UC, they were more likely to do so over concerns about their eligibility for UC. Parents were also more likely to not apply for a new claim advance because they were worried about not being able to pay it back.

Whilst parents were generally affected by fewer barriers to working or increasing their earnings than those without children, the barriers for parents concentrated around balancing their home lives with work. Parents were much more likely to agree that if they worked or worked more hours, their home lives would suffer. Childcare was the most prevalent barrier to working or increasing earnings among parents, selected by four in ten. Furthermore, one in five parents reported that access to affordable or good quality childcare would help them to find work or increase their earnings. 

7.3 Out of work customers 

Non-working UC customers tended to have less knowledge and understanding of UC work incentives, and the rules around working on UC, than working customers. For example, compared to working customers, those out of work were less likely to know that they could work more than 16 hours and claim UC, less likely to know how payments are affected by the taper rate, and less likely to be aware of the work allowance. They also had generally less positive perceptions of working on UC. They were less likely to agree that they would be better off working on UC and to agree they knew how much UC they would receive if their earnings increased. 

7.4 Working customers 

The challenges faced by working UC customers depended on whether they were employed or self-employed, and on their working hours. 

Employed customers were more likely to cite childcare as a barrier to increasing their earnings compared to self-employed customers. They were also more likely to agree that childcare is too expensive to make working worthwhile and to agree that if they worked more hours, their home lives would suffer. 

In contrast, self-employed customers were more likely to report other barriers to increasing their earnings compared with those employed, including: having a physical or mental health condition or learning disability, lack of jobs in the local area, and their age. They were also more likely to report that that managing a physical or mental health condition, help to find and pay for further or higher education courses and support to find training opportunities, would support them to increase their earnings. 

Customers who worked less than 16 hours had the lowest understanding that they could work more than 16 hours per week and claim UC compared to other working customers. They were also the least likely to agree that they are financially better off working on UC compared to those working more hours. 

Conversely, customers who worked more than 30 hours per week faced fewer challenges than those working fewer hours, being less likely to cite several barriers to increasing their earnings and more likely to agree that they don’t need to work more hours because they get by okay on what they currently earn. 

8. Incentives Trial

8.1 Introduction

DWP commissioned Ipsos to conduct a Randomised Control Trial as part of the UC Survey. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of using shopping vouchers as incentives to encourage UC customer participation in surveys to boost survey response rates.

We tested three experimental incentive packages against a control group receiving no incentive, with the aim of understanding whether the type of incentive package influenced several key outcomes related to survey participation and completion. The four experimental trial arms comprised of three treatment arms and the control group, who were offered the following incentives:

• a control group received no incentive with their invitation to the survey
• Treatment group 1 (TG1) received an unconditional upfront £10 voucher when invited to the survey
• Treatment group 2 (TG2) received a £5 unconditional upfront voucher, followed by a £5 voucher conditional on completion
• Treatment group 3 (TG3) received a £10 voucher conditional on completion

Trial aims

The Incentives Trial aims to:

• explore which, if any, incentive package is more effective in increasing survey response rates
• explore the impact of incentives on differential response rates among key sociodemographic characteristics of the population, through comparing the distribution of each characteristic across the three different trial arms to the corresponding population distribution
• assess which incentive package was most effective in encouraging those who started the survey to complete the greatest number of questions
• understand which incentive package offered the greatest value for money in incentivising respondents

These findings will build on the evidence base of the effectiveness of incentive strategies in boosting survey response rates.

Background

Incentives are often used to encourage participation in surveys, though previous research shows the type and structure of the incentive can vary in its effect and may also depend, amongst other features, on the mode of survey, the population under study and the content of the survey.

A key objective is to explore whether response rates vary according to the amount of incentive offered and whether it is offered conditional upon completing the survey or unconditionally. Incentives may be effective in this respect because they can encourage those who don’t necessarily have strong objections to taking part but lack the intrinsic motivation to do so.

For online surveys, incentives can therefore play a key role in tipping the balance in favour of participation, something that is usually achieved by well-trained interviewers in telephone and face-to-face surveys.  Incentives add to the survey costs, so it is also appropriate to consider the cost of each incentive package in the context of response rate improvements.

The systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by Abdelazeem et al. (2023) demonstrated that vouchers significantly increased survey response rates when compared to no incentives^{[footnote 5]}. Vouchers showed a clear advantage over offering no incentive, proving to be an effective method to boost participation.

