Evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents: early lessons from the Phase One prototype - findings of surveys
A hard copy of this report summary can be obtained by contacting Paul Noakes [E-Mail: Paul.Noakes@dwp.gsi.gov.uk] or by writing to him at the 'Social Research Division, Department for Work and Pensions, 4th Floor, Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT'.
Research Report No. 109
By Jon Hales, Carli Lessof, Wendy Roth, Mandy Gloyer and Andrew Shaw
This report forms part of the findings from an evaluation of the Phase One prototype of the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) conducted by a consortium of independent researchers at the National Centre for Social Research (formerly SCPR), the Centre for Analysis of Social Policy at the University of Bath and the Institute for Employment Research at the University of Warwick.
The aim of the NDLP prototype (launched in July and August 1997 in eight areas across the UK) was to help lone parents on Income Support move into work or towards preparing for work through the key mechanism of the support of a personal adviser.
The evaluation design included a range of research components and this report focuses primarily on survey findings. Further information on the programme and the evaluation can be found in two other reports, which are being published at the same time: the Synthesis Report (Hales et al, 2000, DSS Research Report No. 108) draws together the main results of the evaluation in one volume; the econometric and cost benefit analysis report consists of three papers on cost-benefit analysis and about the pattern of transitions off and factors affecting Income Support (Hasluck, McKnight and Elias, Report 110).
The main survey findings are:
- Almost a quarter (23 per cent) of all the lone parents who were interviewed in the prototype areas took part in the NDLP. Twenty one per cent were full participants, while three per cent were initial participants.
- On the whole, demographic differences between lone parents did not seem to have influenced rates of participation, although younger people were slightly more likely to become full participants.
- Nearly a quarter of target group lone parents came forward for interview following receipt of an introductory letter; just over a fifth (21 per cent) of the target group became full participants in the programme. Seventy seven per cent of target group lone parents did not respond to the letter. Nearly six out of ten non-participants knew when they received the invitation letter that they did not wish to participate.
- Most full participants (62 per cent) had only a single interview with a personal adviser. Such interviews typically (70 per cent) lasted about half an hour to an hour.
- Twenty eight per cent of lone parents who participated in NDLP and then started work said that their personal adviser had given them significant help in achieving this.
NDLP Phase One Prototype
The New Deal for Lone Parents was launched as a 'Phase One Prototype' in July and August 1997 in eight areas across the UK, and was implemented nationally in October 1998. Like the national programme, the New Deal for Lone Parents Phase One Prototype was voluntary and aimed to help lone parents on Income Support move into work, or towards work. Personal advisers provided an integrated service of advice and their jobs, wages, childcare arrangements and so forth.
The Surveyed Population
This chapter outlines the characteristics and circumstances of lone parents in the New Deal for Lone Parents target group, contrasting them with recent research information on lone parents in general.
Social and demographic characteristics of NDLP Target Group
It is important to appreciate that the NDLP target group is generally older than the stereotypical image of a lone parent. This is largely because the target group excludes all those with a child aged less than five. Half (51 per cent) were aged 30 to 39, while more than one in three (36 per cent) was aged 40 or over, compared with 22 per cent of lone parents in general. Only one in six was aged under 30.
This reflected their reasons for becoming lone parents, in which divorce or separation accounted for two-thirds (65 per cent), while under a quarter (23 per cent) were single and never married. Many had been lone parents for a number of years. Two thirds of them (68 per cent) lived in social housing, compared with 53 per cent of lone parents in general.
Half (51 per cent) of the NDLP target group had no educational qualifications, and only one in six had any post-16 schooling. About 37 per cent had a vocational qualification.
While no more likely to report heath problems than other lone parents, such problems were more limiting for the target group, and they also had more children with these problems than lone parents in general.
Incomes, financial circumstances and social support
Information on incomes shows that lone parents are clearly at the bottom of the income distribution in Britain. About 15 per cent of Income Support recipients had some income from their own earnings. About three in five (63 per cent) of those in jobs of 16 hours per week or more were receiving Family Credit and half (49 per cent) were receiving Housing Benefit. This indicates the importance of in-work benefits for this group of people. For the families receiving Income Support, it was almost always (84 per cent) their largest source of income.
