Transparency data

Universal Credit: In-Work Progression - Qualitative research with Jobcentre Plus staff

Published 26 February 2026

February 2026 

Dr Ruwani Fernando 

Department for Work and Pensions

DWP research report no. 1125 

A report of research carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions. 

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. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk 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 our website 

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

First published February 2026. 

ISBN 978-1-78659-951-3

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

Executive summary

The creation of a single working age benefit Universal Credit (UC) in the UK has meant that many claimants are subject to a requirement to increase their earnings if they are already working. The Department for Work and Pensions has tested a number of interventions to find out what works to help working benefit claimants progress.

This report brings together findings from three waves of research into recent support provided to working UC claimants through the in-work progression (IWP) voluntary offer and the Intensive Work Search (IWS) regime. Key findings included more insight into the strategies used by Jobcentre Plus staff to deliver in-work support, different support delivery models, and the barriers faced trying to help claimants to progress.

Research found that work coaches (WCs) used certain strategies to deliver progression support. These included a standard sequence of events during appointments with working claimants in which WCs got to know the working claimant’s background and tried to address barriers to progression. Findings highlighted the importance of soft skills used by WCs to communicate effectively with working claimants and convince them of the added value of taking steps towards progression.

WCs reported that their options to signpost working claimants to suitable provision were limited, and the support was not tailored to claimants’ profiles and needs. WCs said that they could be better equipped to provide tailored support, through improved training and upskilling. Staff in jobcentres tended not to prioritise progression, instead often focusing on getting unemployed claimants into work.

Staff also had mixed views on the different delivery models used to support claimants on the IWP voluntary offer, as well as whether support should be mandated for claimants eligible for that offer. The research highlighted the different roles of jobcentre staff setting up the voluntary offer, delivered by WCs, with other staff working with external stakeholders - like employers or Local Authorities. WCs reported that they could work better with working claimants if they had more flexibility over setting up appointments, and discretion around conditionality.

Research highlighted significant barriers for WCs to delivering in-work support. Labour market barriers were highlighted, including employers’ attitudes towards progression, employer misconceptions around UC, opportunities for progression, and the types of employment contracts offered. Claimant misconceptions about the UC system, and issues around engagement and disengagement with the IWP voluntary offer were found to be barriers to WCs providing in-work support. Similarly, claimant circumstances, like childcare responsibilities, location or transport limitations and health issues were key barriers. Claimants’ own mindsets about working, increasing their income and being financially dependent on UC were also found to be barriers for the WCs to deliver support for progression.

Future employment policy focusing on support for working claimants may wish to consider setting a clearer and more coherent strategy for how progression is defined, what progression support should look like, and how progression support offers are communicated to the public, to working claimants, to jobcentre staff, employers and local partners. Progression support should be tailored to working claimants’ profiles and needs. Relationships with local stakeholders should continue to be fostered and WCs should be kept updated on local labour market offers and other local provisions that would support progression journeys. More efforts should be made to ensure that provision offered to working claimants is appropriate and suitable for people in work. The importance of the soft skills utilised by WCs should be recognised and used in building positive rapport with working claimants and maintaining good links with stakeholders, especially employers.

Acknowledgements

The research team would like to thank Bethan Counsell, Kyle Robertson, Lucy Allen, Anna Silk and Barney Elwes for all their work setting up and leading the different waves of research for this project. We also thank the many social research volunteers within DWP who supported fieldwork and analysis across all waves of this research.

Finally, we want to thank all the jobcentre staff who gave their time to share their views and experiences or supported researcher visits to jobcentres, without whom this research would not have been possible.

Author detail

Dr Ruwani Fernando was an Academic Secondee to DWP. She is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Sheffield Hallam University.

Glossary

Term	Definition
Administrative Earnings Threshold	The Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET) is an amount that Universal Credit claimants can earn that affects what claimants are asked to do. The AET is set at both an individual and a household level based on gross monthly earnings (earnings before any deductions). In April 2025 the AET was set at £952 for individuals and £1,534 for couples.
Conditionality Earnings Threshold	The Conditionality Earnings Threshold (CET) is a flexible threshold and is calculated using the number of hours a Universal Credit claimants is expected to work or undertake work-related activities, and the National Minimum Wage or National Living Wage rate that applies to them. A claimant could be required to spend anything from 0 up to 35 hours per week undertaking work-related activities. If a claimant has earnings above their individual CET, they will fall into the Working Enough regime.
Employer Adviser	Employer Advisers (EAs) work with employers on their recruitment needs, helping them to fill vacancies. They act as a point of contact between employers and jobcentres.
Group Employer Lead	Group Employer Leads (GELs) are responsible for managing relationships with a range of stakeholders, including employers and regional representative employer groups, and collaborating across Districts to embed in-work progression across the Employer and Partnerships community in DWP.
Intensive Work Search regime	Universal Credit claimants with no earnings or with earnings below the 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.
Light Touch regime	Universal Credit claimants with earnings between the AET and their CET are placed in the Light Touch regime. They are not currently required to have any contact with jobcentre staff.
Progression Lead	Progression Leads (PLs) led collaborations with local partners, building and maintaining relationships with employers, local authorities, skills providers, to ensure the organisation of progression support delivery.
Work Coach	Work Coaches (WCs) support claimants in claiming UC and obtaining additional support and advice to access certain services. They advise and support on job search, helping to match people to relevant vacancies.
Work Coach Team Leader	Work Coach Team Leaders (WCTLs) lead teams of WCs, ensuring performance measures are achieved and quality standards in frontline contact with claimants are met. They are responsible for the environment in which WCs deliver support to those receiving UC.
Working Enough regime	Universal Credit claimants with earnings above their CET are placed in the Working Enough regime. They are not required to have any contact with jobcentre staff.

Abbreviations

AET – Administrative Earnings Threshold

DWP – Department for Work and Pensions

EA – Employer Adviser

E&P – Employer and Partnership

GEL – Group Employer Lead

IWS – Intensive Work Search

IWP – In-work progression

PL – Progression Lead

RCT – Randomised Controlled Trial

UC – Universal Credit

WC – Work Coach

WCTL – Work Coach Team Leaders

Summary

The aim of this project was to better understand how in-work support was delivered to Universal Credit (UC) claimants, whether through the in-work progression (IWP) voluntary offer or in the Intensive Work Search (IWS) regime, including what worked and how processes could be improved.

The IWP voluntary offer, which provided individual, tailored progression support for UC claimants in the Light Touch and Working Enough labour market regimes, was available nationally between March 2023 and the end of March 2025. During the period that the IWP voluntary offer was available, the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET) was increased three times, which meant many working claimants were moved from the Light Touch regime into the IWS regime and were therefore subject to conditionality and more intensive support.

