1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.

1

Report of a deliberative workshop with welfare-to-work clients Thursday 15th February 2007

Part of the Foundations of Welfare, an ippr project supported by A4e, PWC, Scottish Widows and Shaw Trust

“I’m a locksmith and they offered me a lifeguard job. They didn’t even ask if I know how to swim” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “If it was an ideal situation, you would just want to go to the Jobcentre, sit down with your advisor, one on one, him give you the list of jobs which are appropriate for you and you apply for all of them. And if you don’t get none of them, next week, the exact same thing” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Introduction

Against the backdrop of significant welfare reform – from pensions, to support for lone parents, and out-of-work benefits – ippr is undertaking a major piece of research looking beyond current policy debates at the very principles underpinning our welfare state. One of the key issues that the project is focusing is on is how the welfare system can be reconfigured to make it more ‘citizen-focused’. In order to take forward this aspect of the project our thinking needed to be informed by the experiences and views of people who are using the current welfare system. To understand the welfare system users’ perspective we conducted a review of recent evidence about users’ experiences of different elements of the welfare system. We also conducted a deliberative workshop with clients from a range of different welfare to work programmes. The workshop provided an opportunity for us to gain a first hand insight into users’ experiences of the current system, but also to engage users in a discussion about how they felt the system could be improved. The workshop was held at a central London location. The 30 participants were recruited for ippr by A4e and Shaw Trust from a range of different welfare to work programmes that they operated in the London area, including the New Deals for Young People, 25plus, 50plus and disabled people. The participants were well balanced for age, gender and ethnicity. However, given that the sample was only selected from those that were actively participating in an employment programme the findings of the workshop are only robust in relation to the population from which they were drawn.

2

Following a brief introduction the participants were split into four discussion groups which explored the following three sets of issues:

• the balance between the support and help that people looking for work are given in relation to the expectations placed on them in return;

• the level of flexibility in the system; and

• the ability of welfare users to exercise choice and agency over the services and support they receive.

At the end of the discussion sessions all the groups were brought back together to feedback their conclusions under each of the three themes. Findings

The quality of the relationship with Personal Advisors (PAs) was seen as critical. Many people expressed satisfaction about this relationship, but others were much less positive. Many people spoke very warmly about their PA, saying that they had got to know them well and that they understood their needs and their situation. In the most positive cases, claimants felt they were being given a genuinely ‘personal’ service that was really helping them to address their issues and get ready for work. PAs had in many cases been responsible for helping people to access training courses or apply for jobs. Some people who had been out of work for some time also commented that PAs had helped them get back into a routine. Changing PA was seen as being very unhelpful.

“The personal advisor is the most important and the most help. If you’ve got one of those … somebody who really understands you and helps you in the right direction” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

However, some people felt that the ‘quotas’ PAs had to meet meant they encouraged people to make inappropriate job applications and or make plans for people that were not in their long term interests. ‘Quotas’ were seen as barriers to PAs being able to give the type of support that is actually best for individual people. A lot of people said they felt their PA was just ‘going through the motions’, partly because they had so many people on their caseload (“It’s like they’re reading from a script”).

“When you start they ask you what kind of job you want but no matter what you say, he’s (Personal Advisor) trying to put you into something completely different, just to get you out of the course, so that he can say at the end of it that he got everyone a job, whether or not it’s the job you want” (Male, JSA/NDYP) “They don’t really care, as long as you’re going [to the Jobcentre Plus office] and doing what you’re meant to be doing and they haven’t got to deal with you … the quicker you get out the better for them. And I don’t mean get out as in off unemployment, I mean get out of the building and get the next one in.” (Female, JSA/NDYP)

3

“It’s about their targets…I want to go into sustained work. Not something that I’m gonna go there and last only two days or three days” (Male, JSA/New Deal) “Their main goal is to get you off Jobseekers Allowance, it doesn’t matter where they put you. As long as you get a job, cleaning or whatever” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Whilst most people spoke positively about their PA, some were unsure what ‘added value’ they had brought: “90% of the positive results that I’ve ever got have been off my own back” (Male, JSA). Others did not feel that seeing their PA was always a productive experience: “I just do it [look for work] myself. My advisor hasn’t done anything. It’s a waste of time going to see him – he’s there for 5 minutes or he has to see someone else and I’m only there for half an hour instead of an hour”. (Male, disability benefit claimant) The value and appropriateness of the support and guidance people received from Jobcentre Plus and their Personal Advisor was highly variable. Participants also highlighted their own responsibility for finding work. Jobseekers Allowance claimants on New Deal programmes with mandatory contracts were all required to undertake intensive jobsearch activity (applying for ten jobs a day). Almost all were currently on, or had recently been on, a training course of some kind. People had also received other help, such as with using a PC or writing their CV. Virtually everyone appreciated the opportunity to develop news skills and felt this would open up new working opportunities for them. This was the case even if the training course they had been on was not linked in any way to their previous experience or career goals. However, many were left frustrated when training courses did not lead to employment. When asked about what was required of them, those people on JSA and a New Deal programmes responded that they had to provide evidence of jobsearch activity. People knew that those who failed to do so would be thrown off the programme and no-one thought this was unreasonable.

