Recommendation 4

HM Government Accepted

Work coaches already take claimants’ personal circumstances into consideration when engaging with them, and commitments are tailored in line with these circumstances. As part of this, work coaches consider both current circumstances and past experience. We are constantly reviewing our training and delivery approaches to ensure they are developed in a trauma informed way. Previous tests of warning approaches have not shown substantial difference in reducing claimant failure; however, we are considering this issue further as part of our wider reform plans. Work coaches can, and do, offer voluntary appointments to claimants, which can act as a type of warning without the negative experience of a sanction risk. Within the Pathfinder, we are testing using broader commitments that do not require specific activity from claimants which means that work coaches can escalate requirements if they are concerned about the progress a claimant is making. This approach is similar to the proposed warnings model, but without the negative experience of sanction risk at the outset. We are considering whether improvements could be made to the sanctions regime, including whether non-financial sanctions, such as further mandatory appointments, would be effective. Our current assessment is that using increased frequency of appointments as a non-financial consequence of non-compliance could have unintended consequences. For example, this approach could result in more sanctions being triggered due to the additional opportunities for non-attendance as a result of an increased number of appointments. Under our current approach to sanctions, before any sanction referral is made a work coach team leader, deputy, or colleague with the relevant experience will conduct a pre-referral quality check to ensure that the referral is both appropriate and has considered the claimant’s wider circumstances. Our decision makers consider the claimant’s past circumstances alongside the appropriateness of each requirement when considering whether to apply a sanction. We know that claimants’ understanding of their sanction is essential to allow effective challenge. We are already reviewing several internal processes and looking to make improvements where possible. The sanction notification sets out clearly how a claimant can raise a challenge to any decision. Claimants can also be supported to raise a challenge by phone, in person in a Jobcentre, and via their journal. Claimants are also able to appeal directly to the courts where they do not wish to engage with DWP reconsideration processes. We partially accept the Committee’s recommendation and acknowledge the concerns raised. This government believes that there should be conditionality requirements for those who are unemployed and claiming benefits, and that there is a place for sanctions where customers do not meet the reasonable requirements set by their work coach without good reason. There are a number of process improvements already in place and ongoing work to address these issues, ensuring our approach is more responsive and better aligned with claimants’ individual circumstances. We have no current plans for further research in this area but will keep this under review as we consider further policy reforms.