Although cash incentives had a greater impact than vouchers, the data suggests vouchers still represented a valuable option, particularly in circumstances where cash incentives were impractical. DWP expected that incentives would be impactful for UC customers but wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of different incentive structures for boosting survey participation among UC customers specifically.

8.2 Trial Design

Trial sample

DWP provided a sample of 120,000 UC customers. Ipsos cleaned the sample by removing cases on Ipsos’s ‘Do not contact’ list and randomly deselecting additional customers from the same household (to only invite one customer per household).

After cleaning, 500 cases were randomly allocated to the pilot sample (not part of the incentives trial) and 20,000 cases were randomly allocated to the reserve sample (not part of the incentives trial).

4,500 cases were randomly allocated to the treatment groups (1500 in each of the three experimental groups). The remaining cases were randomly allocated to the control condition (94,197 cases).

In total, 98,697 participants took part in the trial.

Trial design

It was agreed that 1,500^{[footnote 6]} participants would be assigned to each of the treatment groups with the remaining participants assigned to the control group. These sample sizes were pre-determined based on a minimum detectable effect size of 2.2 percentage points for a single test. The final sample sizes are reported in Table 8.1 below.

Table 8.1: Random allocation – final sample allocations

Trial arm	Sample allocation	Description
Control group	94,197	No incentive
Treatment group 1 (TG1)	1,500	Unconditional £10 incentive
Treatment group 2 (TG2)	1,500	£5 conditional and £5 unconditional
Treatment group 3 (TG3)	1,500	£10 conditional incentive

Data Analysis Procedure

The analysis involved the following set of statistical tests.

Differences in response rates

To assess whether the different incentive treatment led to statistically significant differences in response behaviour, we compared the survey response rates across groups using standard statistical tests for proportions. For each trial arm, we calculated the response rate as the number of people who completed the survey divided by the total number of people invited in that group.

For mode-specific comparisons, the response rates were calculated as the number of people who completed the survey through that mode divided by the total number of people invited in that trial arm. This is because sample participants were not exclusively in either online or CATI groups within trial arm.

We compared each treatment group against the others (and against the control group). For each comparison, we tested the null hypothesis that the response rate was the same across the two groups. Pairwise comparisons were made using two-sample tests for proportions (equivalent to a t-test for proportions). Any differences where the p-value was below the threshold P<0.05 were deemed statistically significant differences.

Comparing distribution of key characteristics between trial arms and population distribution

It is possible that the incentive effect improves response rates for some groups more than for others and that this differential effect varies by trial group. To test this possibility a selection of key population characteristics was chosen to compare the distribution of each of the trial arms against the population distribution. A cross-tabulation of categories within each key characteristics by trial arm was tested using a Chi-square test. A non-significant result provides support for structural equivalence in the distribution. Pairwise chi-square tests were performed between only treatment trial groups and the UC sample for the variables that showed significant distribution differences.

Assessing dropout between trial arms

To determine whether differential survey completion rates exist across trial arms, we conducted an initial examination of responses across a selection of variables. It was observed that no non-responses occurred within this initial set of questions, most likely due to the computerised nature of the questionnaire prompting “don’t know” or “prefer not to say” responses from individuals wishing not to answer the question.

Given this initial finding, the study team instead focused on assessing differential response rate to the consent to recontact question. Examining differential consent to recontact rates provides important insights into how different incentives influence participant engagement and willingness to continue involvement.

The study team measured the consent rate by calculating the proportion of respondents who agreed to be recontacted (selected “yes”) against the total number of survey completions. We compared each treatment group with others (including the control group).

For each comparison, we tested the null hypothesis: that consent rates were consistent across the compared groups. The analysis involved pairwise comparisons using two-sample tests for proportions, akin to t-tests for proportions. Any results where the p-value was less than 0.05 were deemed statistically significant, indicating a likely association between incentive design and consent rates.

Assessing greatest value in incentivising respondents

To determine which incentive package offered the greatest value for money, an incentive cost per completed survey was calculated. This was defined as the total incentive purchase cost per trial arm divided by the number of completed surveys. A lower incentive cost per completed survey indicates greater value for money.

8.3 Trial findings

Which incentive package is more effective in boosting survey response rates

The results demonstrate that all three experimental trial arms were effective at increasing response rates relative to the control group. The unconditional £10 offer (TG1) was slightly more effective than the mixed conditional offer (TG2) but not significantly superior to the conditional £10 offer (TG3).

