Skip over Navigation

Resource centre

First effects of ONE

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 Security, 4th Floor, Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT'.

Research Report No. 126

Part One: Survey of Clients

By Hazel Green, Alison Smith, Robert Lilly and Alan Marsh

Part Two

by Clare Johnson and Shaun Fielding

The main findings are:

Forty three per cent of lone parent clients and 32 per cent of sick or disabled clients said that they had been offered a meeting with a ONE Personal Adviser.
Thirty per cent of lone parent clients and 21 per cent of sick or disabled clients in the pilot areas said that they had attended a meeting with a Personal Adviser; these groups constitute the ‘participants’ in the analyses.
Among lone parent participants, 59 per cent had discussed work-related issues with staff compared with 13 per cent of non-participants in the pilot areas. The corresponding proportions among the sick or disabled clients were 51 per cent and nine per cent.
ONE participants gave more positive ratings than non-participants on a variety of measures assessing the advice and help received. The differences tended to be greatest among lone parent clients and least among JSA clients, as typified by their assessments of the treatment they received: 83 per cent of lone parent participants considered that they had been treated as an individual compared with 64 per cent of non-participants; for JSA clients, the corresponding proportions were 74 per cent and 67 per cent.
As the survey interviews took place only four to five months after the respondent first enquired about benefit, not a great deal of time has passed to observe movements into work or to detect any influence of ONE on job search behaviour. Nevertheless, there appeared to be some impact for lone parent clients: those in the pilot areas were more likely than those in the control areas to be working at the survey interview. Similarly, non-working lone parents in the pilot areas were more likely to be looking for a job and were spending longer periods of time engaged in job search behaviour than were those in the control areas.

Part B – Qualitative research with clients - Stage one

By Clare Johnson and Shaun Fielding

The main findings are:

The experiences of individuals participating in ONE varied widely. When an effective relationship was established between the PA and the participant at the initial PA meeting, this bolstered participants’ self-confidence in taking forward suggestions and their confidence in the ONE service. PAs with effective social skills were more successful in achieving this.
A PA’s overall knowledge of ONE and the extent to which individuals were interested in help with a claim and/or finding work can help (or hinder) a participant’s experience of ONE. Balancing the discussion between work and benefits at the PA meeting was an important facet of this. It was important to participants that their PA had knowledge of the range of benefits relevant to their claim; this gave them confidence in the service.
Advice on job searching gave participants a general picture of a range of opportunities, but some felt that there was little they did not know already. The better-off calculation helped to signpost the financial advantages of being in work, or of increasing working hours combined with in-work benefits. Lone parents appreciated discussing options for full and part-time work as well as in-work benefits.
Many participants did not know that they could get further advice and support from their PA. A number of participants felt that this would have been helpful, particularly those who had not had the opportunity to talk about work at their initial PA meeting. Not all participants wanted follow-up, since they considered themselves job-ready. Participants who did know that they could get further support from their PA did not always know how to make contact with them, or whether it was their responsibility or the PA’s to arrange further contact. Those who had received follow-up were positive about it.
There was widespread support for the concept of ONE, particularly the idea of providing a single point of access to benefit and a tailored, one-to-one service. Most participants wanted to be in work rather than claiming benefit, though for some this was a longer-term goal. In many cases, ONE has changed participants’ attitudes to work through the provision of a tailored service. Talking about work as a longer-term goal and the signposting of options such as training, voluntary work or part-time work/flexible hours that might move participants closer to the labour market, have also been important factors.
ONE has led to significant changes in attitudes to benefit and the benefits system because it responds quickly to individual needs through providing a single point of access to benefit and one-to-one advice from a PA. An important feature of ONE is that PAs can offer a wide range of advice about benefits and work, as well as about other issues such as housing. Changes in behaviour were underpinned by changes in attitudes. Participants who felt informed about the employment options available to them felt less dependent on benefits, either in the short or longer-term. They also felt more self-confident about pursuing these options.

First effects of ONE

Introduction

ONE is a new service for delivering benefits to people of working age. It brings together the Employment Service, Benefits Agency and Local Authorities at a single point of contact. ONE is designed to offer an integrated, work-focused service which is tailored to the needs of individuals. New and repeat clients are allocated a Personal Adviser who deals with their benefit claim and discusses with them their options for work, job readiness and any barriers to work such as childcare responsibilities or disability.