“You shouldn’t be given money for doing nothing – you should be looking for work. You also have to give 100% yourself” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

Despite the policy focus on conditionality, this subject was rarely raised by participants (at least not in the way it is normally framed by policy makers). No one expressed the view that they did not want to work. Discussions were dominated by the kind of help people felt they needed to get work and realise their aspirations, compared to the support which was actually available. When prompted, people overwhelmingly thought it was fair to expect those looking for work to actively do so, and that benefits could legitimately be

4

withheld if they did not. However for many this seemed like a largely irrelevant point, given that everyone wanted to work. When presented with the ‘extra rewards for extra activities’ model of Pathways to Work (and also of the Work Related Activity Premium for lone parents) people thought this could be a really effective way to get people to stick with a particular course of action. Participants were asked whether it would be fair for them to be expected to do more, in return for more support being given to help them find work:

“Yes it would be fair. If I was getting for myself what I needed to get me a job, to tell the truth, I’d do anything really. But at the moment I’m not getting anything. There are some people who can’t get out of this. I’ve got options, but there are some people who will be there forever, they’re not getting anything out of this” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“You shouldn’t look at it as more. If they’re helping you, pushing you, you do it automatically. You wouldn’t look at it as more because you’d be looking forward to what you’d be gaining. But when they’re not helping you and asking you to all these things… but when you get help, everything’s easy”. (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Young people on JSA said they had spent the first months out of work looking for a job independently, submitting applications and taking their CVs into prospective employees themselves. Some people in this situation thought it was unhelpful for six months to pass before they got the more intensive support available through the New Deal. Many felt that the first weeks and months were when they were most likely to successfully get a new job (often linked to perceptions of employer attitudes towards unemployed people), and yet help was not available at this point.

“I do think that you should be allowed do it yourself at first … but then six months is too long before the help is given to you … that’s half a year” (Male, JSA).

“If you’ve been out of work longer than a few months than you can forget it” (Male, JSA)

Some felt that the quality of support received from Jobcentre Plus was a bit hit and miss. “There are good staff and bad staff – like anywhere” (Male, JSA) Criticisms about how the current system operated tended to focus around the lack of flexibility, and support not being relevant or appropriate to their own particular circumstances. Applying for jobs and going for job interviews for things that were not relevant to people’s skills, experience and interests was probably the most consistent line of grievance from participants.

5

Those on JSA said that they were required to go into the Jobcentre Plus offices on a regular basis and intensively jobsearch (in newspapers and on the internet). However, many of them argued that this was not the most productive use of their time, and that they were going through the motions to comply with ‘the rules’. Many thought their time could have been used much better gaining appropriate skills and gaining work experience rather than being sat around all day at the Jobcentre Plus offices. Because PAs had a caseload of people in similar situations people were often being asked to all apply for the same job, which could be quite demoralising, with jobs often not being appropriate for particular people. Continually applying for jobs with no success was widely felt to be humiliating and de-motivating.

“I want to be in admin or an electrician but he was telling fishing packer or something. I told him I definitely don’t want to do that” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“You’re asked to get 10 jobsearches a day. I think it’s just too much for one day. It’s ridiculous, you can’t find 10 jobs. They’re forcing you to put jobs in that you don’t want. It’s ridiculous. It’s the system”. (Male, JSA/New Deal 50+)

“It’s a very very humiliating and depressing experience to keep applying and applying for jobs, being told you have to jump through hoops, and ingratiate yourself with prospective employers, but there’s always a brick wall on the other side.” (Male, JSA)

What people wanted was the chance to gain skills and apply for jobs that matched their skills, experience and interests. But the current system of intensive jobsearch often seemed a distraction from this.

“It’s not personal enough, everything’s just general. Everyone’s treated the same. Everyone gets to apply for the same jobs but we might not want the same jobs, she might want beauty, I might want construction, but we’re all getting the same jobs. There’s not enough individual help. I know it’s hard because there’s a lot more of us compared to our advisors” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“Why do you want to go for an interview for a job you don’t want to do? You’re going to go there, embarrass your consultant, embarrass yourself. It’s a waste of time for everyone” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“If they look at your skills and experience, they can put you into something that they know you will like, something you are passionate about” (Male, disability claimant)

“They are spending a lot of money on these courses, and if they are prepared to spend that money anyway, I think you should at least be

6

asked what sort of training you would like and for it to actually be training so that at the end of it you could say ‘now I’m trained to do .. or qualified to do that’. If they’re going to spend the money then they might as well spend money on it actually being useful.” (Female, disability claimant)

Most people felt that a contract of some kind including regular support from a PA and certain expectations on them was useful (rather than just being left on your own). However, it was much less useful if the contract and expectations were arbitrary rather than being tailored and appropriate to each person.