Moreover, this improvement in response rates was driven though increases in both the online and CATI responses except for the mixed conditional and unconditional incentive group (TG2), which was significantly more effective only online.

Figure 8.1 shows that those offered the unconditional £10 incentive (treatment group 1) achieved a response rate of 16.6% compared to 8.5% in the control group, i.e. nearly doubling the response rate, at 8.07 percentage points higher than that achieved in the control group (significant at P<0.05).

Similarly, those offered a £10 incentive conditional on completing the survey (TG3) achieved a response rate 7 percentage points higher than the control group (significant at P<0.05). Meanwhile those offered the mix of unconditional and conditional incentives (TG2) achieved a response rate 5.47 percentage points higher than the control group (significant at P<0.05).

A comparison of overall response rates across the treatment group experimental trial arms showed that only the difference between TG1 and TG2 was significant at P<0.05.

Figure 8.1: Overall response rates

Group	Overall Response Rate (%)
Control Group	8.53%
Treatment group 1	16.6%
Treatment group 2	14%
Treatment group 3	15.53%

Figure 8.2 shows the online response rate across the trial arms. Those receiving £10 unconditionally (TG1) achieved a response rate 6.66 percentage points higher than that achieved in the control group (significant at P<0.05).

A similar difference (5.59 percentage points) was observed when comparing the conditional £10 incentive (TG3) with the control group (significant at P<0.05).

As observed in the overall response rates, the mixed-conditionality group (TG2) had the lowest response rate among the treatment groups. The response rate nevertheless was 4.79 percentage points higher than the control group (significant at P<0.05).   

A comparison of online response rates across the experimental treatment group arms showed no significant difference in response rates at significance level P<0.05. 

Figure 8.2: Online response rates

Group	Online Response Rate (%)
Control Group	6.01%
Treatment group 1	12.67%
Treatment group 2	10.8%
Treatment group 3	11.6%

Figure 8.3 shows the CATI response rate across the three treatment group arms and the control arm. Similar patterns are observed here as previously seen in overall and online response rates.

Both unconditional and conditional £10 groups (TG1 and 3 respectively) observed response rates 1.41 percentage points higher than observed in the control group (significant at P<0.05).

Meanwhile, those offered the mix of unconditional and conditional incentives (TG2) achieved a response rate 0.68 percentage points higher than the control group, however this was not found to be statistically significant.  

There were no statistically significant differences in CATI response rates between treatment group arms. 

Figure 8.3: CATI response rates

Group	CATI response rates (%)
Control Group	2.52%
Treatment group 1	3.93%
Treatment group 2	3.2%
Treatment group 3	3.93%

This study also examined whether there were any differences in the proportion of survey completes by survey mode between the trial arms.

Figure 8.4 shows the proportion of survey completes for CATI for each trial arm. It shows that 29.57% of the control group completed the survey via CATI, compared with 23.69% for the unconditional £10 group (TG1) and 22.86% for the combined (conditional and unconditional incentive package (TG2).

The difference of 5.87 percentage points for TG1 and 6.71 percentage points for TG2 (significant at P<0.05) indicates that the control group had a significantly higher tendency to use CATI than both treatment groups 1 and 2.  

Figure 8.4: CATI survey proportions

Group	CATI survey proportions (%)
Control Group	29.57%
Treatment group 1	23.69%
Treatment group 2	22.86%
Treatment group 3	25.32%

Which incentive package achieved an unweighted sample that was closest in representativity of the UC sample 

It is possible that the incentive effect seen above improves response rates for some groups more than for others and that this differential effect varies by trial group. To test this possibility, a selection of key population characteristics was chosen to compare the distribution of each of the trial arms against the sample distribution.

The analysis was carried out using unweighted data because some of the key characteristics are used to adjust the survey distributions to their corresponding population distributions during the weighting construction.

This approach makes it possible to identify any response rate differences that exist in the raw unweighted data.

If such differences do exist and are corrected by weighting, it is likely that the effective sample size will be reduced because the weighting may do more work to correct for imbalances between the survey and the population, in other words, the variability of the weights will increase and lower precision of the estimates.

A series of chi-square tests of independence were conducted to examine whether the distribution of characteristics differed significantly across trial arms and the UC sample for the variables of age, sex, region, time on UC, health condition, employment status, PIP status, and Health Journey status.