The ONE service was introduced between June and November 1999 in 12 pilot areas in Great Britain. Three different models (also known as variants) for delivering ONE are being piloted. As well as the basic service (Basic model), call-centres are being used for initial contact with the service in four of the areas (Call-centre model), and in another four, private and voluntary sector organisations are delivering the service (PVS model). Up to April 2000, participation in ONE was voluntary for non-JSA clients. From April 3^rd 2000, these groups were required to attend the first meeting with the Personal Adviser and further meetings at defined trigger points as a condition of receiving benefit.

Objectives of ONE

The objectives of ONE are:

To put more benefit recipients in touch with the labour market through the intervention of their Personal Adviser;
To increase the level of sustainable employment by getting more benefit recipients into work;
To ensure that more clients experience effective, efficient service that is tailored to their personal needs;
To change the culture of the benefits system and the general public towards independence and work rather than payments and financial dependence.

The evaluation

A programme of research to evaluate ONE was set up by the Department for Social Security (DSS), the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), the Benefits Agency (BA) and the Employment Service (ES). The aim of the evaluation is to assess:

The feasibility of delivering ONE in the different models
The effectiveness of the different models in improving both the quality and quantity of labour market participation.

The overall evaluation encompasses a variety of research methodologies, including: social research with clients, staff and employers; operational research; cost-benefit analyses; and a database of administrative records.

This first phase of the survey and qualitative research with clients was undertaken prior to April 2000, when participation in ONE was voluntary, except for people claiming Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). People contacting the Employment Service (ES), Benefits Agency (BA), the Local Authority (LA), or one of the contracted private/voluntary sector organisations about starting a claim were asked if they wanted to claim their benefit(s) through ONE. Individuals electing to do this had a Start-Up meeting to establish amongst other things, their personal details, reasons for claiming benefit and their readiness to work. Building on the evidence of the New Deals, participants who went on to claim benefit were allocated a Personal Adviser (PA), with whom an initial work-focused meeting was arranged. PAs are also able to invite claimants to further meetings, including those at defined trigger points, and can refer participants to other specialist support.

Part A – Survey of clients - Cohort One, Wave One

Design of the quantitative survey of clients

The quantitative survey of clients was developed and carried out by a consortium of independent researchers at the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Policy Studies Institute (PSI) and the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB). It was designed primarily to address the policy issues of the evaluation although some questions were included about service delivery.

Sample design

The survey covered almost all people of working age beginning a claim for one of the benefits eligible for the ONE service. The client groups and the benefits they were seeking to claim, were:

Lone parents claiming Income Support (IS)
Sick or disabled clients claiming Incapacity Benefit (IB), Income Support (IS) or Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA)

Unemployed clients claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)

The sample was selected from clients making a new claim for one of the benefits listed above in September or October 1999.

Analyses are presented separately for each of the client groups. Classification is based on the type of benefit claimed which does not necessarily refer to the respondent’s circumstances at interview.

Fieldwork

The fieldwork is being conducted in four waves between January 2000 and December 2001. There are two cohorts of respondents and each cohort has two waves of interviews about six months apart.

Cohort One

The interviews for Cohort One took place in January to March 2000 in the four areas which are piloting the Basic Model of the ONE service and four "control" areas selected to be, in aggregate, similar to the ONE areas. The first interview took place about four months after the sampled claim; the second interview will take place about ten months after the claim. At the Cohort One stage, participation in ONE was voluntary for lone parent clients and sick or disabled clients.

Cohort Two

Cohort Two will examine the service when attendance at the first Personal Adviser meeting is compulsory. It will also evaluate the Call Centre and Private/Voluntary Sector Models as well as the Basic Model. The interviews for Cohort Two will take place in autumn 2000 in 12 ONE areas and 12 control areas. These 24 areas will include the eight areas covered in Cohort One but the interviews will be with different people.

Characteristics of the clients

The characteristics of the clients were compared to assess whether there were any major differences between the samples of clients in the pilot and control areas which might affect the evaluation. On the whole, the two samples had similar characteristics. In all three client groups, the pilot sample included a higher proportion of respondents from an ethnic minority group. Related to this, pilot area clients were less likely to have had a job (working 16 hours or more) in the two years prior to the sampled claim. The modelling techniques which are used to compare movements into work in the pilot and control areas take account of any differences between the samples.