Three waves of research were carried out between June 2023 and January 2025, including semi-structured interviews with Work Coaches (WCs), Work Coach Team Leaders (WCTLs), Progression Leads (PLs), Group Employer Leads (GELs) and Employer Advisers (EAs), as well as observations of meetings between in-work UC claimants and WCs at jobcentres.

Research found that WCs used certain strategies to deliver progression support, whether this was the IWP voluntary offer, or mandatory in-work support in the IWS regime. WCs tended to run through a standard sequence of events during appointments with working claimants. These involved getting to know the working claimant and their background, including their employment, their living situation and addressing any barriers to progression that claimants may mention. Then, WCs typically suggested that working claimants ask their current employer for more hours, and if this was not possible, they were encouraged to find additional work, to train or upskill.

WCs commonly referred claimants to relevant provision and signposted them to available sources of support. The research found that this contact with working claimants in the IWS regime was often short-sighted, ending when the AET was reached. WCs used their soft skills to communicate with claimants and promote the IWP voluntary offer, trying to encourage them to take up the offer. In doing so, they also sought to encourage working claimants to think about what progression could look like, either now or in the future.

Much of the WC approach to progression consisted of providing information on training provision, seeking to change claimant mindset on employment and benefits, and addressing any misconceptions. Despite WCs recognising the importance of tailoring in-work support to individual claimants, observations of appointments showed that this was limited in practice, and that the same support was often suggested to different claimants. Staff said that the training that they had received for delivering progression support could be improved and would benefit from being more tailored to the local labour market context. Progression itself was considered a low priority in jobcentres.

The research highlighted that staff had mixed views about the different delivery models for the IWP voluntary offer. It also demonstrated the importance of staff working with employers (and other local stakeholders) on opportunities for progression, creating and maintaining links with them as needed. Setting up the delivery of progression support within and beyond jobcentres involved WCs, WCTLs, EAs, PLs or GELs, along with external stakeholders, like employers and Local Authorities. Staff opinions on mandating the voluntary IWP offer for claimants in the Light Touch regime were nuanced, with certain concerns raised, notably on the resources allocated and claimant response to mandatory support. Generally, WCs valued discretion in decision making when working with claimants on progression and called for increased flexibility in booking appointments.

Many barriers to delivering in-work support were identified in the research. Unfavourable labour market conditions including the lack of suitable opportunities, and employer mindset were important barriers in terms of the availability of opportunities for working claimants to progress. Staff reported that the types of contracts offered, like the low number of hours, and the local labour market context, for example in areas where seasonal work is prevalent, could put working claimants off from making efforts to work more. On the employers’ side, their own misconceptions of the benefit system and incentives to use part-time contracts with low hours was noted by staff as a hindrance to claimant progression.

Resource constraints included inadequate provision for working claimants, particularly in terms of available internal and external training and funding. Some training courses suggested to working claimants were found to be inadequate as they were not designed to fit around the hours that claimants were working. Other courses were deemed inadequate due to the basic level of training provided, which would not help claimants build on their existing professional experience and skills. Misconceptions about benefits being stopped if claimants worked more than 16 hours persisted within the working claimant population and with employers.

WCs used their soft skills to communicate effectively, convince and encourage working claimants to think about progression because of certain misconceptions commonly held about various aspects of earning, working, and the benefit system. Claimants were found to be under the initial impression that the voluntary IWP offer was mandatory and upon realising they did not have to take part, disengaged from it. Claimants’ personal circumstances and mindset were found to be key barriers to staff delivering in-work support, along with childcare, transport, language skills and health issues. Regime cycling, for example, due to seasonal work, was also identified as a hindrance to the delivery of progression support.

1. Introduction – context

The introduction of Universal Credit (UC) from 2013 saw a step change in the administration of unemployment benefit and labour market support policy in the UK. As well as the amalgamation of several working age benefits, a ‘single working age’ group was created, that included both claimants who did not work as well as claimants who are in employment^{[footnote 1]}.

Around one third of people who receive UC are employed^{[footnote 2]}. Working claimants are categorised into different labour market regimes, dependent upon personal circumstances. These regimes determine the level of support that they receive from a jobcentre work coach (WC).

The regime into which working UC recipients are allocated is dependent on the administrative earnings threshold (AET) and the conditionality earnings threshold (CET). The AET is the income level below which working UC recipients receive the most intensive support. The CET is based on the number of hours a working claimant is expected to undertake work, or work-related activities. This is a flexible threshold which accounts for personal circumstances, for example health conditions or caring responsibilities. (See Glossary).

The UC regimes which most working claimants fall into are:

• Intensive Work Search (IWS) – earnings at less than the AET

• Light Touch - earnings at or above the AET but below the CET

• Working Enough - earnings above the CET

All UC claimants must accept an agreement called a claimant commitment to receive UC payments, which sets out what they agree to do to prepare and look for work, or increase their earnings if they are already working. Customers in the IWS regime are required to accept a claimant commitment to conduct work-related activities, which may include attending a jobcentre weekly or fortnightly for meetings with their work coach (WC) and providing evidence of searching for work. The Light Touch regime currently involves little contact with jobcentre WCs, though claimants in this category group may be required to attend Work Focussed Interviews or undertake Work Preparation Activities. In practice, activities for claimants in the Light Touch regime are not currently mandated. Claimants in the Working Enough regime are not subject to conditionality.

Since 2015, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been investigating what support is most effective in helping working UC claimants to progress. Between 2015 and 2018, DWP ran a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of in-work progression support with more than 30,000 claimants^{[footnote 3]}, testing its effectiveness at different levels of intensity and conditionality through multiple waves of quantitative evaluation. Treatment groups were divided according to the intensity and frequency of support: Frequent support participants had fortnightly Work Search Review (WSR) meetings, those in the Moderate support group had a WSR meeting every 8 weeks and those in the Minimal support group had a phone call 8 weeks after the start of the trial. Findings identified a small but statistically significant impact on earnings in the two more intensive groups. A link was drawn between job-related training and improved outcomes. The qualitative parts of the evaluation highlighted the value of tailoring support to specific needs of claimants in order to achieve sustained progression.

In 2019 the Future Cohort Study (FCS)^{[footnote 4]} surveyed over 3,100 in-work claimants who were in receipt of Tax Credits or Housing Benefit, to understand the characteristics, attitudes and support needs of those expected to move to Universal Credit into the Light Touch regime. This identified the majority of the future cohort (81%) reported at least one barrier to progressing in their current job or getting a new job.