Almost three quarters (71 per cent) of the families had cash loans or debts. A third of those with debts (32 per cent) said they were a 'huge' problem, and three fifths (62 per cent) reported debts that were causing them problems. Those working 16 hours or more per week were managing better financially than those receiving Income Support.
In terms of social support, most lone parents said there was someone they could turn to for help with short term childcare, to borrow money or to talk about a problem.
Employment histories and work aspirations
Most of the lone parents had some experience of working in the past, most commonly working in jobs with intermediate or low skill levels, although some had experience of managerial jobs.
At the time of the survey towards the end of 1998, there were four groups into which the lone parents could be placed on a scale of 'work readiness'. Three in ten (29 per cent) were already in work. Slightly more (33 per cent) were 'work ready', that is in work but seeking other work, not employed but seeking work, and those wanting to work but not actively seeking. Another similar sized group (31 per cent) are described as 'work postpone', who wish to work in the future. The remaining seven per cent said they never want to work, these being more likely to be older, to have been widowed and to be receiving sickness related benefits.
For those in the 'work postpone' group, a quarter (27 per cent) expected to be able to start looking in the next year and 18 per cent within the next two years. The main reasons for not working were related to children, although a few were in education or recovering from sickness.
The 'work ready' were motivated to work to increase their income, to get out of the house, to support the family and to improve their quality of life. The main barriers to doing this were childcare, in particular its cost and availability, followed by lack of qualifications and work experience. When asked about their attitudes to the employment of lone parents, they generally supported strongly the view that each individual should be able to choose. However, if a lone parent's children were of school age,
The New Deal for Lone Parents Prototype
This chapter describes the eight NDLP areas and the six other Benefits Agency districts that were selected as comparison areas using administrative data (unlike the rest of the report which uses survey data) to look at the whole of the programme.
The areas were selected to represent different labour market conditions, by covering three ranges of claimant unemployment rates, which are referred to as high (11 per cent or more), medium (seven per cent to 10.9 per cent) and low (under seven per cent). These were the unemployment rates at the time the areas were selected, and there had been an appreciable reduction in claimant unemployment at the start of the programme in July/August 1997. The Employment Service managed four of the prototype areas while the Benefits Agency managed the other four.
Demographically, the aggregate populations of lone parents claiming Income Support in the NDLP and comparison areas, were extremely similar in terms of the age of lone parents, the number of children, the age of the youngest child, the duration of the current Income Support claim and the amount of benefit received per week.
Populations of lone parents: the eligible and target groups
This section explains the distinction made by the programme between the 'eligible population' (lone parents claiming Income Support), and within this the 'target group', consisting of the 58 per cent of these lone parents whose youngest child was aged five or over.
Whereas the number of lone parents claiming Income Support had been increasing steadily for a period of some two decades, the start of the programme coincided with a sustained drop in the number of Income Support claims by lone parents. It is not clear why this change occurred at this time.
The same pattern was seen in both NDLP and comparison areas, with the result that the number of active claims was 7.3 per cent less at the end of December 1998 than in July 1997. Of those who were
The prototype programme: Inviting Participation
Prior to the NDLP, there was no requirement that a lone parent on Income Support would contact the Benefits Agency, unless there was a change of circumstances, and no obligation at all to communicate with the Employment Service. Hence there was little experience to provide a basis for assessment of the likely take-up of the programme, which was delivered by both Agencies.
Invitations were issued to the target group (lone parents whose youngest child was at least five years and three months of age, and who had an Income Support claim which had been in existence for at least eight weeks). First, invitations were issued each month to members of the target group with new claims, the 'flow'. Then attention turned to the 'stock' of existing claims. Members of the stock were to be issued letters in a specific order, based on a digit in the National Insurance Number (NINO). With some variations from area to area, this was broadly adhered to, such that by the end of 1997, almost all areas had invited those with digits 0, 1 and 2. Digits 3 to 6 were dealt with between October 1997 and February 1998, while digits 7 to 9 were issued from December 1997, but reached their peak in March/April 1998. Over three-quarters of all invitations were issued by the end of March 1998.
The pattern of first involvement reflects the pattern of issuing invitations, but with a distinct peak rate in January/February 1998. At this time, personal advisers were each carrying out a first interview with about 14 lone parents each month. For much of the rest of the period, the rate was about ten per month.