Participation in ONE

Awareness of ONE

Similar proportions of lone parents and JSA clients had heard of ONE (66 per cent and 68 per cent) though under a half recalled receiving a leaflet or booklet (41 per cent and 47 per cent). These proportions were lower among sick or disabled clients, 56 per cent had heard of ONE and 33 per cent said that they had received a leaflet.

Participation rates

Forty three per cent of lone parent clients and 32 per cent of sick or disabled clients said that they had been offered a meeting with a Personal Adviser. Some respondents probably did not realise that they were being offered a new service and others may have forgotten by the time of interview, four to five months later.

Thirty per cent of lone parent clients and 21 per cent of sick or disabled clients in the pilot areas said that they had attended a meeting with a ONE Personal Adviser; these groups constitute the ‘participants’ in the analyses in the report.

Reasons for taking part in ONE

Although ONE was voluntary at this stage for non-JSA clients, many respondents thought it was part of the normal procedure. Among those who said that they were offered the service, 25 per cent of lone parent clients and 41 per cent of sick or disabled clients said that they thought that it was something that they had to do or their right to benefit might be affected.

The main reasons clients gave for taking part were that they thought that it would help them with their claim, to see what it had to offer, or because they wanted a job.

Reasons for not taking part in ONE

Among lone parent clients who did not take part in ONE, 40 per cent said that looking after their children stopped them from seeking work, 30 per cent said that they were not ready to talk about work and 16 per cent preferred to look for a job independently.

Among sick or disabled clients, 50 per cent mentioned health problems which prevented them from looking for work, 26 per cent were not ready to talk about work, and 20 per cent already had a job or an occupation to which they could return.

Who took part in ONE

Since the participants were a self-selected group, they are likely to differ from non-participants in their work readiness, reasons for not working, and so forth. These topics were covered in the interview but they relate to the time of interview not to the time of claiming. Differences in demographic and economic characteristics, however, can be identified:

“Lone parent participants” were:

more likely to be in the white ethnic group (91 per cent of participants and 81 per cent of non-participants)
more likely to live in a household consisting of one or two persons (42 per cent and 32 per cent) and less likely to live in a household consisting of four or more persons (23 per cent and 35 per cent)
less likely to have a child aged under three (22 per cent and 37 per cent)
more likely to have a driving licence (55 per cent and 44 per cent)
less likely to report literacy problems (five per cent and 13 per cent) or numeracy problems (three per cent and 10 per cent)
less likely to report that their health had been ‘not good’ over the last year (14 per cent and 21 per cent).

“Sick or disabled participants” were:

more likely to be aged under 25 (16 per cent of participants and nine per cent of non-participants)
less likely to belong to an ethnic minority group (six per cent and 13 per cent)
more likely to live with a partner and no children (24 per cent and 18 per cent) and less likely to live with a partner and dependent children (18 per cent and 26 per cent)
more likely to have no qualifications (45 per cent and 36 per cent)
less likely to report mental illness or disability (39 per cent and 51 per cent).

Interpretation of results

The findings for participants need to be interpreted in the context that they represent the opinions and experiences of people who took up the offer of ONE and remembered their meeting with the adviser.

JSA clients

Since all JSA clients in the pilot areas have to attend a meeting with a Personal Adviser as part of their claim, all have been classed as ‘participants’ for these analyses.

Contacts with staff

The survey examined clients’ contacts with staff at Jobcentres, Benefits Agencies and Local Authority offices, including the claiming process, the issues covered during the contacts and respondents’ perceptions of the usefulness of the advice and help they received. For lone parent clients and sick or disabled clients, for whom ONE was voluntary, comparisons are made between participants and non-participants; for JSA clients, the analyses compare the pilot and control samples.

The claiming process

Lone parent and sick or disabled clients

These two groups had similar experiences of the claiming process:

Participants were fairly evenly divided between those making their first contact at a Jobcentre and those contacting a Benefits Agency.
Participants were more likely than non-participants to have visited the office and less likely to have telephoned or written. It would have been difficult for staff to encourage participation in ONE among clients who had only telephone or postal contact.
There was no evidence at this stage that ONE was diverting clients from claiming and into work.
There were no differences between participants and non-participants in the proportions who had to provide the same information on more than one occasion or in the length of time taken to process the claim.

JSA clients

Nine out of ten JSA clients made their first contact in connection with their claim at a Jobcentre.
Among those who did not make a claim, just over a third had found a job straight away but there was no significant difference between pilot and control areas in this respect.