For each variable, contingency tables were constructed, and overall chi-square tests were run. The results indicate that:

• variables with p < 0.05 show statistically significant differences in distributions across trial arms and the UC sample, suggesting that the variable is not evenly balanced and may be associated with trial arm assignment
• variables with p ≥ 0.05 show no significant differences, indicating that the distributions are broadly comparable across trial arms and the UC sample
• Overall, these tests allow us to assess the comparability of the trial arms on key demographic and background variables

The implication of finding significant differences between the unweighted trial arm sample and the overall UC sample is that the weighting procedure will need to apply stronger adjustments to restore representativeness. This increases the variability of weights and, in turn, reduces the effective sample size.

The results showed that that distributions of age, sex, region, time on UC, UC conditionality and PIP were found to be significantly different between the different trial arms and the UC sample.

A closer investigation revealed that these differences were mainly due to variations in the control group’s distributions compared to the overall sample statistics. Due to the large size of the control group, even minor differences were statistically significant.

Consequently, pairwise chi-square tests were performed between only treatment trial groups and the UC sample for the variables that showed significant distribution differences. These results highlight:

• there is a significant difference in the distribution of Time on UC between TG1 and the UC sample, but no other significant differences were detected across the other variables
• there are no significant differences in distributions of the key characteristics between TG2 and the UC sample
• there are no significant differences in distributions of the key characteristics between TG3 and the UC sample

We can therefore conclude that both TG2 and TG3 are broadly representative of the overall UC sample across the variables tested. Any weighting adjustments made on these two trial arm datasets will be minimal for that variable, if it is included in the weighting scheme. This implies that little or no correction will be required during weighting, and the effective sample size will be largely preserved^{[footnote 7]}.

Which incentive package was most effective in encouraging those which started the survey to answer the greatest number of questions.

The initial aim of the study was to investigate whether differential survey completion rates existed across the trial arms. An initial examination of the data revealed that there were no cases of non-response for an initial set of questions^{[footnote 8]}.

This finding can likely be attributed to the computerised nature of the questionnaire format that mandated responses and offered options such as ‘don’t know’ or ‘prefer not to say’, ensuring complete participation at a basic level.

Based on the observed 100% completion rate for the initial questions across all trial arms, it is anticipated that additional examination may reveal results of non-significance. This informed assumption is based on the expectation that the consistency in response behaviour will extend to the remainder of the questions.

As such we focused on exploring any differences across trial arms in responses to the consent to recontact question. By testing for differences in consent rates where different incentive designs are employed, the study seeks to understand how incentive structures can effectively influence sustained participant engagement in the survey.

Figure 8.5 shows that those offered the unconditional £10 incentive (treatment group 1) achieved a marginally higher consent rate of 53.8% compared to 52.7% in the control group (not significant at P<0.05).

Those offered a £10 incentive conditional on completing the survey (TG3) achieved a consent rate 13 percentage points higher than the control group (significant at P<0.05).

Meanwhile those offered the mix of unconditional and conditional incentives (TG2) achieved a consent rate 7.3 percentage points higher than the control group (significant at P<0.05).

A comparison of consent rates across the treatment group experimental trial arms showed that only the difference between TG1 and TG3 was significant at P<0.05.

Figure 8.5: Consent to recontact rates

Group	Consent to recontact rates (%)
Control Group	52.69%
Treatment group 1	53.82%
Treatment group 2	60%
Treatment group 3	65.67%

Which incentive package offered the greatest value in incentivising respondents

Incentives require the purchase of cash-in vouchers. Unconditional incentives need to be purchased (so that they can be sent to all participants upon invitation), and the expectation is that the vast majority will be cashed whether the recipient completes the survey or not. Conditional vouchers typically do not need to be purchased upfront, rather as and when the survey is completed. This approach allows the quantity purchased to be adjusted according to the anticipated response rate.  The final vouchers sent expire in December 2025, and as such the results from this analysis reflect the cash in rates at the time of the analysis.

Table 8.2 presents the number of vouchers purchased and the activation rate of incentives per trial arm. As anticipated, unconditional vouchers tended to have higher activation rates than conditional vouchers. TG3 incentives were activated considerably less than in all other trial arms because this group had no unconditional offer.

Table 8.2: Trial Arm Incentive Activation Rates

Trial Arm	Number of vouchers sent	Number of vouchers activated	Activation rate
T1: £10 unconditional	1500	1408	93.9%
T2: £5 unconditional	1500	1435	95.7%
T2: £5 conditional	202	177	87.6%
T3: £10 conditional	226	145	64.2%

As shown in Table 8.3, an analysis of the incentive costs per completed survey (price of incentives bought divided by completes achieved) reveals that TG1, which utilised a £10 unconditional voucher, incurred the highest cost per respondent at £60.24.