Staffing, recruitment and organisation of teams
Personal advisers tended to have previous experience of working for the Benefits Agency or the Employment Service. Teams varied in size from five to fourteen personal advisers plus a small number of clerical staff. Five areas had dispersed offices, while three had a central office.
Information technology (IT) was provided for the prototype, allowing personal advisers to handle the issuing of letters to invite participation, as well as storing information obtained in interviews with lone parents.
While the diversity of lone parents was recognised, personal advisers adopted similar methods of working. The initial interview was crucial to gaining a commitment to participate; how the adviser conducted this interview was vital. Advisers saw their role as providing an integrated service, and as “enabling” the lone parents to make decisions and take further actions on their own behalf. However, it seems that there was only limited referral to other services, arising partly from initial concern among other organisations about the intentions of the NDLP policy, and partly from too much of a desire among advisers to provide a comprehensive service themselves. The newness of the NDLP was probably another factor which constrained the development of links to other organisations.
Programme activities
There was very limited use of funding available to personal advisers or take-up of related services such as Jobclubs and adult training provision. Among the reasons for the latter was a perception that existing provision for unemployed, usually male, people was often inappropriate for lone parents. There was also no parallel to the use of group-based self-help activities in the voluntary sector '“Innovative Schemes'” which were conducted as experimental adjunct to the New Deal (see Finch and Woodfield, 1999).
Who took part in the New Deal for Lone Parents Prototype?
For the purpose of this report, we describe a lone parent as a full participant if they had, or intended to have, more than one interview with an adviser or if, during the course of their first interview, they discussed or received help with any of the issues that the programme was set up to address. In other words, a full participant is someone who gained access to some of the services that the programme was primarily designed to provide. Alternatively, someone is defined as an initial participant if they had a first interview with an adviser but: did not discuss any of the issues that the programme was designed to provide; did not benefit from the programme in other intended ways; and did not expect to have a further interview with an adviser. Anyone who did not have an interview is defined as a non-participant, even if they had some contact with the scheme, for example by phoning the office where the New Deal for Lone Parents prototype was based to ask for f urther information or to explain that they did not wish to take part in the programme.
Levels of participation
Almost a quarter (23 per cent) of all the lone parents who were interviewed in the prototype areas took part in the NDLP. Twenty one per cent were full participants, while three per cent were initial participants. Those in the early cohort were more likely to have participated than those in the later cohort, 28 per cent and 17 per cent, respectively, although those in the later cohort were more likely to go on to become full participants. A greater proportion in the later cohort were uninvited participants, who put themselves forward for the programme.
Who participated?
On the whole, demographic differences between lone parents did not seem to have influenced rates of participation, although younger people were slightly more likely to become full participants. However, only 31 per cent of the participants lacked qualifications compared with two fifths of non-participants (43 per cent). Slightly more of the full participants (60 per cent) were already looking for work, compared with 53 per cent of the non-participants.
Deciding whether to take part
The standard method for informing lone parents about the programme was to send them an invitation letter. However, a quarter (28 per cent) had already heard about the NDLP before they received a letter. Those with Income Support claims prior to May 1997 (the 'stock') were more likely to have heard in advance (31 per cent ) than those with claims which started in May 1997 or later (the 'flow', 22 per cent).
Those who had heard about the New Deal for Lone Parents before receiving a letter most often heard about it on television (65 per cent). One in six (17 per cent) had seen something in a national newspaper. A few mentioned hearing by 'word of mouth', including five per cent from a friend or relative who had participated and 10 per cent from another friend or relative.
Some of those who heard about the programme put themselves forward to participate in advance of receiving an invitation letter. Among this group, television was the most common source of information (31 per cent), but referrals by Benefits Agency (13 per cent) or the Employment Service (11 per cent) staff were other important sources of information about the programme.
However, on the whole, it was the invitation letter by which lone parents became aware of the programme (72 per cent). There were two styles of letter, one which asked the lone parent to contact the office to arrange an appointment, and the other which asked them to attend an interview at the specified time. More than six in ten (62 per cent) of the recipients of the latter style of letter thought attendance was required, compared with only one in three (34 per cent) who received the letter with no time specified.