“Everyone here, we all want to work. It might seem to you that we’re being lazy, but at the end of the day I’m sure you wouldn’t want to do something that you didn’t want to do. If they gave us jobs that were relevant, then I’m sure that everyone here would apply and do what was necessary” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

When prompted to discuss the different programmes and different requirements across the system (such as mandatory NDYP versus voluntary NDDP), people felt that it was right to tailor the package to the particular circumstances and needs of individual people. However, some people felt that Jobcentre Plus staff needed to be better trained to deal with the diversity of individuals’ situations.

“You’ve got people like disabled people and other people with different issues – family problems, homeless, doss house - so you’ve got to take everyone into account in a different way and provide them to their needs” (Male, JSA/New Deal)

Some people who had experienced moving between different benefits or programmes said they had found this a difficult process:

“I found it very hard…because when you’re on incapacity benefit you’re on a lot more than when you’re on jobseeker’s allowance. When you sign off that you’re fit for work you stop straight away instead of gradually” (Male, disability claimant)

Another woman who had been on various different disability benefits found that she had often fallen between various systems of support, repeatedly switching between the two:

“It’s down to what doesn’t quite fit into a box, you’re then sort of left in limbo … I was constantly on and off, on and off, which caused me a hell of a lot of problems.” (Female, disability benefit claimant)

Many people felt that the support they received and the expectations placed on them were often inappropriate or unhelpful. However few felt they had the ability or power to have much say, choice or control over any of this.

7

When asked who decided what happened to them, by far the most common answer was either the government or their PA (and often a combination of the two). Some participants said they would like to feel more of a sense of a shared responsibility, or two way relationship, between themselves and their PA. A number of people said they had been given a choice between two or three options of skills courses, but even choice here was very limited (security, business or administration). Despite this reality, many people articulated that finding a job was ultimately down to them.

“Courses that I want to go on I have to identify…because it seems to me that he’s [Personal Advisor] so stretched because he’s only in [a certain borough] two days a month. The last meeting I had with…I had to travel about 8 miles to go and visit him. That should show how determined I am. I don’t just leave it to my job broker. I’m in contact with about three or four different agencies” (Male, disability benefit)

Only a small minority of people felt that the Jobcentre Plus or their PA had ever actively sought or listened to their own goals and aspirations for work. Even where people did feel this had been the case, people were not convinced this had actually influenced how Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors had tried to help them. Some people thought it would be good if PAs actively asked them what work they wanted to do and what they felt they needed in the way of help and support to achieve this. The absence of much meaningful choice about the particular pathways people wanted to follow was a consistent theme.

“It doesn’t matter what you say, you can say as much as you want but nothing ever gets done about it. All of us of told them what we want to do but we’re all on the same course. So it doesn’t matter what you say, you still get put on this course” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

“I told them I wanted to be a plumber, but they said there were no courses available in the Jobcentre. You have to go to college for that, but they would cut your benefits” (Male, JSA/New Deal).

One male on JSA said that he had previous experience in the retail sector and wanted to get back into this area (and ultimately progress to being a supervisor). However, there were no options in retail and so he was on a security course instead (“What you want to do is not as important as finding a job that’s secure and permanent”, Male, JSA/NDYP). Another young male really wanted to become a plumber or electrician, but here were no apprenticeships available. He said he could not go to college or try and set up an apprenticeship himself because he was required to be at the Jobcentre from 9am until 4pm each day undertaking intensive JobSearch. He was now also on a security course. Whilst people were frustrated about the lack of choices and options, many expressed an understanding that it was unrealistic to think they could always

8

have exactly what they wanted (and that some element of compulsion in the system was inevitable). Some people sympathised with Personal Advisors who were seen as often not being in a position to be able to help them in the way they really wanted. One participant thought all the PAs hated doing there job and wondered how any progress could be made when both people – the PA and the client – did not really want to be there. They said they had never seen anyone look happy at the Jobcentre Plus office. A number of people felt that PAs were just too busy and overworked, and this was seen by some to be a barrier to ‘the system’ being more like how they would ideally envisage it.

“You tell them what you want to do and they try to listen. But after a while, that changes, and they try to put you into any job” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

“I just think there should be more options out their for us … so that we have the option to do what we want to do, it’s not necessarily going to go that way, but at least you get the option” (Male, JSA/NDYP)

One area where people expressed a desire for more ‘say’ was in having a simpler and more effective means to seek redress and offer feedback on the operation of Jobcentre Plus and Personal Advisors.