A Proof of Concept (PoC) offering in-work progression support was designed and run by jobcentres in South Yorkshire from 2021 up until the end of March 2022. The PoC demonstrated that overall, it was possible for the jobcentre to deliver a voluntary offer to support in-work claimants, while at the same time identifying where improvements could be made in the delivery of a national offer.

1.1. DWP progression policy

In-work progression voluntary offer

Funding was allocated in the 2021 Spending Review to extend Jobcentre Plus support to help more working people claiming UC progress once in work.

A voluntary offer was set up for UC claimants in the Light Touch and Working Enough labour market regimes. Jobcentres invited eligible claimants to take up support, which involved up to 110 minutes with a WC in a series of one-to-one meetings over a year. The in-work progression (IWP) offer sought to provide individual, tailored progression support to overcome barriers and to encourage recipients to take active steps to increase their earnings to eventually earn sufficient income to reduce dependency on UC. The IWP voluntary offer was rolled out from April 2022, and was available nationally from April 2023 up until the end of March 2025.

Administrative Earnings Threshold changes

During the period that the IWP voluntary offer was available, the AET was increased three times, resulting in greater numbers of people subject to the IWS regime. These changes in AET impacted different groups of working claimants with different levels of earnings over time. In September 2022 the AET for an individual was raised from the monthly earnings equivalent of working 9 hours per week at the National Living Wage (NLW) to the monthly earnings equivalent of working 12 hours per week at the NLW, and similarly from 14 to 19 hours per week x NLW for a couple. In January 2023 these levels were increased to 15 and 24 hours per week x NLW for individuals and couples respectively, followed by an increase to 18 and 29 hours per week x NLW for individuals and couples in May 2024.

Policy evaluation

To understand the impact of the IWP voluntary offer and the AET changes, several strands of research were carried out between 2023 and 2025. Alongside separate externally commissioned research with claimants, this project focused on understanding the processes of delivering in-work support through both the IWP voluntary offer and within the IWS regime. This involved three waves of research with staff, which aimed to build on the existing in-work support and progression evidence base.

Following the increases to the AET the planned roll-out of a mandatory national IWP offer for UC claimants in the Light Touch labour market regime did not take place. More claimants with higher earnings were brought into the IWS regime by the AET increases, which substantially changed the earnings profile of in-work claimants in the IWS and Light Touch regimes. The evaluation approach was revised to ensure that IWS regime claimants impacted by the AET increases were brought into scope in each research strand.

2. Methodology

Three waves of research with staff were conducted as part of a wider evaluation into the IWP voluntary offer and the impact of changes to the AET, with the results contributing to refining and developing in-work support and progression policy. Waves 1 and 2 of the research focussed on the voluntary offer for IWP while wave 3 took a broader approach to in-work support.

Following the initial scoping first wave of research, further in house research was conducted with staff delivering the IWP voluntary offer in wave 2, and in-work support for those in the IWS regime in wave 3.

2.1. Wave 1 – IWP voluntary offer

The first wave of staff research aimed to understand the delivery of the IWP voluntary offer, to gather insights to inform the design of the initially planned upcoming mandatory offer, and to gather evidence for the IWP process evaluation. To do so, 25 in-depth interviews were conducted on Microsoft Teams, with 15 WCs, 5 Work Coach Team Leaders (WCTLs) and 5 District Progression Leads (PLs). The themes explored in these interviews included staff experience in their roles, in delivering IWP, their training, learning, development and the tools they used, as well as the collaboration with other staff involved in delivering the offer and any improvements they could suggest. In addition to these, 14 observations of IWP appointments both face to face and via telephone, were conducted in jobcentres. Fieldwork was conducted between June and July 2023.

The research questions for wave 1 were:

• What support is available for claimants?

• What is the Work Coach experience of delivering the IWP voluntary offer?

• To what extent are the IWP meetings being used for progression discussions vs wider UC problems?

• How have the District Progression Leads supported Work Coaches to deliver the progression offer?

• What is the experience of the Progression Lead of the supporting IWP voluntary offer?

• What is the experience of Work Coach Team Leaders of supporting their Work Coaches to deliver the IWP voluntary offer?

2.2. Wave 2 – Embedded IWP voluntary offer

Wave 2 research into the IWP voluntary offer took place between October 2023 and March 2024. The research detailed the different ways in which the IWP voluntary offer was delivered, how it had impacted staff, and gathered insights on suggested changes to delivery.

The methodology for wave 2 also included a short online questionnaire issued to PLs in all 37 jobcentre districts gathering information on different delivery models, the challenges faced and the prioritisation of the IWP voluntary offer. This was followed by semi-structured interviews with 10 PLs, examining their experiences and views of the IWP delivery. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 WCs and 10 WCTLs on their experiences delivering and supporting IWP. Deep dives were carried out in three sites, and involved 2-day jobcentre visits in 3 districts, interviews, observations of IWP staff and Employer Advisers (EAs). This methodology sought to achieve a more rounded and holistic overview of how IWP was delivered in different jobcentre districts.

The research aims of wave 2, following wave 1, were to gain qualitative insight into IWP delivery and to establish what was working well and identify areas for improvement. Wave 2 research sought to understand at a more granular level the intricacies of the voluntary IWP offer, accounting for regional or district level differences, and different roles involved with IWP. Wave 2 also sought to build on wave 1 findings by formulating recommendations for improvement based on evidence gathered. The focus remained on the IWP offer, the voluntary support available for working UC claimants who were either in the Light Touch or Working Enough regimes.

The research questions were:

• How is the role of Progression Lead developing and helping in supporting IWP delivery?

• What can we learn from different IWP delivery models across districts?

• How should the offer or requirement work for different claimant groups?

• What can be done to ensure continued engagement with IWP?

• What is WCs’ capability in delivering IWP? How can this be supported and developed?

• What support is delivered in quarterly follow-up meetings?

2.3. Wave 3 – Exploring in-work support

Wave 3 research focused on the support offered and provided to UC claimants who were in work, with some attention given to those engaging with the IWP voluntary offer. Qualitative research was conducted in January 2025 to explore the experiences and views of staff on the delivery of support for working customers. Wave 3 research provided more contextual insight into the delivery and impact of the IWP voluntary offer by examining support provided to claimants in the IWS regime. It set out to understand the current support for working claimants to progress, to identify suggested improvements to support for working claimants and to understand the new role of Group Employer Leads (GELs) within progression support. Interviews with staff and observations of appointments with working claimants were undertaken. Wave 3 also examined how the IWP voluntary offer was being run towards the end of the period it was delivered.

