House of Commons - Work and Pensions

Select Committee on Work and Pensions Minutes of Evidence

Annex D

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE ONE EVALUATION PUBLICATIONS

Clients entering the ONE service

1. The ONE service was recorded as being used 372,000 times to make a claim for benefit in ONE areas in the first 12 months of full-participation (table 1).[3] The mandatory first personal adviser interview was conducted in 289,000 of these cases, with a further 181,000 additional personal adviser meetings being held for these cases during this period. (table 2).[4]

2. For those cases where the personal adviser meeting has taken place clients may have had their meeting deferred or waived, others have not pursued their benefit claim or left the ONE service before the meeting was due.

3. A total of 322,000 people used the ONE service during this period, with 283,000 entering the service only once and 39,000 entering the service more than once.

Does ONE help move clients towards work?

4. Clients' movements towards work were measured by various activities, including changes in jobsearch activity, contact with ONE staff, the degree of work-focus in discussions between staff and clients; participation in training or voluntary work; and, where appropriate, referrals to the New Deals.

5. There was no evidence that the voluntary stage of ONE led to increases in the proportions of clients who were actively seeking work, in the medium term. Ten months after having begun their claim, approximately nine per cent of lone parents, eleven per cent of sick or disabled clients, and twenty six per cent of jobseekers in ONE pilot and control areas reported that they were looking for work. Early evidence had suggested that ONE had had an impact on levels of jobsearch for lone parents in the short-term. However, this was an effect that was no longer evident ten months after the claim start date. The proportion of clients who reported actively seeking work reduced over time, suggesting that clients lost the impetus to look for work and/or that the most motivated clients had already found work.[5]

6. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of ONE participants and non-participants who had had contact with an office four to ten months into their claim, suggesting that ONE clients did not have more contact with staff than non-ONE clients in the voluntary stage of ONE as duration on benefit increases.

7. Nevertheless, there were some indications that ONE was succeeding in its aim of providing a more work-focussed service, especially for lone parents. At the beginning of the claim, 59 per cent of lone parent participants compared to 13 per cent of non-participants had discussed finding work or training with staff. Participants were also more likely to have discussed other benefits (including in-work benefits), and childcare (especially provision and cost). Four to ten months into the claim, lone parent participants were more likely to have: had contact with a Jobcentre (55 per cent of participants compared with 34 per cent of non-participants); contacted an office to look at job vacancies (34 per cent and 17 per cent respectively); discussed ways of finding work or training courses with staff (41 per cent and 18 per cent respectively); and to have received a better-off calculation (32 per cent and 20 per cent respectively).[6]

8. Sick or disabled clients were also more likely to have received a work-focussed service. At the beginning of the claim, 51 per cent of sick or disabled ONE participants had discussed finding work or training with staff, compared with nine per cent of non-participants.[7] Participants were also more likely to have discussed other benefits (including in-work benefits), provision for health problems, and childcare (especially provision and cost). Four to ten months into the claim, ONE participants were more likely than non-participants to have discussed ways of finding work or training courses (53 per cent compared with 20 per cent).[8]

9. As expected, there was less variation between the content of personal adviser meetings in the pilot areas and new jobseeker interviews in the control areas. Four to ten months into the claim, there were no significant differences between pilot and control areas in terms of work-focus of interventions for jobseekers. However, jobseekers in the pilot areas were more likely to have discussed in-work benefits (19 per cent compared with 11 per cent in control areas). Advisers were more likely to have looked for current vacancies (45 per cent compared with 30 per cent in control areas) and to have talked about training or education (19 per cent and 11 per cent). Jobseekers in the pilot areas were more likely to agree that they felt they could return to the service at any time if they wanted (73 per cent and 62 per cent).[9]

10. There was no evidence that clients who participated in ONE were any more likely than non-participants to have been referred by staff into supported employment or voluntary work—no more than three per cent of respondents from any of the three client groups had participated in these activities. However, there was some evidence that ONE personal advisers had an impact upon take-up of educational or work-related courses by lone parents: lone parents who participated in ONE when it was voluntary were more likely than non-participants to have undertaken an educational or work-related course since claiming (21 per cent versus 13 per cent) and were more likely than their non-participating counterparts to report that staff had suggested their course. These findings were not repeated for JSA or sick or disabled clients.[10]

11. Qualitative research conducted after the introduction of full-participation found that clients of all benefit groups[11] were on a continuum which spread from "actively seeking work" at one end of the spectrum, through to those for whom "work was not an immediate priority"; and finally those for whom "work was not an option" for the foreseeable future.[12] Evidence on the impact of ONE in moving these clients towards and into work is provided in the following section on personal advisers.

