Recommendation 33

We asked the Department about cost-benefit analysis of the Access to Work scheme relative to other schemes including, if a robust case-controlled study was not possible, whether it had done any sort of modelling.63 We suggested, for example, that, if someone had been refused Access to Work support and was not able to work, the counter might be that they would be on benefits, not paying taxes and potentially requiring additional care. This kind of analysis could help demonstrate the value for money of the scheme. The Department told us that, based on its analysis of the average unit cost which was £7,000 for those receiving grants and £10,500 for those using a support worker, the scheme would need to achieve an 57 C&AG’s Report, para 1.4 58 C&AG’s Report, para 8 59 Q 38; C&AG’s Report, para 8 60 Qq 38-39; C&AG’s Report, para 1.11 61 Q 38; C&AG’s Report, para 1.12 62 Q 38 63 Qq 39 and 41 17 additionality of about 23% to break even – that is, 23% more people would need to be in work because of the scheme than would otherwise have been the case. That level of additionality would mean Access to Work would be twice as effective as any of the Department’s labour market programmes over the past 20 years.64