4th Report – Get Britain Working: Reforming Jobcentres

Claimant commitments should be a cornerstone of the relationship between claimants and work coaches. But too often, commitments set work search requirements that are too generic and sometimes counter-productive (such as completing a set number of applications or spending 35-hours job searching per week). We heard that complying with these blanket conditions can be stressful and can leave people feeling disempowered and unsupported. We welcome the Government’s undertaking to review the claimant commitment, including trialling changes to the commitment. However, we would have liked to have heard from DWP about more substantial plans to reform this crucial part of the benefits process to make it a meaningful part of people’s journey to work. We are concerned that the only change DWP told us about was splitting the claimant commitment meeting into two meetings, which does not fill us with confidence about DWP’s ambitions. (Conclusion, Paragraph 22)

Instead of an internal review, DWP should publicly consult on changes to the claimant commitment. DWP should consider removing blanket requirements, such as the 35-hour job search requirement, and replacing them with a personalised action plan that is co-developed between the claimant and work coach, and relevant to the claimant’s skills and experience. (Recommendation, Paragraph 23)

To demonstrate the Government’s commitment to supporting rather than coercing people into employment, it should introduce an employment support guarantee that sets out the personalised support and advice people can expect to receive from the new jobs and careers service. (Recommendation, Paragraph 24)

We were encouraged to hear that the Government wants to shift the focus of Jobcentre appointments away from monitoring benefit compliance and towards personalised employment support. This shift is urgently needed. The Department now needs to expand on how it will deliver this change. 52 It is not clear how Jobcentre appointments will change and whether there will be a new process for monitoring benefit compliance. We are concerned that without meaningful change in these areas the opportunity of these reforms will be lost. (Conclusion, Paragraph 30)

In its response to this report, DWP should clarify what changes it is making to the system for monitoring compliance with benefit conditions. In particular, it should set out how it will move benefit monitoring “from the foreground to the background” of Jobcentre appointments. (Recommendation, Paragraph 31)

Sanctions are the sharp end of benefit conditionality. DWP’s own evidence shows that sanctions don’t work, causing people to move more slowly into work and to earn less. While sanctions have a place in the benefits system, there is clear evidence that their current application is not working. A more limited and sensible use of sanctions would go a long way to rebuilding trust in Jobcentres, removing the current stigma attached to them and enabling them to provide genuine employment support. (Conclusion, Paragraph 41)

Sanctions risk undermining the work of Jobcentres and acting against the Government’s employment goals. DWP must develop a new approach to the use of sanctions. It should consider: • adopting a trauma-informed approach to sanctioning decisions; • issuing warnings rather than an immediate sanction; • having the option of non-financial sanctions, where appropriate, such as further mandatory appointments; • including greater assessment of someone’s circumstances and reasons for a breach prior to a sanctioning decision; • improving the communication of sanction decisions to people, and • providing an easier route for decisions to be challenged. In its response to this report, DWP should explain to the Committee what steps it will take to develop this approach. If DWP does not plan to change how it uses sanctions, then we recommend that, in its response, the Government sets out its evidence that the current approach to sanctions improves employment outcomes, including consideration of the possible “deterrent effect”. We also recommend that, in the context of its reforms, DWP undertakes and publishes new research to update its evidence base, which is based on data from 2019. This should include research into the consequences of sanctions on people’s health and wellbeing. (Recommendation, Paragraph 42) 53

DWP should set out more detail about how it will build a systems-based approach to safeguarding into the new jobs and careers service, including its conditionality and sanctions policy. We previously recommended that the Chief Medical Advisor assess the potential health impact on claimants of all policy changes, and we expect such an assessment to take place before any changes to Jobcentres and work coach support. (Recommendation, Paragraph 43) Empowering work coaches

Work coaches are an incredible resource but they are currently being ineffectively deployed. Work coaches often do not have enough time with claimants to have an impact, with many appointments no more than 10 minutes long: not nearly enough to address the needs of many claimants who are further from employment. What time they do have is frequently poorly directed, with too little time spent building relationships and coaching people into work, and too much spent checking compliance with benefit conditions. (Conclusion, Paragraph 63)

Over the next year, DWP should undertake a detailed review of its work coach model. It should evaluate the difference work coach support makes to employment outcomes for different groups, identifying those who would most benefit from more support and those who do not require work coaching because, for example, they are likely to only temporarily be out of the workforce. As part of this, DWP should look at evidence-based options for empowering work coaches, including how to give them greater autonomy over how best to support individual claimants while maintaining a consistent service. It should also look at best practice among other providers of employment support, including voluntary and community sector organisations, which we have heard can provide a more tailored service. DWP should publish the results of this review. (Recommendation, Paragraph 64)