How effective is ONE at helping clients into work?

12. It is not possible yet to draw definitive conclusions about the labour market impact of ONE. Findings from the voluntary stage[13] suggest that ONE has had no impact on labour market outcomes in the medium term for lone parents, sick or disabled clients, and jobseekers. In both ONE areas and control areas, approximately 55 per cent of jobseekers, 30 per cent of sick or disabled clients and 20 per cent of lone parents were in work of over 16 hours a week 10 months after they began claiming. Approximately 34 per cent of lone parents, 40 per cent of sick or disabled clients, and 70 per cent of former jobseekers had spent some time in work during the ten months since beginning their claim.[14]

13. Until April 2000, participation in ONE was voluntary for non-JSA cases. 30 per cent of lone parents reported that they had attended a meeting with a ONE personal adviser, as did 21 per cent of sick or disabled clients. As the results are based on comparing pilot areas as a whole with control areas as a whole, the fact that participation in ONE was not universal may have served to under-estimate the ONE effect, as the improved outcomes of ONE participants could have been "diluted" by the fact that most of their counterparts did not participate in ONE. However, this was not the case. Lone parents who participated in ONE were significantly more likely to have moved into work compared with those who did not participate (33 per cent compared with 21 per cent); but analysis which "matched" lone parent participants with their non-participating counterparts found that these better outcomes were entirely attributable to individuals' personal characteristics that were independent of ONE. In other words, participants were more "work ready" to begin with. For sick or disabled clients, ONE participants were no more likely to be in work than non-participants even before the matching analysis was conducted (25 per cent of participants compared with 28 per cent of non-participants, a statistically insignificant difference).[15]

14. The evidence is that ONE has had little medium-term impact on labour market outcomes; in spite of the fact that ONE seemed to have had an impact on movements into work for lone parents in the shorter term. 16 per cent of lone parents in ONE areas were in work, four to five months after having begun a claim, compared with 12 per cent of lone parents in control areas, and, when individuals" socio-economic characteristics were taken into account this represented a 40 per cent difference.

15. There are two likely explanations for why the apparent "ONE effect" has not been sustained. Firstly, it could be that ONE hastens movement into work and the onset of jobsearch, but only among those who were already likely to do so. If this is the case, it would still represent a positive outcome as the time spent on benefit, and the associated Exchequer costs, would be reduced. The second likely explanation is the fact that Working Families Tax Credit was introduced at around the same time as the voluntary phase of ONE;[16] and this could have compounded the effect of ONE. Lone parents who participated in ONE were more likely than non-participants to have received a "better off calculation" (20 per cent versus 7 per cent) and it is therefore possible that WFTC had been brought to the attention of ONE clients faster than to non-ONE clients, but as time went on awareness of WFTC would have increased. At ten months into the claim, however, the incentives to work provided by WFTC, together with the slow movement into work that would have occurred anyway, asserted itself equally in pilot and control areas, resulting in a lack of significant differences between pilot and control areas in terms of labour market outcomes in the medium term. In addition, the fact that caseloading has not been as prevalent as had been intended may have limited the extent to which ONE personal advisers were able to influence labour market outcomes.[17]

What are the costs of getting clients into work? Is the cost worthwhile in the end?

16. The cost of delivering the ONE service is being measured as part of the evaluation. Estimates of cost will include direct expenditure in the pilots, and also central support costs, the cost of services to the call centre, and an estimate of ONE's net impact on the cost of delivering core (BA/ES) services. Estimates of cost will feed into the final cost-benefit analysis, which is due to be available towards the end of next year.

Has ONE forced non-JSA clients into work?

17. There is no evidence that ONE has forced non-JSA clients into work. Research found that there were participants from all client groups who were "job ready", who were focussed on finding work. Claiming benefit was viewed as a temporary or short-term measure for these people.[18] This suggests that a work focussed interview is a sensible approach, in order to ensure that clients in traditionally "passive" benefits are given the opportunity to consider ways of moving into work, even if this is the longer term.

Has ONE provided a better service that is more tailored to clients' individual needs?

