Evaluating the effect of Pathways

Research with Pathways participants found that those who were already motivated to return to work gained the most from Pathways (Corden et al., 2005; Corden and Nice, 2006a). In addition, research with Jobcentre Plus Advisors found that staff found this group easier, and more rewarding, to work with (Dickens et al., 2004; Knight et al., 2005). Furthermore, Blyth’s (2006:16) analysis of administrative data found that voluntary Pathways participants made a ‘significant contribution’ to job entries resulting from Pathways. Moreover, research with a group of mandatory claimants who had difficult health and personal circumstances found that the Pathways pilots made little difference to their desire to return to work. However, for the minority who felt able to return to work, the support could speed up the return to work process (Corden and Nice, 2006a).

In February 2006, as part of a welfare reform Green Paper, the Government announced its intention to reduce the numbers claiming IB from 2.7 million

31 The term ‘customer’ is retained in relation to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB), as unlike being a ‘customer’ of Jobcentre Plus, claimants have some choice over whether to engage with the CAB’s services.

176

to 1.7 million within a decade. The tool to enable such dramatic change was to be Pathways to Work. However, independent research carried out for Scope, a disability rights charity, and subsequently peer reviewed argued that the effect of Pathways within a decade would only have half of that effect unless specific attention was diverted to increasing employment opportunities in ex-industrial areas (Fothergill and Wilson, 2007).

In 2008, research to estimate the effectiveness of Pathways in the non-pilot areas was published by the DWP. It found that there was more off flow from IB in the early months following an initial claim, although this reduced over time, with no positive effect beyond ten months. In such cases, claimants were typically moved to Jobseekers’ Allowance rather than returning to work (Bewley et al, 2008).

Research carried out by the Institute of Fiscal Studies for the DWP attempted to estimate the effect of the menu of choices two years after the initial Pathways interview, although there was some conflict between administrative data and claimants’ accounts as to whether they had participated in a ‘choice’ and if so which ‘choice’ (Adam et al., 2009). It is possible that the already discussed pressure for staff to tick boxes may have resulted in some inaccurate official statistics. Furthermore, the complexity of Pathways and claimants’ difficulties in understanding the scheme (Corden and Nice, 2006a) may result in inaccurate self-reporting.

In addition, the authors acknowledge the impossibility of knowing if participating in a choice caused the change, or if that person was somehow different to those who did not participate in a way that cannot be seen through the available data. However, the research found that participating in one or more of the ‘choices’ activities increased the likelihood of subsequent employment by at least 6.4% in a matched pairs design (Adam et al., 2005:25). Furthermore, those who participated in a ‘choices’

programme, and subsequently went into work, earned on average an extra

£14.80 gross per week. However, those who participated in choices were 5 percentage points less likely to leave IB within six months (p27), although

177

more likely to leave IB after 15 months. This research shows a tension between those who participate in Pathways being more likely to work, with higher incomes but also being more likely to remain on IB in the short term.

Furthermore, the contradiction between the Adam et al. (2009) research and the Bewley et al. (2008) research shows the difficulty of knowing the impact of Pathways with any certainty.

Based upon a systematic review, Clayton et al. (2010) stated that Pathways to Work, like many other similar schemes aiming to increase the employability of benefit claimants, did have some positive effects. However, these are as a result of focusing upon claimants who are closest to returning to work, as influenced by high case loads and the need to meet targets.

5.2.8 Conclusion

The literature presented has shown a wide range of opinions from both Advisors and claimants who have participated in Pathways to Work. It can be seen that Advisors are able to use discretion in what ‘choices’ to recommend to claimants, although they are under pressure to meet targets.

Claimants who chose to participate in any of the voluntary ‘choices’ were mainly those who wanted to move back into work. This group also tended to have more positive feelings about Pathways, which can be related to its perceived usefulness. The evaluations of Pathways show that claimants did not attribute any return to work successes to the scheme (Corden and Nice, 2006b), and that uptake of ‘choices’ that were available before IB claimants were subject to compulsory Jobcentre Plus interviews did not increase (Adam et al., 2008).

178

5.3 Results

5.3.1 Introduction

Within the second part of the chapter, data collected during interviews with Jobcentre Plus Advisors and IB claimants will be presented alongside data from observing compulsory WFIs. Data are presented from the claimants’

initial experiences of trying to negotiate a complicated bureaucracy, through to experiences of WFIs. It will be shown that Advisors have considerable discretion within compulsory interviews, but this is constrained by the need to meet targets. The decision claimants make, regarding whether to participate in the voluntary aspects of Pathways will also be discussed in detail. The chapter will end by describing Advisors’ views of claimants and claimants’ views of Advisors.

A note of caution

When reading this chapter, it is essential to note that Rachel, who was highly engaged with Pathways to Work, was a voluntary participant who had chosen to participate in Work Focused Interviews as a result of it being timely for her to do so (Blyth, 2006, Corden and Nice, 2006b). As such, her views, which were quite different to the views of other, compulsory, participants, should be seen within this context.