We were encouraged to hear that DWP wants work coaches to have more time with claimants and to deliver more personalised support. Coaching that is tailored to the aspirations of the service user and that seeks to identify the unique barriers people face will be far more effective than the current support provided. However, work coaches are already stretched, with too few employed to deliver this service currently. DWP will need to develop a clear plan for how it prioritises work coach time to deliver this higher-quality service and its other planned reforms. While DWP has already made some decisions about how best to use work coach time, reducing work coach time with some claimants, we are concerned that these changes are occurring in an ad hoc manner, with limited evidence and no clear strategy. (Conclusion, Paragraph 65) 54

We recommend that DWP looks at how to better manage work coach capacity, including modelling how its planned Jobcentre reforms will change demand for work coach time and capacity. In response to this inquiry, it should set out: • a summary of this modelling; • its plans for meeting the demands of the new service with the available supply of work coaches; • a framework for deciding who it will prioritise for time with work coaches; • its understanding of how work coaches’ caseloads vary across different activities and between different Jobcentres; and • its plans for monitoring the changing demands on work coaches and managing future changes. (Recommendation, Paragraph 66)

DWP’s solution to a lack of work coach capacity is to use digital tools, with its flagship plan being a ‘Jobcentre in your pocket’. DWP plans to deliver this digital tool in 2027–28, but has yet to define what it is, how it will work and who it is for. While it is good to see the Government bringing Jobcentres into the modern world, we believe that digital tools alone won’t be able to deliver the level of transformation needed. In particular, we are concerned that DWP has not fully addressed the risks posed by AI technology. (Conclusion, Paragraph 76)

In its response to this report, DWP should provide more details about its plans for a ‘Jobcentre in your pocket’. DWP should set out what the public can expect from a ‘Jobcentre in your pocket’, how it will interact with the current Universal Credit journal and how it will ensure it delivers a successful digital product that meets claimants’ needs. (Recommendation, Paragraph 77)

DWP should work with the employment support sector to develop a framework for the ethical use of AI in employment support. (Recommendation, Paragraph 78) ‘Good jobs’ not ‘any jobs’

The previous Government’s ‘ABC’ approach to employment support (any job, better job, career) has not worked. While it may move people off benefits in the short-term, it all too often does not lead to long-term, sustainable employment and exacerbates the low-pay, no-pay cycle. This is not a good outcome for claimants, employers or the taxpayer. We are pleased to hear that DWP will no longer force people into ‘any job’ available, with support 55 instead to focus on building rewarding careers. DWP must now match its aspiration with action. DWP will need to be open to the fact that finding good jobs may initially involve people spending longer on out-of-work benefits, but it will deliver better value for money in the long-term, with them less likely to return to benefits in the future. (Conclusion, Paragraph 91)

As a first step to changing the approach of Jobcentres, DWP should return the period during which jobseekers can pursue opportunities in their preferred sector to 3 months. (Recommendation, Paragraph 92)

DWP should incorporate the good work agenda into claimants’ benefit conditions. Work coaches should agree what constitutes a ‘good job’ for each claimant during a more personalised claimant commitment process. DWP should set out in response to this report how it will train and support work coaches to do this. (Recommendation, Paragraph 93)

We welcome the Government’s focus on ‘good work’. Currently, Jobcentres too often prioritise short-term measures, such as benefit off-flow, rather than whether claimants enter good-quality, sustainable employment. Good jobs are better for citizens, employers and the state, while supporting a productive economy. DWP has the opportunity to bring the good work agenda to life through its Jobcentre reforms. We look forward to hearing how DWP will deliver this important shift in focus. (Conclusion, Paragraph 98)

To encourage Jobcentres to adopt longer-term thinking, DWP should add long-term employment metrics to its Jobcentre performance monitoring framework, such as whether people are still in work six or twelve months after leaving Jobcentres. DWP should also introduce metrics that can measure job quality, in addition to the information it already collates on increasing earnings. DWP should ensure that it incentivises employment support providers to focus on long-term outcomes and supporting those further from the labour market. (Recommendation, Paragraph 99)