Reactions to the initial letter were rather mixed, including both positive and negative responses. Those who decided to take up the invitation mainly did so because they were interested in help to find a job and to receive advice about whether it would be financially worthwhile to work. Others also wanted advice on a range of matters, including benefits. About one in four (23 per cent) were concerned that they might lose their benefits if they did not attend.
Some eleven per cent of those who attended an initial interview did not participate any further. Compared with participants, these people tended to be rather older, had older children, some had health problems, and fewer of them had qualifications. Others decided to have no further contact because they had found work, re-partnered or had decided they could manage on their own. Some felt the adviser could not really offer help with their current goals. One in five of those lone parents who did not participate beyond the initial interview had expected the adviser to initiate the next contact, which did not occur.
Some full participants also ceased to have contact with the programme, although 18 per cent were still expecting to continue contacts after the survey interviews at the end of 1998, indicating that contact was on-going after the end of Phase One.
Experience of non-participation
Many lone parents in the NDLP areas (77 per cent) did not participate in the prototype at all. Nearly six out of ten non-participants knew when they received the invitation letter that they did not wish to participate. Their reasons included lack of childcare, not wanting to work and long-standing illness. Some eight per cent felt they could look for work on their own. The others wanted to know something more, although only half of them did anything about it. Of those who did receive a letter, half had no contact because they did nothing about it. Some non-participants would have been interested in taking part, but were not sufficiently pro-active to make it happen without encouragement and reminding.
Sixty per cent of non-participants who received an invitation letter said they had no contact at all with an adviser or the programme after receiving it.
Among the non-participants, one in five (19 per cent) said that they had not heard of the programme. A further 22 per cent also said they did not receive an invitation letter, although they had heard about the programme. It may be, however, that some of these had in fact received a letter but had forgotten having done so.
Others factors which influenced participation
As well as the type of letter, a range of factors were examined to see how they influenced the likelihood of participation. Contact with an adviser after the initial letter was a key factor: nearly two fifths (37 per cent) of those who had such contact became participants, compared with 17 per cent of those who had no further contact. On the other hand, those with mortgages were no less likely to participate, and access to transport was not related to the likelihood of participation.
Another factor checked was raising awareness in the course of the first survey interview. There were 28 individuals who had not heard about the programme at the time of the first interview and participated later, of whom half said the survey had influenced them to do so.
Interviews and the Nature of Participation
Eighty-nine per cent of lone parents who had a first interview were what we have termed 'full' participants. The other eleven per cent who took part in the prototype were classified as initial participants.
Experience of NDLP among initial participants
Among those who had only an initial interview, most had decided that they were not ready to start looking for work. They had often attended the initial interview because they thought they were required to do so. Consequently, most of their initial interviews were brief. Nevertheless, there was evidence that some of those who had only one interview had received useful information, including for half of them (54 per cent) a better-off calculation. Awareness of in-work benefits was also increased.
Experiences of the NDLP among full participants
Most full participants (62 per cent) had only a single interview with a personal adviser. Such interviews typically (70 per cent) lasted about half an hour to an hour. About the same proportion said they had some further contact, such as a telephone call, a letter or a home visit. Of these, telephone calls were predominant, reflecting the widespread access to telephones among lone parents (87 per cent). In several respects, those in the early survey cohort reported greater follow-up contact than those in the later cohort and this can be explained in a number of ways. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that 18 per cent of participants were expecting some future contact with an adviser after the date of the survey.
The interviews were usually conducted looking for a job. The large majority of lone parents reported that they had done what was suggested.
Better-off calculations were provided for four-fifths of the full participants, mainly at first interview and often using a hypothetical job, wage level and hours. For seven out of ten, the calculation showed they would be better off in work. Thirteen per cent would be no better off, while 12 per cent found they would be worse off. The additional income for those who would be better off was about £30 per week on average, but it varied widely.
Although the result of the better off calculation was often unexpected, this was not because of lack of awareness among lone parents of the availability in-work benefits. Almost three quarters (72 per cent) of lone parents said they had heard of Family Credit, and a further 11 per cent recognised it when prompted. All the remaining 17 per cent said they had learned of this benefit from the personal adviser. Rather fewer lone parents were aware of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, while few were aware of the Back to Work Bonus and other more recently introduced incentives for work.
Although personal advisers had limited funds, these were not used to any great extent. A few lone parents received help with childcare during interviews, while rather more of them received help with travel costs. This is probably related to the fact that most lone parents had only a single NDLP interview.