Clients' satisfaction with the service

18. Clients' satisfaction with the ONE service was strongly influenced by their expectations of it and their previous claiming experience. Most clients did not know what to expect from the ONE service and the role of the personal adviser does not appear routinely to have been explained at the start-up meeting. Generally, ONE clients' expectations of the personal adviser meeting tended to reflect their immediate needs and circumstances and so, inevitably, they focussed on submitting and receiving the benefit claim form. Few clients expected ONE or the personal adviser to provide them with help in finding work or for thinking about work in the longer term.[19]

19. ONE participants (who went through ONE during the voluntary phase of the pilots) from all groups were more likely than non-participants to agree that they had been treated as an individual, and to report that they had been treated very well. Differences in satisfaction levels between lone parent and sick or disabled participants and non-participants were evident both at the early, and at the later stages of the claim.[20]

20. During the first four months of the claim, over 80 per cent of participating lone parents and sick or disabled clients and 74 per cent of jobseekers agreed that they had been treated as an individual, compared with 69 per cent of non-participating lone parents, 64 per cent of non-participating sick or disabled clients and 67 per cent of jobseekers in the control areas.[21]

21. Clients liked the fact that ONE provided a service at a single location with a single personal adviser contact. Clients generally found the service to be streamlined and efficient.[22]

22. Clients were positive about the advantages that ONE offered them during initial meetings. They appreciated the help they received at the start of their claim and the discussion about benefit eligibility and in-work benefits. Clients felt strongly that benefit issues should be discussed before work issues, and some clients indicated a strong preference for their claims to be fully processed before they had a work-focussed meeting. Indeed, some client were only prepared to discuss work once their claim for benefit had been sorted out.[23]

23. Clients reacted positively to the service when they felt that their adviser listened to what they were saying, respected their views and offered help or advice on issues that they raised. Clients liked the idea of having a dedicated personal adviser who knew their circumstances and would be able to deliver a more personal service. Lone parents reacted well to the personalised service, although some wanted more proactive work advice and early interventions.[24]

24. Issues of privacy and access were raised with regard to the ONE environment. Although generally the modern ONE environment was praised, both staff and clients felt that the open environment sometimes led to problems when discussing sensitive issues. The lack of private rooms was frequently mentioned.[25]

25. Research found that personal adviser meetings were shorter than envisaged, with significant variation in length. Observational case studies showed that meetings lasted on average 30 minutes, with the majority taking between 20 and 40 minutes.[26] The research found no evidence that particular types of benefit group needed shorter meetings than others, with the exception of sick or disabled clients who were shortly intending to return to their old jobs. The nature of the relationship between clients and personal advisers was critical to the service an individual received. Clients viewed personal advisers as friendly and helpful. However, evidence indicated that advisers felt that they did not always have the skills to address complex benefit issues or explore how clients' personal circumstances might affect their ability to find work.[27]

The work-focussed element of ONE

26. ONE was intended to provide a work-focussed gateway to the benefit system for people of working age claiming out-of-work benefits. In practice, the service was dominated by benefit issues and work discussions tended to be routine and screen based (computer screen prompted) and not led by clients. Where there was efficient back-up from "benefit experts", advisers were more able to achieve a work-focus.[28]

Follow up after the initial personal adviser meeting

27. Under ONE, voluntary follow-up meetings (or caseloading) are available to clients. Clients expected voluntary follow-up meetings to be individualised and flexible, but personal advisers appeared to spend relatively little time caseloading.[29]

28. Evidence from the voluntary phase of ONE in the basic model variant, found no significant differences in the proportions of ONE participants and non-participants who had follow up contact with a ONE office between four and ten months after their claim. This suggests that ONE clients had no more contact with staff than non-ONE clients as duration on benefit increased.[30]

29. Where caseloading did take place, there was wide variation in the way work was addressed and the timing of the intervention. However, where good relationships were established between the personal adviser and the client, the client was more likely to return to their adviser for help and assistance. Qualitative research found only a few instances where clients saw their personal adviser a second time but many respondents suggested that they would return to their personal adviser if they felt the need or when they wanted to return to work.[31]

30. Among those who had contacted a ONE office during the later stages of their claim, both lone parents and sick and disabled ONE participants continued to give more favourable assessments than non-participants of the service that they had received. Thirty-three per cent of lone parent participants considered that they had been treated "very well" in contacts with staff, compared with 18 per cent of non-participants. The corresponding figures for sick and disabled clients were 28 per cent and 14 per cent respectively. Lone parents participants were also significantly more likely than non-participants to have discussed arrangements for looking after their children if they started working (26 per cent compared with 17 per cent).[32]