The ‘any job’ approach has not just been detrimental to claimants: it has also led employers to stop engaging with Jobcentres. Employers will use Jobcentres if it helps them find good employees, but their experience of Jobcentre candidates is often of people forced to apply just to meet benefit conditions. Efforts by DWP to engage with employers risk being undermined until Jobcentres stop pushing people into any job and start focussing on good, sustainable work. (Conclusion, Paragraph 106)

DWP needs to rebuild trust with employers. This will require making better use of its network of Jobcentres and the employer advisers who work in them. To start, DWP should consider setting individual Jobcentres targets for engaging local employers. This engagement should go beyond a surface-level relationship and focus on understanding the needs of these employers, providing information to improve work coaches’ job-matching. 56 As part of this, Jobcentres, particularly the existing employer advisers, should be encouraged to work with local employers to identify how their services can be made more demand-led. We believe that improving the quality of liaison with employers could improve the impact of Jobcentres, as could more innovative practice, such as Paisley Jobcentre’s ‘take a job to work day’. In areas of greatest need, DWP should consider recruiting an additional role of a specialist employer liaison officer, who would have experience of national and local business and would be tasked with building deep relationships with local employers and opening up more opportunities for good jobs for service users. (Recommendation, Paragraph 107)

Jobcentres offer a golden opportunity for the Government to influence employers and to create more ‘good jobs’. DWP should work with the Department for Business and Trade to expand Jobcentre’s offer to employers. The two Departments should work together to develop a support offer on better employment practices, including guidance on recruiting, retaining and training a more diverse workforce. (Recommendation, Paragraph 110) Integrating and improving services

Many people who use Jobcentres have multiple and complex needs, which can act as barriers to them securing employment. Too often, issues that prevent people from finding jobs go unaddressed. Jobcentres and Jobcentre staff will not be able to address these barriers on their own. If DWP is serious about increasing employment, it will need to look beyond employment support and integrate Jobcentres with other services and providers. The voluntary and community sector can help Jobcentres provide more holistic support and can help to reach people who Jobcentres have historically failed. Some Jobcentres already build good partnerships with local organisations, but partnership working is inconsistent across the country and under-utilised. In 2016, a previous Committee concluded that Jobcentres may fail to support vulnerable claimants if they are unable to work with local organisations. This conclusion is only more pressing today. (Conclusion, Paragraph 120)

DWP should improve how it works with the voluntary and community sector, but first it needs to understand its current position. DWP should undertake an audit of its existing partnership work. It should use this to develop new operational models and to identify opportunities for better local partnerships, such as increased co-location. It should also start collecting more consistent, detailed data about Jobcentre partnerships on an ongoing basis, incorporating partnership activities into the performance management of individual Jobcentres. (Recommendation, Paragraph 121) 57

DWP needs to break Jobcentres out of their four walls. It should make outreach work, with staff taking Jobcentre services into the community and to locations that people trust, a core part of the new service. DWP should include larger-scale outreach work in its pathfinders for the new jobs and careers service. (Recommendation, Paragraph 122)

Jobcentres are not places that people want to go to. They are often run-down and lack basic facilities, including accessibility features. An intimidating security presence can create additional barriers for some. It will be important that when people walk through the door of the new service, it does not look and feel similar to now. Such an outcome would undermine what DWP is trying to achieve and be a missed opportunity. (Conclusion, Paragraph 130)

In its response to this report, DWP should set out how it will use its increased capital funds to revitalise the Jobcentre estate. DWP needs to make more of its Jobcentre spaces and it should make sure that the physical infrastructure is adaptable to local needs and can support co- location of services. It should also explain how it will prevent the estate becoming dilapidated in the future. (Recommendation, Paragraph 131)

It is not acceptable that some Jobcentres remain inaccessible to some of the people who most need their support. In its response, DWP should set out its plan for ensuring that every Jobcentre meets full accessibility requirements. (Recommendation, Paragraph 132)

Jobseekers are not criminals and shouldn’t be greeted at Jobcentres by security guards. DWP should make security guards much less visible in Jobcentres, with a more welcoming presence when people enter. (Recommendation, Paragraph 133)

We welcome the Government’s commitment to develop a locally tailored and embedded service. Local areas are best placed to understand the needs of their population and labour markets. Jobcentres need to be aware of the different local needs of people in their areas, particularly the needs of those who face additional barriers to entering work. Greater devolution of employment services also offers the opportunity to improve coordination with other services, such as skills, health and investment. Some parts of the country are more ready than others, and the Government has more work to do to balance local flexibility with national consistency, while still ensuring the employment gap between regions falls. We intend to revisit this when the Department’s plans are more developed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 138) 58