Interviews were carried out with 18 WCs, 6 WCTLs, 6 GELs, and 5 EAs. Observations of appointments with working claimants were conducted in three jobcentres. The research questions that framed wave 3 were:

• What support do DWP staff currently provide to in-work claimants in the IWS regime?

• How do DWP staff think they should support in-work claimants in the IWS regime?

• What is the GEL’s role in delivering progression?

3. Findings

All three waves of research sought to explore and understand how support for working UC recipients was delivered. Common themes and findings that emerged from these waves have been examined and synthesised into three distinct categories.

First, WC strategies to deliver in-work support and the IWP voluntary offer are outlined, including soft skills and more practical actions taken. Second, broader organisational strategies are explained through staff perceptions of different aspects of in-work support and the IWP voluntary offer. This includes different views on the distinct delivery models for the IWP voluntary offer (IWP-only or mixed caseloads), perceptions on collaborations and partnerships involved in shaping and delivering the offer, as well as staff views on mandating the progression support to claimants in the Light Touch regime. Third, barriers to delivering in-work support and IWP voluntary offers are outlined. These include labour market barriers, jobcentre resource barriers, WCs’ limited ability or scope to tailor the support provided, misconceptions and disengagement issues, claimant circumstances and mindset.

3.1. WC strategies to deliver in-work support

3.1.1. Appointment structures

The delivery of in-work support both within the IWS regime and the IWP voluntary offer tended to follow a standard sequence of actions, which was mapped out from data in wave 3, and reflected in findings from wave 1 on the content of appointments.

A typical approach from WCs was to start by understanding working claimants’ current situation, including their employment background and living situation. During initial appointments, WCs typically asked questions to get insight into working claimants’ employment, including how long they had been in their current job, what the job entailed, the skills they used, what hours they worked, and whether the claimant found it suitable and enjoyable. Sectors of interest of working claimants involved in the voluntary IWP offer noted in wave 1 included the civil service, construction, education, food services, hairdressing or beautician services, health or social care, charity work, translating, interpreting, transport and retail. WCs reported discussing working claimants’ transferable skills and potential for upskilling.

Other aspects of the working claimant’s situation were discussed, which included their home life, whether they had dependents, caring responsibilities, their financial situation and identifying and discussing any other potential barriers to progression. WCs also said that in the initial IWP voluntary offer appointments, they explained their role to working claimants, and what the voluntary offer could offer to support them in progressing.

Within this discussion, WCs would identify and address any barriers to work that emerged. WCs then signposted working claimants to relevant provision to mitigate these barriers. Most of the time, this would be to information about the UC childcare offer or the Flexible Support Fund. The research highlighted that since appointments were short, WCs often discussed provision and followed up with claimants in journal messages, with further signposting, sending links to information and relevant websites for example.

Once WCs had explored claimants’ background and current situation, the next step was typically to prompt claimants to contact their employer and ask for more hours to work. Increasing hours worked with the existing employer was often seen as the first avenue to explore in the progression journey both within the IWS regime and the IWP voluntary offer. In IWS cases (explored in wave 3), if this was successful, the claimant would change regime, and move into the Light Touch regime, with no more conditionality to attend the jobcentre. If asking employers for more hours was unsuccessful, WCs said they would encourage claimants to find additional work to increase earnings and reach the AET. WCs would typically explore possible progression routes in unison with claimants, for example using a better-off calculator.

The research found little evidence of success in the IWP voluntary support offer – this may reflect low take up.

3.1.2. Soft skills and practical actions

The support provided during the progression journey was explored in the three waves. Findings showed that practical actions taken by WCs to support working claimants’ progression journeys were supported by soft skills used in building rapport and establishing an environment conducive to a progression discussion and potential steps to take. Soft skills refer to the ways in which WCs approach the personal working relationship with claimants, communicating using empathetic and interpersonal abilities to ensure that the encounter leads to a productive relationship and a positive environment in which to work together with the claimant.

WCs took tangible steps ahead of initial appointments with working claimants. They reported preparing for appointments by reading case notes in advance, exploring options, providing information by journal message, and starting to build a rapport and encouraging the working claimant in their progression journey. The bulk of the practical actions then taken during the appointments involved informing and signposting to provision like the UC childcare offer, training opportunities, support around transport costs, and the Flexible Support Fund. Better off calculators were also used by WCs to illustrate different outcomes according to earnings. Beyond appointments, WCs provided help with planning and carrying out progression journey steps, following up to check on agreed actions taken by claimants, and to provide more advice and information. WCs’ actions directly with working claimants mainly involved addressing barriers to work and progression and signposting to relevant provision.

In wave 2 the impact of the support from the IWP voluntary offer was identified as setting the basis to create conditions for future progression, through for example, confidence building and improving job search skills. This meant that efforts towards progression may not have been directly acted upon, or visible or measurable, but were considered potentially impactful nevertheless, in terms of changing mindsets and influencing future actions.

Less formal elements of support involved using soft skills to communicate effectively with working claimants. Wave 3 findings highlight that WCs often spoke in terms of “helping customers to understand”, “encouraging”, and “persuading” claimants. This persuasive, coaching, aspect of the WC’s role was seen to contribute to challenging pre-conceptions, myth busting and seeking to help reshape mindsets. WCs’ soft skills were used in interactions with the working claimant, during meetings and beyond, with journal messages. This approach was seen to establish a productive and encouraging environment. WCs commonly encouraged working claimants to contact their employer and try to increase hours to start with, before pursuing other avenues for progression. Support for working claimants was therefore not simply about signposting relevant provision through practical actions but also about influencing the ways in which working claimants perceived and tackled employment opportunities, and how they thought about their earnings and UC in general.

3.1.3. Promoting progression

The research showed that WCs used soft skills to communicate and sell the IWP voluntary offer to working claimants. Working claimants’ attitudes and mindset towards work were seen as notable barriers to progression, and many explanations were suggested by WCs for their lack of efforts towards attempting to progress. This included for example, working claimants’ perceived inability to work more (due to childcare responsibilities for example, see barriers to progression), unwillingness to look for new employment, contentedness with their current situation, or lack of self-esteem or confidence, which staff sought to tackle during appointments.

The importance of staff taking the time to sell the IWP voluntary offer was also reported by those involved in the external engagement part of delivering IWP, including PLs and EAs, who worked closely with employers. PLs faced challenges with common misconceptions from employers about the benefit system and UC. Without clear evidence on the benefits of progression, and with some employment business models hindering progression opportunities, PLs used similar soft skills as those used by the WCs, to promote to employers the benefits of supporting their employees to progress in work.

