Empowerment or Enforcement?
Redefining employment support for benefit claimants
Boosting employment has been one of the Government’s top priorities, with measures in last year’s Spring Budget and Autumn Statement intended to bring 200,000 people into work. These include the promising expansion of free childcare and equipping NHS sites with employability services.
Yet, alongside this, the government is also expanding the compulsory work-search requirements. This includes raising the Administrative Earnings Threshold (pushing more people on low incomes to increase their hours) and reforming the Work Capability Assessment to restrict the health-related exemptions to the obligatory work-search. This approach prioritises moving people into any jobs, rather than building long-term skills and fulfilling individual aspirations.
Conditionality vs support
Benefit claimants deemed fit for work are expected to look for work or increase their hours. This is monitored by work coaches, who can refer claimants for sanctions (usually a 100% cut of the standard benefit rate for a certain amount of time) if they think these conditions are not met. This is known as conditionality.
Employment support is typically provided through fortnightly 10 minute appointments at a Jobcentre Plus (JCP). These can often focus on “ticking boxes” and monitoring compliance rather than offering meaningful support. People we help are also faced with unrealistic expectations set by work coaches, which seems to be a growing issue. The number of people with problems relating specifically to employment support (in particular work-focused interviews and availability of reasonable adjustments) has risen significantly. This is despite the overall number of people we help with conditionality-related issues being stable.
In addition to work coach appointments, claimants are referred for external employability programmes (like Restart), offering “enhanced support” for the long-term unemployed. Worryingly though, these often reproduce similar patterns to the JCP meetings. People we help report employment support programmes refusing reasonable adjustments, such as video appointments for people suffering from agoraphobia. Claimants may then face sanctions if they don’t attend.
Patrick* is a Universal Credit claimant with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a history of depression and fragile physical health. His work coach referred him for the Restart programme which conflicted with specialist support he received to help manage his health. His parents were worried that having to attend Restart could cause him significant stress, potentially taking him back to being unable to leave the house.
Patrick submitted a sick note to the Jobcentre, stating that he should have limited work-search requirements and that his condition had deteriorated. Initially, Patrick’s work coach didn’t act on this, but our adviser was able to help to get his training reduced to 15 hours a week. Both the recruitment agency and the Jobcentre maintained that once the training had started, they couldn’t pause it altogether. This is despite the potentially harmful effect it could have on his health and future employability.
Good work v “any work”
Evidence suggests that work-search requirements don’t help benefit claimants to get into work. According to the Government’s own findings, sanctions lead people to “exit less quickly into earnings and to earn less upon exiting”. This is likely because the system is based on avoidance of punishment, rather enabling individual ambition; influenced by a dangling threat of sanction, claimants apply for low-quality jobs that don’t fit their aspirations. This reflects the “ABC” philosophy (expecting people to get ‘any job’, then a ‘better job’, then a ‘career’) and has been criticised as unrealistic. The lack of secure, well-paid jobs available makes it increasingly difficult to progress from low-quality employment.
The “any job” approach prioritises requiring claimants to apply for often unsuitable vacancies. This is also felt by employers, who notice low quality CVs, possibly sent by claimants to generate proof of work search. This in turn risks disincentivising businesses from approaching Jobcentres. The “any job” approach is unhelpful for both claimants and employers.
Tom* is in his 40s and lives just outside of London. He’s recently been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, which impacts his mobility and cognitive abilities. He’s also unable to read or write which limits what work he can do. Our adviser helped him to apply for benefits, including Universal Credit.
Tom’s work coach has been persistently asking him to apply for a job as teaching assistant in a school, and threatened him with sanctions if he refused. Tom was very anxious about this, but his health and literacy skills mean he wouldn’t be able to take on the job.
The emphasis on getting “any job” risks fueling the rise of unstable, low-paid jobs: potential employees have less bargaining power in their work search and fewer chances of building up skills. This effectively leaves them stuck in precarious working conditions.
Towards evidence-based employment support
There’s currently little evaluation of Government employability programmes and it can feel like trying the same thing again and again yet expecting different results. Everyone wants to see a world where we have meaningful and effective employment support that helps people gain and progress in work. It’s time to take a more person centred approach and shift the dynamic from any job to the right job.
*Name changed to protect anonymity
