Part 3: Outcomes
8.2 Evidence from the qualitative research
9.3.1 What was missing from the experience?
Entirely positive views however, were rare and those returning to Jobcentre Plus support tended to speak of disappointments, and gaps in what had been offered to them. A common view was that what was promised by providers on joining the programme (such as personal attention, opportunities that matched support needs, and a choice of activities) had either failed to materialise or had fizzled out.
Suggestions for improvement in order to make the Work Programme more meaningful for individuals included some key factors that are known to drive participant satisfaction. These include continuity in advisers, consistency in advice and more time with advisers. Completers also indicated that there needed to be greater understanding among advisers of the impact of long-term and/or fluctuating
working between providers and employment agencies, as well as local employers. Finally, a cluster in the group requested that more careful attention be paid to sanctioning which could be wrongly imposed through administrative delays, lack of communication and “mix ups”(the operation and impact of sanctions more generally is discussed in chapter 10).
9.4 Summary
The survey data suggested that following 24 months on the programme 53% of participants had not been in work and 14% had spent some time in work during their two years on the programme. Statistically, people in this group are more likely to be men, to be aged over 55, to have a health condition or disability, to have low or no qualifications, and to have no recent work experience prior to joining the programme. They are less likely to have met frequently with their Work Programme adviser
(although this could partly reflect selection on the part of providers, rather than the impact of infrequent contact per se).
Some participants in the qualitative research who were leaving the programme and returning to Jobcentre Plus support, described a timely, planned and personalised end-stage of engagement which involved a discussion of achievements and progress made as well as what would happen next. Others suggested that “handbacks” were less well planned and had not really understood the process for returning to the auspices of Jobcentre Plus.
Some of this group who thought that with a little more help they would find work wanted to remain with their provider. These had in common a good relationship and regular contact with advisers. Others, who were frustrated by having to attend regular appointments which in their view achieved little, were pleased their time on the
programme was ending.
Having completed the programme, some (typically older and with severe health conditions) believed they were still too ill to find work. These often described minimal intervention while on the programme due to periods of protracted hospitalisation and/or ill-health. Others, mainly JSA claimants, described being motivated and optimistic on completion and some had job interviews lined up shortly after completion. A further group went on to engage with further education or training which had not been made available to them while on the programme for which they criticised their adviser. For these, the two years on the programme had delayed their access to something that would have helped them make progress.
As earlier chapters have indicated, participants often had mixed views on the difference made by the programme. Similarly, those leaving the programme and returning to Jobcentre Plus support had mixed views on this point. Some appreciated factors such as an understanding or helpful adviser and having some choice over their activities. However, this did not translate into the programme being seen as
However, where participants were positive this arose from having an improved CV or self-confidence as a result of participation.
To improve the programme, participants in this group wanted providers to follow through on early promises such as personalised support that was well matched to their needs, and a choice of activities. Continuity of adviser as well as consistency in advice and more time with advisers would also have improved provision for many. Crucially, many participants wanted to be able to access vocational training and many wanted support more closely linked to opportunities in the local labour market. Finally, a group called for more careful attention to be paid to sanctioning since sanctions could be imposed due to administrative delays, a lack of communication and mix-ups although caused significant hardship for individuals.