31. There is some evidence that ONE also provided a more individually tailored service to jobseekers, particularly in the later stages of their claim. Four to ten months in to the claim, two-fifths of jobseekers reported having arranged a meeting with a personal adviser at their own request. Over four-fifths said that the meetings afforded them sufficient time to discuss the issues which were important to them, and two-thirds reported that they particularly liked an aspect of the ONE service. However, about one-quarter cited an aspect of the ONE service that they particularly disliked.[33]

Personal advisers—what they do to help clients into work; in particular non-JSA clients, especially sick or disabled

32. Some clients were already working when the entered ONE. This group included widows[34] and lone parents and carers with part-time jobs. Where clients were already in work, even if it was for only a few hours a week, personal advisers tended to concentrate on benefits. As a result, there was no change in the attitudes and/or behaviour of this group, although some of those without caring responsibilities were interested in working full-time.[35]

33. Personal advisers were able to make a direct impact on the behaviour of clients who wanted to work but who lacked a clear or comprehensive jobsearch strategy. Personal adviser help was particularly effective when the personal adviser was familiar with the client's personal circumstances or work goals, either through their own experience or because they knew someone who had been in a similar situation. Personal advisers were able to help clients who wanted a job immediately by providing focussed advice on searching for jobs. This increased clients' confidence and effectiveness in looking for work. Many of these clients went on to find work, or started vocational training to improve their skills and qualifications.[36]

34. For clients for whom work was an option in the future, personal advisers were unable to make such a positive impact as for their work-ready counterparts. This was often because, in the personal adviser meeting, personal advisers concentrated on benefits and work was not discussed in any great depth.[37]

35. For clients for whom work was not an option, personal advisers found that they could change some clients' attitudes to work and benefits by exploring different options available. Lone parents often discussed wider interests and hobbies, which allowed personal advisers to suggest relevant training opportunities. For some sick or disabled clients, more general discussions with the personal adviser about their past experiences and options for the future meant that they felt that work was now a realistic and achievable option for them. However, most sick or disabled clients still felt after their personal adviser meeting that work was not an option.[38]

Changes in culture—has the ONE service changed attitudes towards benefits and the benefit system?

Clients' attitudes

36. For clients claiming benefit for the first time and for those for whom work was an immediate priority, the ONE service was extremely beneficial. Any negative attitudes these clients had about the benefit system were challenged by the helpful and friendly approach adopted by their personal adviser and as a result, these clients actively participated in their personal adviser meetings. Similarly, job-ready clients with previous experience of claiming were open and receptive to advice and support offered by their personal adviser once they realised that ONE was a new, more personalised approach. However, some jobseekers (who had claimed JSA before) felt the ONE service was the same as that they had received previously and compared the advice they received from ONE unfavourably with that they had received before.[39]

37. ONE was highly successful in changing the attitudes towards benefits and the benefit system of clients who had lost a partner either through bereavement or separation. For these people, the ONE service focussed on benefit claims and therefore provided these people with financial security during a period of uncertainty and disruption. Work was not discussed in detail with these clients. These clients suggested that because personal advisers had dealt sympathetically with them and had allowed them time to come to terms with their new situation, they were then able to think about their next steps and where to go from there. These clients also said that personal advisers had made sure that they knew that help and support was available should they need it. As a result, many clients felt confident that they would return once they felt that work was a more immediate priority and some were already beginning to think about the type of jobs they were interested in.[40]

Staff Attitudes

38. There is consistent evidence of frontline staff commitment to the ONE vision of a one-stop-shop approach that provided a client-focussed, work-focussed service. However, research suggests there was a disparity between the vision and everyday reality. For example, staff lacked the time to carry out caseloading and the skills to effectively identify client needs in relation to work (especially for the harder to reach clients).[41]

39. Staff perceived under-resourcing had impacted on their ability to "do the job". In particular, there was too much paperwork (which could have been done by support staff), combined with not enough downtime to catch up with paperwork, "end-to-end" bookings of mandatory interviews with clients; and they were required to keep to strict time schedules (staff felt they needed to be more flexible about the time needed with some clients).[42]