Much of the WCs’ work in the progression journeys both within the IWS regime and the IWP voluntary offer was spent using their soft skills to challenge working claimants’ mindsets and encouraging them to consider more hours or different work, and to broaden their horizons when it came to employment. This was done so that more practical actions would be more effective and have more of a chance to make an impact. WCs sought to positively influence the ways in which claimants thought about employment opportunities and earnings, in the medium and longer term which may have had a direct impact on working claimants taking action towards progression or influenced them to begin to think about progression in the longer-term.

3.1.4. Tailoring the support

Research findings indicate that tailoring support to meet working claimants’ personal situation and circumstances would be beneficial to their progression journey. Suggested improvements to the progression offer included adjusting provision to align with the specific time needs and skill profiles of working claimants.

WC frustrations with offering in-work support included the ineligibility of certain working claimants to some provision. The inability of claimants to complete training courses WCs had referred them to was seen as an issue specifically because working hours did not permit attendance. Where training suggested was full time and held during working hours, working claimants were reluctant to take unpaid or annual leave in order to attend. Some training WCs were able to offer was also considered inappropriate and too basic for claimants in employment who might have already moved beyond basic skills level of competence. WCs reported that appointments with claimants in the Working Enough regime could be challenging as some were keen to undertake further training but made requests for funding for training that was not accessible to that group but was only available for those in the Light Touch regime.

Despite WCs reporting that they did tailor their support to claimant circumstances; further waves of observational research saw little evidence of adaptations being made in practice. The notion of tailoring support to claimant needs and changed circumstances was viewed by staff as an important part of the delivery of in-work support, in terms of the potential to have an impact. Wave 3 research illustrated that WCs tend to go through a prescribed set of conversations and actions with working claimants with the aim of increasing earnings to reach the AET in the short-term. Some WCs stated that claimant commitments were individualised, but the range of goals established in observed meetings was somewhat standard and limited. A lack of suitable resources and staff time in terms of sufficient capacity for WCs to effectively provide a personalised career development or progression offer was highlighted.

3.1.5. Staff training

Findings from wave 1 showed that most WCs delivering the IWP voluntary offer were comfortable in supporting working claimants to progress to a new role, employer or sector. Most said that they were confident in enabling conversations between working claimants and their employers. Some WCs, however, said that they did not feel confident, appropriately trained or qualified in supporting claimants to move jobs, and reported limited knowledge of certain sectors, and lacked the confidence in providing specific help. Some expressed concerns that moving to a new job could leave claimants worse off. WCTLs reported confidence in their WCs to deliver the voluntary IWP offer, and that enough time to train and gain knowledge to deliver the offer was provided. WCTLs noted that WCs were able to adapt quickly to deliver IWP.

Wave 2 findings showed that WCs were generally confident in their ability to speak to claimants about progressing with their current employer or moving sectors. Some WCs said that they lacked the confidence to support self-employed claimants. There were mixed views among WCs in wave 2 about the usefulness of the IWP training that they had received, yet most said that they did not need or want any additional training.

Some staff acknowledged the value of their previous WC experience which allowed them to learn the delivery of progression support ‘on the job’. However, the training that staff did complete was seen to be limited. WC’s stated that progression training could have been more tailored to the IWP voluntary offer. Staff reported mixed views on the helpfulness of the training - a mix of self-led and facilitated training, in-person and online. Gaps identified included practical elements such as conducting appointments and exploring real-life profiles of claimants and typical barriers, as well as noting the need for hands-on training related to careers and progression discussions such as CV creation, cover letter writing and interview techniques.

In wave 3 (support for in-work claimants in the IWS regime), WCs were not required to complete training that was given to all those delivering the IWP voluntary offer. Staff reported that they did not feel well enough equipped with the skills, confidence or training in order to provide meaningful support to working claimants about progression, let alone careers advice. WCs were observed rarely used coaching or goal techniques with working claimants in IWS, or with claimants who took up the IWP voluntary offer.

Some WCs valued training in general, and were keen to become better informed about the local labour market environment, so that in turn they could provide more specific advice to working claimants and provide an informed service to help people improve their progression journey. Gaps in WC skills identified included the limited ability of WCs to tailor support, and a lack of confidence in some staff on how to have meaningful conversations with working claimants about progression. As WCs reported having limited time to engage with working claimants, therefore time to undertake such training may also be limited.

All three waves of research indicated that staff had some valuable and relevant skills, experience and the confidence, to deliver progression support. Wave 2 showed that WCs’ confidence could be boosted with further training by being better informed and updated specifically on the changing labour market landscape and available support provision. Wave 3 indicated that WCs could benefit from training and confidence building in order to have meaningful conversations about approaching progression with working claimants.

3.1.6. Prioritisation of progression

There were multiple ways WCs and working claimants understood progression, and therefore many different ways available to encourage claimants to progress. WCs said that progression could include the following: working more hours, securing a better job or second job, moving off UC and becoming financially independent. Most staff tended to have a good understanding of progression, with positive attitudes towards the IWP voluntary offer, and reported support for being a part of delivery of the offer. The research showed that despite broadly positive views on the notion of progression, in practice, in-work progression was given low priority in jobcentres.

Perceptions of the importance of progression varied. Wave 2 findings indicated mixed feelings by staff about the prioritisation of progression, with some WCs valuing IWP-only caseloads and others noting that the take up from working claimants of the voluntary offer was not high enough to warrant dedicated resources. A deep dive case study in wave 2 showed the low priority of progression work in mixed caseload districts. Other demands and jobcentre priorities, such as supporting unemployed claimants, took precedence over IWP. There were variations in staff’s opinions about the degree of prioritisation IWP should have in jobcentres.

3.2. Organisational strategies

3.2.1. Views of different delivery models for the IWP voluntary offer

Another key approach to understanding the delivery of the offer was the difference between WCs who only dealt with those on the IWP voluntary offer and those who had a mixed caseload, one that also included unemployed and self-employed IWS regime claimants. Wave 2 research explored differences between these different delivery models.

WCs in both types of delivery model spoke positively about the aims of IWP support, but also ranked the IWP voluntary offer as low on the list of Jobcentre Plus business priorities. This was explained by staff due to the low take-up from working claimants and by resource constraints, in particular in the allocation of staff resource. The voluntary nature of the offer was also put forward as a reason for viewing it as a low priority in jobcentres.

WCs who operated a mixed caseload differed in how they managed their time. Some blocked out days to dedicate to IWP claimants and others booked IWP meetings around their other, regular UC caseload. Time in diaries allocated to IWP cases was at times seen to be given up in order to respond to urgent queries from other types of claimants. WCs and WCTLs said they had to concentrate efforts on bigger jobcentre priorities.