Perceptions of the New Deal for Lone Parents Prototype
This chapter covers the reactions of participating lone parents to personal advisers and to four aspects of the help they were due to provide: help with getting a job, knowing about benefits, arranging childcare and getting education or training. It also covers views on the good and bad aspects of the programme and on the overall value of the NDLP.
The sample covered by this chapter is participating lone parents in the core and booster samples, which are a random cross-section of early and later cohorts of programme participants.
Attitudes to the personal adviser
Eight in ten full participants gave a positive response to a question on their attitudes to their advisers. These people saw them as helpful, friendly, 'very good', efficient, hard-working, and so forth. Fourteen per cent gave a neutral answer, such as 'she was okay'. Eleven per cent made a negative comment, such as not listening, being disorganised or inexperienced. A few gave mixed answers, but mostly their reactions were firmly positive or firmly negative. This is consistent with the perceptions of 'effective;' and 'ineffective' advisers in the qualitative research findings (Finch, et al, 1999).
About three-quarters of participants said they had about the right amount of contact with an adviser, but one in five (21 per cent) said they had too little contact.
Help finding work
Respondents were asked about the way in which advisers might have helped them with finding work. Some lone parents felt the type of help mentioned was not applicable to their situation, and these are left out of the discussion. This was the case with ten per cent in relation to whether work was right for them, 30 per cent in relation to help in looking for specific jobs and 46 per cent in relation to how to apply for jobs.
Asked to rate the help received with deciding whether work was right for them, 81 per cent had a positive view and only five per cent were critical.
Three in five (60 per cent) of full participants rated the help with finding a job very or fairly good, while one in six said it was very or fairly bad.
Similarly, half (52 per cent) said the help they received about applying for jobs had been fairly or very good, but a fifth (19 per cent) said it was fairly or very bad.
These results suggest that advisers were helpful at the general level of assisting participants in deciding whether work was appropriate, but less satisfactory at the specific tasks of looking for jobs and applying for them.
Help about benefits
The majority of participants (91 per cent) said they received help understanding in-work benefits, and two-thirds of them said this help was very good or fairly good. Sixteen per cent felt this help was fairly or very bad.
Three fifths (58 per cent) of participants received help with benefit applications. Two thirds of them (65 per cent) thought this assistance had been good, while thirteen per cent said it was bad.
Help with childcare
Only half the full participants said help with finding childcare was relevant to their experience with the personal adviser. Of them, two-fifths thought the help finding childcare was good, 30 per cent thought the help they received was bad, and 31 per cent had neutral views.
The other aspect of childcare was help to learn about how they might pay for childcare. Again under half (46 per cent) per cent said this didn't apply to them. Again, two-fifths said it was good, and the rest divided into just under a third that had negative views and the same percentage with neutral views.
Help with training opportunities
Just over half (56 per cent) said this applied to them, among whom half said they received good help and a quarter said it was poor.
Reactions to the personal adviser service
The majority of lone parents who participated gave a wide range of answers indicating what they liked about the programme. Examples of aspects they appreciated included: - that it was informative, and explained entitlement to benefits; - that it helped with self-confidence; - that it was someone to talk to and;- someone who was trying to help them.
Just under one in five of the participants said they liked nothing about the NDLP. It is interesting to note, however, that twice as many respondents who participated in only an initial interview (38 per cent) said they liked nothing as was the case among those who participated fully (18 per cent).
All respondents were also asked what they disliked. More than half (54 per cent) of full participants said they disliked nothing, while fewer (43 per cent) initial participants said this. Dislikes included a lack of information in general or in relation to childcare. Only four per cent of all participants complained about feeling under pressure to find work.
One in five (20 per cent) of the full participants said that the programme had not provided information or advice about childcare, training, benefits, jobs which were available or help with job search; all of these are things which the personal advisers should have been able to provide. Nine per cent of full participants had refused to consider a job suggested by an adviser.
A minority of full participants (seven per cent) said they had been encouraged to do things they didn't want to do, such as start work when not ready for it, take any job that came along or start working when they preferred to do training. A few people said they had been encouraged to do a training course when this was not wanted.
