The role of Personal Advisors

Conducting Work Focused Interviews

Building a rapport with claimants was seen as a key part of the interview process (Dickens et al., 2004; Knight et al., 2005). Within the first three Pathways pilot areas, Advisors reported that they used their discretion in deciding whether to discuss work in the initial interview or not and how to

-r-respond to a claimant’s circumstances (Dickens et al., 2004). The need to build up a relationship was also seen as crucial in later pilots (Knight et al., 2005).

'Menu of Choices’

Within the ‘menu of choices’, there was considerable staff discretion in the use of different choices. For example, within Dickens et al.’s (2004) qualitative research, consisting of two focus groups and 14 interviews, some Advisors referred nearly all of their claimants to the CMP, whilst others had referred none at all. Levels of referral to Job Brokers also varied considerably. Research on the second wave of Pathways to Work pilots found that Advisors felt more able to ‘sign post’ to support available from the

‘menu of choices’, although some Advisors were still not using all of the choices available to them as a result of lack of knowledge (Knight et al., 2005:1).

Targets

Whilst, initially, JCP Advisors did not have specific targets to meet in relation to IB claimants, there was still some pressure to contribute towards office

165

targets. As such, Advisors felt under pressure to focus their efforts on people closer to work, in order to meet ‘job entry targets’ (Dickens et al., 2004; NAO, 2004; Knight et al., 2005; Pendleton, 2006; Barnes and Hudson, 2006). This was felt by some Advisors to be going against the rationale for Pathways (Knight et al., 2005; Barnes and Hudson, 2006).

Research on all Jobcentre Plus Advisors found that when Advisors have to meet targets in order to gain an incentive, they will aim specifically to meet that target and no further (Burgess et al., 2003), which can also have a negative effect.

Targets relating to Pathways increased in the second round of pilots, including targets for referring claimants to avenues of support from the

‘menu of choices’. Advisors expressed concern that this may result in inappropriate referrals, although administrative data suggest that practice has not been influenced since the introduction of the targets (Knight et al., 2005). Likewise, focus group research with Advisors found that some Advisors felt that their managers did not always understand how much effort needed to be utilised to secure meeting targets (Barnes and Hudson, 2006).

Furthermore, at the time of the research undertaken by Dickens et al.

(2004), Advisors had the power to defer or waive interviews, and they were using this power. By the time of the PhD research, the power to waive interviews had been revoked to a great extent, which made meeting targets more difficult.

Claimant Engagement

Many claimants were reported by Advisors to be anxious, negative or hostile about having to attend an interview, although this was countered, to some extent, by staff attempting to telephone claimants beforehand (Dickens et al., 2004; Knight et al., 2005, Barnes and Hudson, 2006). Hostility could be increased by insensitive materials about returning to work being sent to claimants who felt that they were too ill to work (Pendleton, 2006).

166

Advisors described how some groups of claimants were more likely to ‘fail to attend’ a compulsory Pathways interview (Dickens et al 2004). When this occurred, Advisors often stated that they tried to contact claimants more than was required. In a survey of Jobcentre Plus Advisors, claimants failing to attend interviews was seen as a key obstacle to enabling Advisors to carry out their jobs, with 75% of Advisors experiencing this at least once a day (NAO, 2006). As such, within the context of pressure to reach targets,

‘Fail to Attends’ can be seen as frustrating for Advisors. Overall, Advisors reported greater engagement from voluntary customers, who were seen as more motivated and easier to help. This increased job satisfaction (Dickens et al., 2004). As such, it is crucial to note that many of Pathways' successes were from voluntary customers (NAO, 2010). Consequently, the rationale for introducing compulsory activity is undermined.

Sanctioning

Whilst Pathways allows for claimants who do not engage to have their benefits sanctioned, Advisors did not always follow this course. In part, this was as a result of some Advisors feeling ‘very uncomfortable’ with sanctioning claimants (Dickens et al, 2004:ii; Knight et al., 2005). As reported above, Advisors sometimes made extra effort to contact claimants who did not attend an interview, as opposed to sanctioning them (Dickens et al., 2004). This was because Advisors acknowledged that to sanction a claimant could have a negative effect on both the claimant’s health (Dickens et al., 2004; Knight et al., 2005) and the relationship between the claimant and the Advisor (Dickens et al., 2004). Furthermore, by the second wave of pilots, some Advisors did not feel that they had the capacity to follow up and sanction those who did not attend a compulsory interview due to increasing workloads (Knight et al., 2005).

167

Job satisfaction

Whilst it can be seen that levels of job dissatisfaction among all Jobcentre . Plus Personal Advisors (not just those working with IB) were low (NAO,

2006), job stresses can be high (Webster, 2008). Focus group research relating specifically to Pathways by Dickens et al. (2004) and Knight et al.

(2005) found that Advisors could feel unsupported and out of their depth.

Furthermore, training given to Advisors in the pilot areas was not seen as fully preparing them for all aspects of the role, and case load increases were common, resulting in them carrying out more interviews each day than was recommended (Knight et al., 2005). As such, Webster (2008) argues that to avoid bumout, Advisors de-personalised their customers, acting in a detached way, although this was not a long-term solution and burn out is often a long-term problem. In addition, some Advisors felt a tension in their role between attempting to support people and, at the same time, controlling their behaviour (through benefit sanctions, if necessary). This may in part explain the feeling that Advisors found it easier to progress ‘voluntary customers’.

Whilst official targets might not recognise small steps on the path to work­

readiness, Dickens et al.’s (2004) Advisors took satisfaction from enabling claimants to remove barriers to work. However, it was acknowledged that for some claimants, particularly ‘mandatory customers’, there were significant barriers, and some claimants did not move closer to the labour market.

168