40. Staff, particularly in call centre areas, questioned the division of labour between start-up and personal advisers. They argued that a more integrated approach would be more productive and where staff roles had been less rigid the service had worked well. In addition, where staff shared an office there tended to be a better appreciation of each others circumstances and constraints.[43]

41. Staff were positive about local management and felt that this had improved over the lifetime of the pilots, with more management presence on site. They were also generally satisfied with their relationships with other advisers and they valued the experience of pooling skills with colleagues. However, it is difficult during a pilot, at least at this stage, to distinguish definite changes in culture as defined in terms of organisational behaviour.[44]

42. Research showed that personal advisers did not always have the training and skills required to uncover fundamental client characteristics, like mental health problems, substance abuse, literacy and numeracy problems, poor communication skills and low confidence levels and to refer clients to suitable specialist provision.[45]

43. Staff and trainers considered training to be inadequate and untimely. This caused particular strain at the start of the pilots and immediately after the introduction of full participation, but also had a critical long-term effect. Research indicated that specific ONE training to address the cultural aspects of the service would improve and help staff understand what they are delivering. Staff perceived training to be too process-orientated and not focussed on customer needs. This was particularly relevant for those staff who had less experience with non-JSA clients and needed to learn new interviewing and interaction skills. Staff reported that they would appreciate more training on handling sensitive issues. Managers also identified a lack of management specific training.[46]

Local authorities—how have they dealt with the ONE service and what impact has this had on the service?

44. In some areas, ONE staff felt that the level of local authority support and commitment to ONE was limited. ONE staff also felt that not all local authority staff were fully integrated into the ONE service and that staff who were recruited from local authorities had a very different organisational culture from that of the Employment Service and Benefits Agency. Integration of local authorities in ONE was not helped by the fact that there were fewer local authority staff than those from Employment Service and the Benefits Agency. However, where ONE staff with an Employment Service or Benefits Agency background worked with staff from the local authority, they appreciated their colleagues" expertise on Housing Benefit.[47] Local authority staff were as committed to the ONE vision as their Employment Service/Benefits Agency counterparts and appreciated the teamwork aspects of their role.

45. Evidence suggests that clients like the idea of a holistic service, in which they can apply for their working age benefits, including Housing Benefit, at the same time and from the same place.[48]

Partnerships

46. Partnerships between agencies (specifically, the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency and local authorities, and private voluntary sector organisations running the private voluntary sector model) appeared to be constructive at the management level and the scope and value of these partnerships has improved over time. However, some staff complained about a lack of co-operation and support from agencies at operational level (there will be more detailed findings about partnership in the final Case Studies and Staff Research report due in spring 2002).[49]

ONE CLIENT SUB GROUPS

47. Many of the findings presented above relate to the three main client groups, lone parents, jobseekers and sick or disabled people that make up 95 per cent of the clients entering ONE. Emerging findings on other client groups are outlined:

Widows

48. Overall, widows found the process of claiming benefits inopportune, and both mentally and emotionally difficult in any case (not specifically to do with ONE). Although staff understood the importance of a sensitive approach to this group, they found it hard to talk about the issues surrounding bereavement. Although widows were not prepared to think about work at the time of their claim, many planned to return to work within six months or a year, and did not want, or expect, to claim benefit for a significant period of time. Generally, although widows supported the principles of ONE, they felt that their initial personal adviser meeting took place too soon after their bereavement.[50]

49. The extent to which ONE made an impact on the attitudes and behaviour of widows was limited, often because personal advisers concentrated on benefits and did not discuss work in any depth. The ONE service primarily provided widows with financial security during a period of uncertainty and disruption. Personal advisers had the greatest impact was achieved with those widows where work had often played an important role in their life, either before the death of their spouse, or before they started caring for their husband on a full-time basis.[51]

Carers

50. Research showed that some carers felt they experienced two claiming systems—they went through ONE for themselves and then had to use the "old" system to claim for those for whom they were caring. This led to great inconvenience for some carers in this group, who would have preferred to experience a single system and not contact several agencies.[52]

51. However, carers viewed face-to-face contact with their personal adviser positively and they appreciated help completing the forms. They valued the support and the continuity that the service offered.[53]

52. For carers, their caring responsibilities had priority over work. Some did combine caring with work, while others did not consider work to be an option at the time of their claim. In both cases, these clients were aware that their ability to work was constrained by the level of care required by their dependants.[54]

53. Some carers therefore thought that the initial meeting was untimely, and felt unable to consider work whatsoever, but others welcomed the intervention and the possibility of work in the longer term, or on a part-time basis. In most cases, the personal advisers did not discuss the possibility of combining work with existing responsibilities. Instead, most meetings focussed on either the claim or work separately.[55]

Older Clients

54. Age had an important effect on clients' attitudes towards work and jobsearch, regardless of client group. Many older clients discounted work as an option because of their age and had effectively left the labour market.