Asked to provide a rating of the help they received from the programme, where zero was no help and ten would be all the help one could possibly want, the mean score was 6.6, and a quarter gave a score of 10. The overall rating was markedly influenced by the perception of the personal adviser.
Two thirds (64 per cent) of full participants said they benefited from meeting a NDLP personal adviser. When asked in what particular way they benefited, the answers included 'somewhere to get help and advice' (18 per cent), forming a more positive attitude or greater confidence (17 per cent) and being informed of their options (13 per cent).
Most participants felt that taking part in the programme was worthwhile. This was in the sense that they gained information, and were helped by knowing that something was being done to help them, and would be available in future.
It was these points, rather than direct assistance with finding work or education, which were emphasised by lone parents. The next chapter examines the information on the outputs of the programme.
Estimating the effect of the New Deal for Lone Parents prototype
Situation at the time of NDLP eligibility
This chapter introduces information from the comparison area samples of lone parents alongside that from the prototype areas. It should be remembered that findings from comparisons between areas should be treated with care, however. There were some people whose circumstances had already changed when they were due to be contacted by the programme (and the corresponding time in the comparison areas). In particular, nine per cent of lone parents in the prototype areas and ten per cent in the comparison areas were no longer claiming Income Support.
Situation at time of survey interviews at end of 1998
The basis for comparison is the position at the time of the second set of interviews, conducted from mid-October 1998 to the end of January 1999. By this stage, the percentage of the target group no longer claiming Income Support was 24 per cent in the comparison areas and 25 per cent in the prototype areas. The chapter looks in turn at employment and then training outcomes for those who left Income Support. It also briefly examines changes in activity among those who remained on Income Support.
Those in the early sample cohort were more likely to have ceased claiming Income Support than those in the later cohort in the NDLP and the comparison areas. This difference was most marked between the NDLP area samples, of whom 29 per cent in the early cohort and 20 per cent in the later cohort had left Income Support by the date of interview. This confirms the point that the rate of exits was greater as the time observed increased. We can be reasonably certain that an appreciable number of additional exits will have occurred among the second cohort after the interviews. There may also have been further exits among members of the first cohort. Of course, this point holds for both the NDLP and comparison area samples.
The likelihood of leaving Income Support was greater among those claiming for less than one year than among those with claims of longer duration.
The NDLP and activity changes
While the majority of lone parents had remained on Income Support throughout the period in both prototype areas (64 per cent) and comparison areas (67 per cent), some of those who left had returned to claiming Income Support by the end of the period. About a fifth of those who had left had returned to Income Support (21 per cent in comparison areas and 19 per cent in prototype areas).
Respondents in work were asked whether they had experienced any of a set of anxieties listed on a card, at the time before they started their job. There was a very high prevalence of such anxiety, focusing in particular on finances in the transition to work, having enough money to live on and the care of ill children. A comparison with a recent study of Jobseeker's Allowance claimants suggests that lone parents have much more severe worries about moving into work.
When asked which problems they faced when they had moved into work, not all of their fears were realised, but appreciable minorities faced problems of the cost of living and transitional problems.
Subjective financial well-being
Half those who moved into work reported that they were much better or a little better off than before. A substantial minority (12 per cent in NDLP areas and 16 per cent in comparison areas) said they were much worse off and 11 per cent and 13 per cent, respectively, said they were a little worse off.
Returning from work to Income Support
For the quarter of those who had started work and had returned to Income Support, the most common reason for this was that the lone parent had given up the job (40 per cent in NDLP areas and 30 per cent in comparison areas) or had lost the job (21 per cent and 27 per cent, respectively).
Non-employment reasons for leaving Income Support
Both starting an education or training course and moving to a different type of benefit were experienced by small groups of lone parents. Re-partnering was the second most common reason, after starting work, for leaving Income Support.
Remaining on Income Support
A small proportion of lone parents, four per cent in both the NDLP areas and the comparison areas, had taken up an education or training course, while continuing to claim Income Support. About half of these in the NDLP areas said that the programme had helped them to find the course.
Job search
A similar proportion of lone parents (two per cent in both sets of areas) said they had started to look for work, while still receiving Income Support. Almost all of them reported they were using the same methods as they used before the point of eligibility to be invited to participate in the prototype. Only a few of this group felt that participation had encouraged them to be more positive about finding work.