“I think they should have somebody on top of all of them [the advisors]. If you are going to do jobsearch and you’re not happy you should go to that person and tell them your problems. Have someone to ask you how you are feeling or to go to if you are not happy with the jobsearch. Say Miss so and so, Mr so and so is in charge of that, go to them and say what you think is wrong” (Female, disability benefit claimant).

“If you want to make a complaint [at the moment] you have to go through this big long procedure, and it probably doesn’t even get heard” (Male, JSA/NDYP).

Lack of practical work experience and appropriate skills were seen as the biggest barriers to work for most people. A number of other issues were raised about how the system could be improved to help people find work. Gaining more practical work experience was widely felt to be the most useful thing in helping people to get a job. However, the option to gain such work experience was said to be rarely available to people. Many felt that the training courses on offer, and those that people were forced to attend, were not actually that useful for getting a job, and that paid (or even voluntary) work placements would give people the experience that employers were looking for. This would also boost people’s self-respect and make themselves (and others) feel like they are part of society. Whilst training courses were generally seen as useful and the opportunity to gain new skills was appreciated, there was a fairly widespread view that the options available were very limited and not necessarily tailored to the local

9

jobs market. One person expressed frustration that whilst there were always stories in the papers about a shortage of skilled workers in Britain, “there’s plenty of people here who could do the same job [as migrants from Eastern Europe], but the training isn’t there for us” (Male, disability benefit claimant) Poor local job/skills matches: Many people also felt that, despite their and their PA’s best efforts, there was simply not work out there that matched their experience. One man, who was a skilled locksmith by trade had been out of work for seven months and was now having to look for jobs in the retail sector (“When I joined that place [Jobcentre Plus] they gave me two options: retail or admin that’s it and with me being a locksmith that was the option for me”). Another disability benefit claimant who was over 50 was finding a lack of IT experience and skills a big problem. Lack of confidence, poor interviewing skills, lack of flexible working options and transport problems were also seen as barriers to work for people. One person said that he didn’t feel he had much idea of what the demand for particular types of work was locally. He thought it was a shame that Jobcentre Plus did not collect this sort of information, in collaboration with local employers. Employers: Some people felt that the attitudes and practices of employers were often not as helpful and positive as they could be. Feedback on unsuccessful job applications was seen as being useful, but rarely happened in practice. A number of disability benefit claimants felt that employers discriminated against disabled people and did not want to take them on. Some even thought employers should be mandated to give job seekers a chance or trial. It was widely suggested that closer links between Jobcentre Plus and employers, to understand the local jobs market and arrange work placement opportunities, would be helpful. Money/benefits: When asked about money, most people felt that their level of benefit was just enough to live on but that it meant you had to be very careful about every penny you spent. Having training courses paid for was seen to be very helpful. The problem of debt was raised by a number of people. Some people had had negative experiences of claiming in-work benefits, for example working part-time and being reliant on housing and council tax benefit. These problems had to some extent created a disincentive to pursue work that might lead to similar problems in the future. Experiencing these problems also had the effect of creating a sense that the system did not reward honesty. Information: A lack of information about the options available (practical and financial support) was also raised by a number of participants. People said they had often found out about various entitlements – like help with transport or clothing costs – from friends and other ad hoc routes rather through Jobcentre Plus. One person suggested there should be somewhere to get independent advice and information about your rights and entitlements.

10

“There’s all these adverts on the TV saying if you don’t claim for it you won’t get it but you don’t know you can claim for it” (Male, disability benefit claimant)

Linked to this point about information, a number of participants said it would be useful to have assessments about how they were doing and what progress they were making – with gaining particular skills, like interview techniques. This was also seen as being a good way to identify needs. Stigma: A number of people felt there was a real stigma attached to being unemployed (including negative attitudes from some Jobcentre Plus staff), which was damaging for their own self-esteem and which also stood in the way of employers taking them on. Not being able to work left people feeling excluded and demoralised.

Conclusions

The findings from the workshop suggest a number of ways in which the system could be improved to make it more ‘citizen focused’: 1. Improving the standards in the quality of support that is provided by

Personal Advisers, in terms of their interpersonal skills and the quality of information that they provide about benefits and employment options.

2. The degree to which the provision of training and employment support is appropriate to people’s needs could be improved by Personal Advisers having a wider range of options available to respond to different individuals and also by making training options more relevant to the local labour market.

3. Making the process of providing employment more of a two way process, with users having more control over the package of support that they were offered, would have the benefit of enabling the support that was provided to be more focused around people’s skills, needs and aspirations, as well as being more empowering for users which might help to boost their motivation and confidence.

4. Ensuring that the transitions between different schemes of employment support and changes in benefits is response to people’s changing circumstances should be made as smooth as possible to avoid causing hardship.