IWP-only workloads were valued as they were seen to allow WCs to focus on providing support for progression, with more flexibility seen as a positive when seeking to help working claimants. WCs reported that they had the time to carry out IWP specific administrative work and to build good working relationships with claimants. WCs who supported working claimants who voluntarily took up the progression offer working across multiple jobcentres in a District valued that approach as it allowed them to maximise their visibility as points of contact for progression support and collaborate with local WCTLs and EAs, ultimately facilitating the promotion of the progression offer in different jobcentres in the area.

Some WCs appreciated the variety entailed in having a mixed caseload, mentioning that variety kept their skills sharp. Others saw negative aspects of mixed caseloads, including the challenging aspect of supporting claimants with a range of very different needs. The administrative burden of the onboarding process was cited as a barrier to effective delivery of the voluntary IWP offer.

3.2.2. Collaborations and partnerships

WCs and WCTLs involved in the delivery of the IWP voluntary offer said that other members of staff in the jobcentre were at least aware of the offer, but generally had limited knowledge of the progression policy.

WCs were seen to coordinate with WCTLs, EAs, and PLs to deliver progression support to working claimants across the IWS regime and those taking up the IWP voluntary offer. WCs acted as the link between working claimants and available provision. Managers in jobcentres saw their role as a link between operations and policy, managing and mentoring WCs. PLs operated as a link between the DWP and local partners as well as between operations and policy.

PLs collaborated with local strategic delivery partners, driving cultural change within the DWP and promoted the creation of progression opportunities amongst local partners. PLs worked with EAs, and supported WCs and WCTLs by shadowing, having weekly meetings and providing feedback to senior leadership teams. The PL role itself was seen as a standalone one by staff generally, designed to raise IWP’s profile with partners and employers strategically, so that frontline WCs could better deliver progression support to working claimants. The visibility of PLs was mixed, with some WCs reported having regular support from their PLs, having been directed to new or relevant provision, while others said they had no direct interaction with their PL.

Some PLs reported difficulties landing the IWP voluntary offer as a jobcentre priority in districts. Other jobcentre priorities were seen to take precedence, with Employer and Partnership (E&P) teams being well-placed to deliver the external engagement aspects that the PL might otherwise carry out.

PLs reported difficulty promoting IWP when they had no authority over EAs’ work. WCTLs tended to have regular contact with their PL. WCTLs with IWP-only caseloads valued support from PLs. Similarly, IWP-only WCs described tangible support from PLs that they used in supporting working claimants. This included locally created tools, solutions to delivery challenges and providing specific ad hoc support. The research showed that PLs were adept at creating new material or adapted existing material to fit the local context.

PLs commonly reported challenges faced when attempting to engage employers in discussion about progression. Recruitment to vacant posts itself was the main employer concern with fears that employees would leave employment if the employer engaged in efforts to help people become better trained. PLs noted that part of the role was educating employers about the wider DWP employer offer, using data about local employers to better understand recruitment needs. PLs noted that employers were in general receptive to IWP in principle, but this did not always lead to tangible progression outcomes: challenges persisted in employer mindset, including longstanding misconceptions about the UC system and larger employers’ reliance on a part-time workforce.

Some WCTLs with mixed caseloads stated that they would get support from PLs if they asked for it, and others said that they had little to no knowledge of or support from PLs. Similarly, WCs with mixed caseloads reported limited interactions with PLs. Some also said that their PL was available if they needed them, though they generally did not, indicating that a clearer strategic overview for how IWP should be delivered would be beneficial.

WCTLs and WCs reported having some engagement with their E&P team. Some noted particularly the value of E&P involvement in more complex and challenging cases, and with the creation of progression opportunities for working claimants. Good relationships with E&P teams were reported by WCs. More involvement with the E&P team was desired by some WCTLs. PLs also reportedly highlighted the importance of E&P teams.

From September 2024, the Group Employer Lead (GEL) role replaced PLs. This was in part due to earlier research findings that PLs commonly combined their role with other operational roles because their workload related to the IWP voluntary offer was low. Progression forms part of the GELs’ responsibilities amongst a range of others.

In wave 3, GELs were found to mostly develop local employment strategies, mainly on entry-level recruitment, and provide steers about the key employers in a given area, to target engagement and coordination in jobcentres in the area in which they worked. In practice, GELs were found to have little direct involvement with progression support, and a more strategic, non-operational role. Where they were involved with progression support, this was by communicating with local teams about employment opportunities, and upskilling EAs on progression conversations with employers.

3.2.3. Views on mandatory progression support

There were mixed views on the benefits of mandating claimants in the Light Touch regime to take up progression support. Some staff said that unemployed claimants in the Light Touch regime would benefit from mandatory progression support. Others believed that Light Touch claimants were already doing as much as they could to progress, and that blanket mandation would not be useful.

Mandatory requirements were viewed as having the potential to overwhelm claimants who were working, and already faced barriers to progression. Should support become mandatory, exceptions to the policy would need to be made for working claimants whose circumstances genuinely prevented progression. Other staff members stated that mandation was too blunt and would not account for the complex set of circumstances in-work claimants often found themselves in.

A mandatory approach would also see WCs responsible for a larger caseload, which would limit time spent on each case. Limited time and large caseloads were cited as one of the resource-related challenges staff face in delivering adequate progression support. WCTLs reportedly worried about resources afforded to staff with mandation.

One benefit of mandatory progression support was seen as increased engagement. There was some evidence from wave 3 to show that mandatory appointments can in fact contribute to progression outcomes in the form of increased hours worked. WCs said that for working claimants in the IWS regime, the ‘hassle factor’ of mandatory in-person appointments motivated claimants to secure more hours in order to earn above the AET and avoid conditionality. The short-term nature of this goal to simply reach the AET and avoid the hassle was recognised, rather than the intervention influencing longer-term sustainable progression.

3.2.4. WC flexibility and discretion

The research showed that many WCs took a flexible approach to scheduling the meetings for the voluntary IWP offer. Those who delivered support within IWP-only caseloads reported benefitting from flexibility to use their diary space as they saw fit. Other staff said rules and processes structured the nature of appointments with working claimants. The research highlighted that WCs would value being trusted with discretion to tailor the progression journey to individual need rather than working around conditions imposed by rules and processes outlined by in-work support policy. WCs overall suggested that flexibility in frequency and length of meetings for the voluntary IWP offer and communications were needed. This was seen to be more easily achieved in districts where WCs were engaged in IWP-only delivery models.

Wave 3 research gathered information beyond the IWP voluntary offer to include support provided to claimants in the IWS regime, who are subject to conditionality. Working claimants were not perceived by staff in the same manner by WCs, who reported higher levels of motivation. They also reported being more lenient and flexible when it came to meetings and sanctions towards working claimants, compared to unemployed ones. Some WCs reported that sanctioning working claimants for failure to attend appointments that clashed with working hours was inefficient.