55. However, some older clients were enthusiastic about discussing work options with their personal adviser and were pleased to be told that they were not too old to search for and obtain work. They felt encouraged by their personal advisers and felt that they could return to them for further advice and support if needed.[56]

Ethnic minorities

56. Ethnic minority clients were less likely to find work than white clients, even when other characteristics are controlled for. This was equally the case in ONE pilot and control areas.[57]

What has been the effect of ONE on the level of inaccuracy and fraud in the benefit system?

57. The impact of ONE on the level of inaccuracy and fraud in the system will be measured by drawing on the regular sampling exercises that the Department carries out to support measurement against the Public Service Agreement (PSA) target and by comparing measures in ONE pilot and control areas. These will give an indication of ONE's impact, though, unless ONE leads to a big change in the level of accuracy, we will not able to detect it with a high degree of confidence.

58. We have some evidence that ONE reduced the proportion of claims for which the Benefits Agency had to contact the client again for further information to support the claim. However, we have no evidence that this led to an improvement in levels of accuracy.

What has been the effect of ONE on the speed of benefit processing?

59. This is being measured, as part of the evaluation. We are assessing the end-to-end benefit claim process, for ONE clients. Comparisons are also being made between ONE pilot and control areas (though this is only possible where parts of the process are the same in both pilot and control areas).

60. Clients had a strong expectations that ONE would mean that their benefit claims were dealt with more speedily but this was not generally their experience.[58] At present, there is no conclusive evidence that ONE had any impact on the time taken for staff to process benefit claims.

EMERGING FINDINGS ON THE DIFFERENT ONE MODELS

61. Early experience of the three models was not markedly different, mainly because the personal adviser service was very similar in all models and because the relationship between the personal adviser and the client was pivotal. The exception is clients' experience of the call centre at the front end.

Emerging findings on call centres

62. Generally, clients considered the call centre to be highly convenient (especially those in rural areas or with access problems eg the physically disabled or those with children). Some clients in basic and private and voluntary sector models were confused as to why they had to attend two meetings.[59]

63. Clients' experience of making a claim electronically was positive, as they did not have to deal with unwieldy and complicated forms. They also preferred the privacy and security of making their claim by telephone, although some clients expressed a preference for face-to-face meetings at start-up (which seems to point towards the need to continuing a face-to-face service for a small number of clients).[60]

64. There were mixed views regarding the ONE hotline (where clients could use a telephone in an office to conduct their start-up meeting).[61]

Emerging findings on the private and voluntary sector model

65. The basic and private and voluntary sector (PVS) models offered similar services but clients in PVS areas were more likely to think that advisers offered a comprehensive explanation of the ONE service and demonstrated high standards of customer care.[62]

66. Clients' experience of innovations was limited. Those who did experience the use of training receptionists, job databases and self-help electronic kiosks viewed them positively. Innovations which involved clients being able to seek work independently were well received. Some areas had developed specific provider databases to refer clients to specialist provision that worked well.[63]

How have employers taken to the ONE service?

67. Research was conducted in the ONE pilot areas with employers who had recruited from ONE relevant groups (in particular, lone parents, long-term unemployed people and people with physical disabilities or mental health problems), not necessarily as a direct result of the ONE service, to test their attitudes and behaviour towards recruiting these clients.[64]

68. Employers did not have any significant concerns about taking on lone parents, and three quarters (72 per cent) did not feel that "people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months are not interested in working".[65] A high proportion of employers (63 per cent) also agreed that they would be "'just as likely to take on someone who has been unemployed for more than two years as more than 12 months".

