The peril of pigeon holes

Evidence from east Lancashire suggests assumptions we make about the needs of the unemployed are often wide of the mark. Adrian Nolan and Stuart MacDonald examine how to ensure we don’t end up with an oversimplified welfare to work programme

Welfare reform was at the forefront of government policy under the previous Labour administration and the coalition government has followed suit with its highly publicised welfare reform bill.

The Work Programme is the centrepiece of plans to reform welfare by replacing all existing provision with a single integrated programme. Importantly, the government claims that the Work Programme will be designed to be flexible enough to meet the needs of individual claimants.

But how far do the proposals go in ensuring flexibility determined by both individual and place based needs are at the forefront of change?

One of the most important elements of the Work Programme is there is minimum service offer that prime contractors are obliged to make and payment will be made by results. Above and beyond this, the contractor is supposed to fit support around individual needs and it remains to be seen to what extent those with complicated barriers are supported and whether a ‘local’ Work Programme can emerge which allows bespoke solutions to be developed.

We’ll only know through practice whether the proposals will allow innovative practices to blossom, and ensure people get the services they need; or whether the new package will simply further result in uniform delivery mechanisms which do little to address inherent unemployment issues.

AGE ISN’T NECESSARILY THE BIG ISSUE
A new study into the needs of claimants in Blackburn and Darwen, Lancashire shows it will take a major step change and considerable transformation in delivery practices to achieve the government’s desired outcomes.

Blackburn with Darwen 50+ Partnership wanted to look into the barriers to employment for people aged 50+. The research addressed a number of fundamental considerations around the state of the local labour market, such as barriers faced by the over 50s; likely future supply and demand; and future support needs. Although there are clearly issues around skills, confidence and age discrimination, the study indicates age is not the primary factor policy practitioners should be concerned about.

People do not engage with support services on the basis of their age, but on the shape of their needs, and therefore current approaches to segmenting groups on the basis of age is a false arrangement. Sorting people into groups based on the benefits they receive also places people into pigeon holes that do little to help develop the support services they need to help them to enter or re-enter the labour market.

We need to stand back and review the approach, and the development of a Work Programme provides that opportunity. To help the full spectrum of people out there that require support, a range of mechanisms and tools are needed. And for these to be effective we require a more sophisticated way to categorise those out of work according to their needs.

For example, an 52 year old unemployed Asian female who comes to the labour market for the first time as a result of her husband’s redundancy will have significantly different support needs to a white female of the same age who has been made redundant from a well paid job she has held for 15 years, and who would like to start a home based business.

They may be the same age and have been claiming the same benefit for the same length of time, but the Asian female could have more in common with a school leaver in terms of support needs, while the white female may have more in common with a recent graduate looking to start a web business.

CHANGING OUR APPROACH
A better understanding of the behaviours, needs and aspirations of the unemployed along with a detailed knowledge of the barriers to employment will ensure we target services more effectively at a local level.

We need to supplement the way we currently categorise people according to age or work-related benefit with behaviour characteristics, aspirations and needs that cut across groups. This will in turn support the development of fit for purpose, localised employment support services.

For example, these new ‘categories’ could include:

Churn: Those who are willing to work but who are caught in a cycle of unsustainable jobs and job-seeking benefits

Demotivated: Those who have been unemployed for a significant period of time and despite their efforts have found it difficult to obtain employment. As a result they have become demotivated and have decided there is no suitable work out there for them

Avoider: Frequently use denial of appropriate opportunities to justify their continuing reliance on benefits – they do not take up offers of support and are unreliable. They make little/no effort to progress and have limited aspirations

Proactive: Those recently made unemployed and who are seeking work through a number of routes

Lifestyle: Those who have experienced a multitude of significant barriers which makes securing work very difficult (e.g. drug use/housing problems/relationship issues/crime). They may have other priorities more pressing than getting a job, or make securing employment difficult (e.g. caring and childcare)

Disorientated: Find it difficult to know where to go to access support. They could have a long history of working or be unsure of where to secure support to overcome long-term issues (e.g. health)

The model would change from place to place, reflecting local needs and the economic and social history, and needs to be further moulded to create a sophisticated prototype. This approach can help to draw conclusions about the characteristics and behaviours of people who live in small areas, with the underlying premise that similar people live in similar places, do similar things and have similar lifestyles. This type of analysis can challenge widely held views and provide an evidence base for much smarter targeting of resources.

IMPLICATIONS FOR WELFARE REFORM
By April the government intends to end all current welfare to work schemes and replace them with a single Work Programme. It is hoped the programme will be a step towards better tailored support, but to what extent will it move beyond targeting narrow characteristics such as age, a label which can sometimes stigmatise individuals or mask the diversity of support needs within groups?

In the drive to streamline the benefits system, and to reduce the costs of employment support, it may develop as a nationally driven and overly simplistic framework which encourages support providers at a local level to be output focused, cherry picking those they support and leaving those that face multiple barriers at the back of a reduced support queue, with little else to support them other than the Big Society catch all, solve all.

The Work Programme needs to be locally flexible and localities need the space (and resources) to re-examine the way they approach employment support. Better intelligence can deliver more cost-effective interventions and support people locally through these reforms.

• To find out more about the research, carried out by CLES Consulting, contact stuartmacdonald@cles.org.uk