Staff suggested that flexibility with conditionality could be helpful, particularly if they could be given the ability for decision making around exceptions to mandatory appointments when working claimants were engaged in training or cycling between regimes. This could mean that WCs could reduce the time they spent with working claimants close to the AET, or on the contrary setting longer appointments with people with whom who they deemed a more meaningful conversation was warranted. The research suggested that staff developed an understanding of working claimants’ particular circumstances but also needs in terms of the level of support that would be most beneficial.

3.3. Barriers to delivering in-work support

3.3.1. Labour market barriers

One of the challenges to delivering in-work support and encouraging progression was the local labour market. The research showed how WCs’ ability to deliver progression support was impacted by employers’ situations, the availability of suitable roles, the geographical context and the type of contracts that tend to be offered. Working claimants were first encouraged to contact their current employers, who may not have been able to offer more hours, upskilling opportunities or better pay.

Staff said that more should be done to engage employers and showcase how they could also benefit from the progression support with vacancies being filled, or for example, with more Sector Based Work Academy Programme partnerships. Some WCs noted that employers can also be misinformed about the UC system, which might lead to reluctance in supporting their employees to progress. Wave 3 showed that WCs saw both employers, and working claimants, as unaware of flexibility in the UC benefit. Negative perceptions of jobcentres and staff can be an issue, which could hinder efforts for progression with an existing employer.

Beyond working claimants’ current employment, WCs’ ability to deliver support was also constrained by the situation in the local labour market. Areas with high levels of seasonal work, for example those with holiday parks, had limited opportunities for, secure, year-long employment. Shift-based sectors like warehouses or supermarkets were often minimum wage and could be perceived as low-quality. Some staff said that employers in certain sectors or areas were more likely to offer limited hours, using the UC system to their advantage, to maintain a flexible workforce. Staff reported that claimants found it difficult to work towards progression when they were on insecure contracts, including those on zero-hour contracts or with a low number of contracted hours.

3.3.2. Resource constraints

Another barrier to delivering the IWP voluntary offer identified was the lack of variety of resources available to WCs in jobcentres. This included physical spaces in which to welcome working claimants, a lack of adequate support provision to refer them to, but also the time-related constraints of short appointments and large caseloads.

High caseloads were identified as a barrier to delivering the IWP voluntary offer in the ways in which WCs would like. WCs shared that they were not able to dedicate as much time and resources as they would like to help working claimants and have meaningful conversations about careers.

Administrative burdens were also mentioned by WCs, especially the onboarding process for the IWP voluntary offer. WCs expressed frustrations about their responsibility to manually identify and onboard working claimants, mostly by themselves and sometimes with the help of WCTLs or other support staff in the jobcentres, which was described as laborious and time-consuming. WCs noted that they had to regularly check records of people in the Light Touch regime individually to see if they have been onboarded. WCs reportedly kept in regular contact with non-IWP WCs to encourage them to assign working claimants to the offer. WCs had also been briefing service centre staff to assign Working Enough and Light Touch claimants to the offer where relevant. This administrative process was considered as overly resource-intensive, especially given the low up-take for the voluntary offer that it resulted in.

WCs had mixed views on the helpfulness of tools and provision put in place to support the delivery of the voluntary IWP offer. Tools to support the delivery of progression were found to be helpful by some and limited by others. Some WCs shared that these tools were no different to those offered to unemployed claimants. This impacted the limited ability of WCs to tailor the support offered. Gaps in the provision available for working claimants in the voluntary IWP offer were identified, including funding opportunities for training or qualifications, outdated District Provision Tools and lists of providers, limited knowledge of resources and lack of training for working claimants outside of their working hours.

In wave 1, WCs found free adult skills provisions (such as skills bootcamps, Alison.com, Multiply, and the National Careers Service) to be useful for the delivery of the voluntary IWP offer. However, some working claimants could not attend courses that were full time or during normal working hours. Most WCs had not used the Flexible Support Fund. This was either because of an insufficient amount available, lack of opportunity to use it (low take-up of the offer), or claimant ineligibility (in terms of allocated regime).

In wave 3, however, the Flexible Support Fund was mentioned by WCs as being used to mitigate barriers to work that working claimants faced. It was usually used for training or transport costs. Staff highlighted that claimants in the Working Enough regime saw little support offered to them as they did not qualify for the Flexible Support Fund, which was also raised in previous waves relating to the voluntary IWP offer. WCs supporting working claimants across regimes shared that they struggled to provide training to certain claimants as their working status often made them ineligible or unavailable to attend courses.

Wave 3 highlighted poor-quality conversations with claimants in the IWS regime, where meeting conditionality and only short-term goals like reaching the AET were possible. Despite staff typically acknowledging that the goal for in-work support (mandatory and voluntary) was for claimants to develop the longer-term goal of becoming independent from UC.

Wave 3 also showed that AET changes led to increased number of IWS regime claimants on their caseloads and challenging conversations with them. Staff reported that some claimants affected by these changes felt demoralised as they had previously reached the AET and were not required to attend jobcentre appointments. Some claimants were resistant to attending and engaging with IWS regime support.

The short-term aspect of in-work support was highlighted by staff, particularly in terms of the length of appointments. 10-minute appointments were deemed insufficient, as WCs could not cover useful careers issues as the time allowed only checking in on the claimant and their current activity. Observations of in-work support appointments in wave 3 highlighted this ‘tick-box’ aspect of the in-person contact for working claimants in the IWS regime.

In wave 3, WCs commonly mentioned following the ‘Any job, Better job, Career’ approach to providing employment support. This approach usually led to short-term support with claimants towards a common goal to reach the AET, which contrasted with the stated desire of many WCs to tailor their interventions with claimants and have a longer-term impact on career progression.

3.3.3. Misconceptions and (dis)engagement

Spending time addressing misconceptions and explaining UC rules was found to be a key aspect of WCs’ work with their working claimants. A consistent finding was the frustration from staff around the low uptake of the IWP voluntary offer. WCs generally said that working claimants understood the voluntary IWP offer, but some also reported that understanding was mixed, with certain claimants thinking the invitation was for a mandatory appointment and others viewing the offer as a source of funding. Realisations that the invitation was not mandatory, that the offer was voluntary and that it was mainly an advice service might have contributed to initial engagement followed by disengagement.

Research showed that low levels of engagement with the IWP voluntary offer was often attributed to negative perceptions of the jobcentre. Another reason cited as a barrier to engagement was a misconception about the ’16-hour rule’ among claimants. A common misconception among working claimants was that they would lose their UC should they work more than 16 hours per week.