Comparatively, TG2 had a lower cost per respondent at £41.67, while TG3 achieved the lowest cost per respondent at £10.73.

Table 8.3: Incentive costs per completed survey

Trial Arm	Incentive costs	Survey completes	Incentives cost per completed survey	Response rate
Control group	£0	8036	£0	8.5%
T1: £10 unconditional	£15000	249	£60.24	16.6%
T2: £5 conditional and £5 unconditional	£8750	210	£41.67	14.0%
T3: £10 conditional	£2500	233	£10.73	15.5%

In conclusion, our trial analysis provides evidence that offering a shopping voucher as an incentive for survey completion has a significant impact on increasing the survey response rate amongst UC customers. This was true for all incentive values and conditions, with the two £10 incentive conditions showing slightly more impact than the two times £5 condition.

Furthermore, a conditional £10 voucher provides the best balance of increased response rate and value for money since it is cheaper than offering an unconditional voucher or a mix of conditional and unconditional vouchers whilst also improving both online and CATI response rates.

Importantly, offering this incentive package did not skew respondent characteristic proportions away from the population profile, meaning that the use of this incentive package to boost survey response rates is not likely to impact the representativeness of the survey findings.

Ipsos standards and accreditations

Ipsos’ standards and accreditations provide our clients with the peace of mind that they can always depend on us to deliver reliable, sustainable findings. Our focus on quality and continuous improvement means we have embedded a “right first time” approach throughout our organisation.

ISO 20252

This is the international specific standard for market, opinion and social research, including insights and data analytics. Ipsos UK was the first company in the world to gain this accreditation.

Market Research Society (MRS) Company Partnership

By being an MRS Company Partner, Ipsos UK endorse and support the core MRS brand values of professionalism, research excellence and business effectiveness, and commit to comply with the MRS Code of Conduct throughout the organisation & we were the first company to sign our organisation up to the requirements & self-regulation of the MRS Code; more than 350 companies have followed our lead.

ISO 9001

International general company standard with a focus on continual improvement through quality management systems. In 1994 we became one of the early adopters of the ISO 9001 business standard.

ISO 27001

International standard for information security designed to ensure the selection of adequate and proportionate security controls. Ipsos UK was the first research company in the UK to be awarded this in August 2008.

The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA)

Ipsos UK is required to comply with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the UK Data Protection Act (DPA). These cover the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy.

HMG Cyber Essentials

Cyber Essentials defines a set of controls which, when properly implemented, provide organisations with basic protection from the most prevalent forms of threat coming from the internet. This is a government-backed, key deliverable of the UK’s National Cyber Security Programme. Ipsos UK was assessed and validated for certification in 2016.

Fair Data

Ipsos UK is signed up as a “Fair Data” company by agreeing to adhere to twelve core principles. The principles support and complement other standards such as ISOs, and the requirements of data protection legislation.

1. UC customers who claimed after 1 April 2024 ↩

2. UC customers may continue to receive Universal Credit payments for a dependent child up to and beyond the 31st of August after their 19th birthday if they are in full-time non-advanced education or approved training, provided they started the course before they turned 19 ↩

3. Universal Credit: money, savings and investments – GOV.UK ↩

4. UC customers without children who are eligible for the work allowance will have limited capability for work. Therefore, for questions in this section only asked of UC customers who were eligible for the work allowance, comparisons of parents with non-parents should be understood as parents compared with non-parents who have limited capability for work. ↩

5. Abdelazeem B, Hamdallah A, Rizk MA, Abbas KS, El-Shahat NA, Manasrah N, Mostafa MR, Eltobgy M. Does usage of monetary incentive impact the involvement in surveys? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 46 randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2023 Jan 17;18(1):e0279128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279128. PMID: 36649255; PMCID: PMC9844858 ↩

6. A sample of 1,500 in each of two trial arms will enable a test to detect a 5-percentage point minimum detectable effect (MDE). Comparisons of the experimental trial arms to the control will benefit from a smaller MDE (2.2% percentage points). ↩

7. We cannot draw conclusions about how well the weight will adjust the distributions of variables not directly included in the weighting scheme without further analysis, which is beyond the scope of this analysis. ↩

8. Questions included: numberjob, workhours, jobstability, sector, notworking, outofwork, workallowanceknowledge, m2uctransitionrecieve. ↩