Perceived barriers to work
Of the lone parents still receiving Income Support, the barrier to work mentioned most often was childcare.
Lone parents in the comparison areas appeared to be more 'work ready' (37 per cent) than their counterparts in NDLP areas (28 per cent). Slightly more continuing claimants said they wished to postpone starting work (44 per cent versus 40 per cent in comparison areas).
Conclusions
The prototype New Deal for Lone Parents took place at a time when the number of Income Support claims had started
“Participation:” About a quarter of those invited participated, and about half of them started work. Most participants had a single interview, reflecting the point that most of them were already involved in seeking work. Among the non-participants, some had no need of the programme, but there were others who might well have participated if more effort had been made to engage their interest.
“Lessons”:The prototype indicated that the advisory service appears to have fitted particularly well with the needs of lone parents who were close to a return to work. Additional efforts might be required to attract those who were felt more remote from work, or to provide options which were attractive to them.
“Resources: ”The evaluation indicates that very little use was made of referral to other services or agencies, despite there being evidence of considerable need for such services. Only 4 per cent of full participants were referred by personal advisers to other agencies.
“Counterfactual”: The evaluation concludes there was a small, positive programme impact. This is based on multivariate analyses of Income Support data and survey event history data. Both suggested additional movement off Income Support in the range of about 2.5 to 3.3 percentage points. A programme which more successfully engaged the harder to help would probably have had greater additionality.
The imperative to invite every member of the target population to an interview during the 15 months of the prototype meant that a great number of lone parents came forward to meet a relatively small number of advisers. Inevitably there were many among them who were happy to be helped to return to work but who might in any case have managed the transition on their own. As a result, it appears that advisers' time was often occupied with lone parents who were already quite close to work. It is possible that advisers would have had greater success working with lone parents who were further from work (and so would have generated greater additionality) if they had been able to focus in a concentrated manner on a smaller target population. We might also have identified a clearer or earlier programme effect if it had been possible to designate a formal 'control' group within the NDLP areas by limiting access to the advisory service.
The national Phase Three programme has different circumstances, which suggests that some of the findings from the prototype NDLP will not necessarily feed through to the national experience. The Employment Service has developed the role of personal advisers and has partnership links as a result of the other New Deal programmes. Secondly, the national programme has a longer time-scale and may as a result be better able to develop a more varied programme. Thirdly, the Minimum Wage, Working Families Tax Credit and National Childcare Strategy represent a favourable environment for the programme.
Relevant publications:
Elias, P. (2000). 'Transitions off Income Support: estimating the impact of the New Deal for Lone Parents using survey data' in Hasluck et al (2000) “Evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents: Early Lessons from the Phase One Prototype” - Cost-Benefit and Econometric Analyses, DSS Research Report No. 110, CDS: Leeds.
Finch, H., O'Connor. with Millar, J., Hales, J., Shaw, A. and Roth, W. (1999) “New Deal for Lone Parents: learning from the protoype areas”, DSS Research Report No.92, CDS: Leeds.
Green, A. (2000) “Evaluation of the” “New Deal for Lone Parents: A comparative analysis of the local study areas, ”DSS Social Research Branch, In-house Report No.63.
Hales, J., Shaw, A. and Roth, W. (1998) “Evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents: A Preliminary Estimate of the Counterfactual, ”DSS Social Research Branch, In-house Report No. 42.
Hales, J., Lessof, C., Roth, W., Gloyer, M., Shaw, A., Millar, J., Barnes, M., Elias, P., Hasluck, C., McKnight, A and Green, A. (2000a) “Evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents: Early Lessons from the Phase One Prototype - Synthesis Report”, DSS Research Report No. 108, CDS: Leeds.
Hasluck, C. (2000) 'The Net Economic and Exchequer Benefits of the New Deal for Lone Parents' in Hasluck et al (2000) “Evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents: Early Lessons from the Phase One Prototype” - “Cost-Benefit and Econometric Analyses”, DSS Research Report No. 110, CDS: Leeds.
McKnight, A. (2000). 'Transitions off Income Support: estimating the impact of the New Deal for Lone Parents using administrative data' in Hasluck et al (2000) “Evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents: Early Lessons from the Phase One Prototype” - “Cost-Benefit and Econometric Analyses”, DSS Research Report No. 110, CDS: Leeds.