Despite these efforts, WCs said that many claimants did not progress past the first meeting about the IWP voluntary offer.

Staff reported that it was difficult to convince claimants that working more hours would make them better off. WCs reported that the existence of the AET created an artificial cut-off point between conditionality, creating adverse incentives to reach it, because there is no conditionality currently applied to working claimants in the Light Touch regime. Staff reported that some claimants remain reliant on UC for fear of losing it. Some claimants were also reportedly not, or only partially aware of the support put in place, for example the UC childcare offer.

In wave 3, WCs reported that generally, working claimants did not want to come into the jobcentre. Negative perceptions of the jobcentre were found to impact on their willingness to attend appointments, and engagement levels, which was mainly attributed to the requirement to attend for IWS regime claimants. Some evidence was found that the hassle factor of in-person appointments at the jobcentre contributed to encouraging and incentivising working claimants in the IWS regime to make efforts to increase their earnings to reach the AET and no longer be subject to conditionality.

3.3.4. Claimant mindset

Staff expressed a range of opinions about claimant mindset being a barrier to delivering support for progression. These included feeling that claimants were content with their current employment, and claiming UC was seen as the norm and a fit with their preferred, established lifestyle. Staff reported that many working claimants appeared comfortable remaining on UC while working part-time. Claimants in the IWS regime tended to aim to earn above the AET to avoid triggering work-focussed conditionality while remaining on UC. This would be repeated when the AET increased. Staff said that working more hours or in a different job would be considered as an unnecessary additional stress, with claimants not recognising the benefits of increased income and financial independence.

A lack of confidence from working claimants was noted across waves. Older working claimants reported a perception of age discrimination in recruitment and progression where employers were said to be less interested in hiring people closer to retirement. Regardless of age, claimants at times lacked confidence in their ability to secure more hours or better employment, which WCs sometimes addressed and discussed.

3.3.5. Claimant circumstances

Claimants’ personal circumstances and specific geographical context were often mentioned as barriers to progression, by claimants and staff both within the IWS regime and the IWP voluntary offer. Findings suggested that childcare, transport and health were the main barriers to progression. High costs and limited availability of childcare were noted, along with a desire amongst working claimants to look after their children themselves. Some working claimants shared difficulties in finding childcare suited for children with additional needs. These often overlapped, meaning that working claimants were dealing with multiple barriers at once. Also of note were gaps in claimants’ skills, and the perception of available jobs as poor-quality and insecure.

Some working claimants required ESOL courses. Some had only worked in a single sector, meaning their view of their skills was limited. Transport was a notable barrier for claimants in rural areas, with infrequent and unreliable public transport hindering progression opportunities, particularly for claimants who did not drive. Health conditions were often cited as limiting working claimants’ ability for full time employment, and this was the case even if some were later found fit for work following a Work Capability Assessment. Health conditions included physical and mental health, with anxiety being commonly mentioned.

Regime cycling (due to fluctuating earnings) was another barrier mentioned in delivering in-work support, as it could lead to working claimants going in and out of the IWS regime, leading to certain provision being unavailable. For example, seasonal workers, carers, part-time workers, people with childcare responsibilities were reportedly more likely to cycle and change labour market regimes. This led to changes in their UC status, along with the type of support they would receive, the conditionality they would be subject to, and their eligibility for the IWP voluntary offer. This was noted to be a source of confusion and frustration for working claimants, and ultimately, fuelled negative perceptions of jobcentres. Staff reported frustration at being unable to help working claimants caught in these cycles.

4. Conclusions

Findings from the three waves of research found few IWP successes. Staff reported frustration at the short nature (of typically 10 minute) appointments that made long- term career conversations difficult, with the result that only discussion of short-term goals and aims was possible. Delivery of the offer was said to be tailored to individual need, though in practice was seen to be somewhat formulaic in delivery dealing with short term issues. Common barriers to progression were identified as inadequate transport links, childcare concerns, health issues and a sense that some claimants did not wish to increase their working hours or earnings. The research found useful advice and guidance was routinely shared by jobcentre staff but there was limited evidence of the mitigation of barriers to progression in work. Employers and employer relations were seen as critical to the delivery of an effective in-work support offer. Claimant and employer perceptions of the jobcentre were often negative and more scope for provision and appointments outside of the jobcentre setting could be beneficial to making progression support successful.

The research has captured staff views of where potential improvements could be made to in-work progression support including improved claimant and employer understanding of progression support and the UC system in general. The research also indicates that improvements would be welcome to the training and capability of WCs to deliver effective in-work progression support. Some clarity regarding the aims of progression policy would be welcome. More help that can be offered to working claimants could help curb misconceptions and expectations about in-work support and allow staff to have effective tools and provision available to help claimants buy-in to the benefits of seeking to progress in work.

In addressing the findings from the three waves of research, future employment policy focusing on support for working claimants may wish to consider:

A clearer and more coherent strategy for defining progression and what progression support should look like, including how it differs to support given to the unemployed, would reassure working claimants that the offer will meet their needs.

Communicating this offer clearly to the public, working claimants, jobcentre staff, employers and local partners would be helpful to raise the profile of progression.

Ensuring working claimants receive tailored support, addressing specific needs by offering or signposting to provision that makes sense for their living situation. It should also be informed by work coach understanding of available employment in their local labour market.

Encouraging DWP staff to continue to develop relationships with employers, local and strategic partners to embed conversations about progression and what they can do to help enable it, as well as options for delivering progression support outside jobcentres.

How provision such as skills training can be made available to suit the needs of working claimants. Provision that accounts for working claimants’ schedules would allow better engagement, take up and completion rates. This could mean provision available outside of typical working hours – in the evenings or weekends.

Building on staff willingness to be upskilled via training on the context and changes in their local labour market, as well as increasing their awareness of the needs of employers and the provision available, as well as further training on the use of soft skills and interpersonal strategies when dealing with working claimants.

Exploring WC flexibility to set up a progression journey they deem most relevant after assessing claimant needs. This could include more flexibility for work coaches in shaping suitable delivery over for example: appointment length, frequency and channel – phone, face to face and the setting.

1. Borg, I. (2024) Universal Credit In-work Progression: Using the capability approach to explore shared values and constrained choices among policymakers, frontline workers and low-income families. University of Sheffield ↩

2. Universal Credit statistics, 29 April 2013 to 12 June 2025 - GOV.UK ↩

3. Summary: Universal Credit: in-work progression randomised controlled trial ↩

4. The Future Cohort Study: understanding Universal Credit’s future in-work claimant group - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