EMPLOYERS' ATTITUDES TO RECRUITING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES OR MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS

69. Four-fifths (81 per cent) of employers felt that "Coping with their physical disabilities or mental health problems gives many of these people a strong will to succeed". However, half (51 per cent) of employers also said they '" would be less concerned about employing someone with a physical disability than those with mental health problems". Employers were concerned about the ability of these people to undertake the required work.[66]

Adjustments to the workplace

70. In general, employers were amenable to making adjustments to their working practices in order to accommodate the needs of these employees; and indeed 60 per cent of employers who had recently recruited people from these groups reported having done this. These adjustments mainly related to working hours (especially for lone parents), but also included the acquisition of special equipment or other changes in the work environment in order to address the needs of those with disabilities. There were some examples of employers making changes to the job specification in order to address the needs of new recruits, such as by removing the need to use computers or to deal with customers.[67]

Additional training and support for recruits

71. On the whole, employers felt that they did not need to provide additional training and support to lone parent recruits, relative to other recruits. However, about twenty per cent of employers reported they had needed to provide additional training to former long-term unemployed recruits, especially IT training, although confidence building was also found to be necessary. A similar proportion of employers reported that they provided additional training or support to people with physical or learning disabilities, for example lip-reading courses for deaf people; and readers for people with dyslexia.[68]

Services that would increase employers' use of ONE offices/jobcentres

72. Research was conducted to explore employers' views of new ideas that could increase their use of ONE offices/jobcentres to recruit people.

73. 87 per cent of employers thought that providing more information on recruits was a good idea and forty per cent said it would make them more likely to take on ONE-relevant recruits.[69]

74. 84 per cent of employers were interested in the idea of an "account manager", a dedicated member of the ONE staff with specialist knowledge of a particular industry sector, and 56 per cent reported that they would be more likely to use ONE offices if the service was available.[70]

75. 79 per cent of employers reported that they would be keen to receive advice from ONE offices as to how the needs of ONE recruits could best be met; and 45 per cent of employers reported that they would be more likely to use the jobcentre should this information be available. In particular, employers felt that they needed further advice on the work incentive measures available.[71]

76. 69 per cent of employers responded positively to the idea of a specialist adviser who would provide support to ONE recruits and their employers following successful job placement; and 40 per cent reported that they would be more likely to use a jobcentre if this were the case.[72]

Table 1

NEW SPELLS[73] IN ONE, APRIL 2000 TO MARCH 2001

Client Type[74]
	All Spells	JSA	Non-JSA
All models	371,521	238,975	132,546
Basic model	115,329	75,687	39,642
Call centre	120,126	75,898	44,228
Private voluntary sector	136,066	87,390	48,676

Source: OEDB—LMS Spells Database.

Table 2

PERSONAL ADVISER MEETINGS[75] FOR ONE CLIENTS ENTERING

ONE between April 2000 and March 2001

	Total PA meetings	First PA[76] meetings	Additional PA[77] meetings
All models	469,799	289,032	180,767
Basic model	133,580	87,491	46,089
Call centre	144,997	94,309	50,688
Private voluntary sector	191,222	107,232	83,990

Source: OEDB—LMS Spells Database

Caveats

1. Further work to quality assure these data for ONE Evaluation purposes is on-going with work to link benefit information to the Labour Market System information.

3 These are cases recorded on the Labour Market System as having used the ONE service. Back

4 This includes voluntary caseload and trigger meetings and mandatory interventions at 13 and 26 weeks for Jobseekers. Back

5 DSS Research Report No 126, "First Effects of ONE" and DSS Research Report no. 149 Client Survey cohort 1, wave 2. This analysis is based on the basic model only. Back

6 DSS Research Report No 149, Client Survey cohort 1, wave 2. This analysis is based on the basic model only. Back

7 Clients who reported having attended at least one meeting with a ONE personal adviser constitute the "participants" in this analysis. 30 per cent of lone parents and 21 per cent of sick and disabled clients reported having participated in ONE within the first four months of their claim. Back

8 DSS Research Report No 149, Client Survey cohort 1, wave 2. This analysis is based on the basic model only. Back

9 DSS Research Report No 149, Client Survey cohort 1, wave 2. This analysis is based on the basic model only. Back

10 DSS Research Report No 149 Client Survey cohort 1, wave 2. This analysis is based on the basic model only. Back

11 With the exception of jobseekers, who reported being work-focussed at the outset of their claim. Back

12 DSS Research Report No 140, "Moving towards work: the short-term impact of ONE". Back

13 The voluntary stage of the survey was conducted in basic model pilot and control areas only. The full-participation stage of the research will cover all three delivery models. Back

14 DSS Research Report No 149 (i) e. report on cohort 1, wave 2). This analysis is based on the basic model only. Back