Issues discussed with staff and perceptions of advice and help received

In general, clients who participated in ONE discussed a wider range of topics and gave more favourable assessments of the service than non-participants. However, meetings with Personal Advisers tended to be shorter than was envisaged when the service was set up.

Length of the first Personal Adviser meeting

In all three clients groups, just under a half of ONE participants reported that their first meeting with a Personal Adviser lasted between 16 and 30 minutes. No more than a quarter had a meeting lasting the specified 45 minutes or more.

Types of issues discussed

There were several aspects of the service where participants were more likely than non-participants /clients in control areas, to have received certain types of help and to have rated the service provided more positively:

“Information about benefits”: In all three client groups, ONE participants were more likely than non-participants to have been told about in-work benefits. Participating lone parent and JSA clients were also more likely to have been told about other benefits that they might be able to claim. Of particular note were the relatively high proportions of lone parent clients who had been told about in-work benefits (52 per cent) and other benefits they might be able to claim (49 per cent). On the whole, these differences do not appear to have resulted in a corresponding variation in levels of awareness of benefits for low paid workers. However, lone parent participants were more aware of Working Families Tax Credit than their non-participating counterparts.
“Discussing work-related issues” :The higher proportion of participants discussing these issues was particularly pronounced among lone parent and sick or disabled clients: 59 per cent of lone parent participants compared with 13 per cent of non-participants had discussed finding work or training with staff. The corresponding proportions among sick or disabled clients were 51 per cent and nine per cent.
“Better-off calculation”: The only group in which a substantial proportion reported receiving this calculation was lone parent participants (36 per cent) probably because they are the ones most likely to benefit from in-work support. The provision of a better-off calculation and the information given about in-work benefits to lone parent clients highlights the potential of ONE as an intervention for providing information about the bridge between benefits and work for this client group.
“Childcare”: Further evidence that participation in ONE may help to address barriers to work was found in relation to discussions about childcare issues. Lone parent participants were far more likely than non-participants to have discussed these issues with their adviser, one in two compared with just over one in ten had done so.
“Special help for sick or disabled clients”: Nearly three times as many sick or disabled participants as non-participants said they had discussed special help or services with staff, for example, supported employment, and training or personal support that might be needed in work (26 per cent compared with nine per cent).

Respondents’ assessment of the advice received

As with the types of issues discussed, there were differences between participants and non-participants in the proportions receiving advice of any kind, and in their opinions of the information and help they received. The differences tended to be greatest in the lone parent group and least among JSA clients, as typified by their assessments of the treatment they received: 83 per cent of lone parent participants considered that they had been treated as an individual compared with 64 per cent of non-participants; for JSA clients, the corresponding proportions were 74 per cent and 67 per cent.

Similarly, in all three client groups, participants were more likely than non-participants to report that they had been treated ‘well’ or ‘very well’ by staff overall. On both measures, the more positive rating by ONE participants was particularly marked among lone parent clients.

Contact with the labour market

In order to focus on labour market outcomes, respondents who said they had not gone on to claim a benefit after their initial enquiry (13 per cent of respondents in the control areas and nine per cent in the pilot areas) have been excluded.

Economic activity of lone parent clients

Sixteen per cent of lone parent clients in the pilot areas were working at least 16 hours a week by the time of interview (12 per cent in the control areas). The majority said their main activity was looking after the home and family (55 per cent in the pilot areas and 61 per cent in the control areas). Twenty three per cent were looking for work at interview. Almost half said they were not looking but would like a job (48 per cent). In the control areas, slightly fewer were looking for work (19 per cent) and more said they were not looking but would like a job (55 per cent). Multi-variate analysis (which takes into account differences in individual characteristics) found that lone parent clients in pilot areas were 1.4 times as likely to be in paid work at interview as were those in the control areas.

In the pilot areas, those who had attended a Personal Adviser meeting were more likely to be in paid work (24 per cent) than those who had not (14 per cent). Participants were also more likely to say they were looking for a job than were non-participants (31 per cent compared with 21 per cent). This is probably because the voluntary participants were more focused on paid work.

Economic activity of sick or disabled clients

Twenty four per cent of sick or disabled clients in the pilot areas were working at least 16 hours a week by interview. Fifty two per cent reported their economic status at interview as not working because they were sick or disabled but more than half of these thought their health problem was temporary rather than permanent.

Among sick or disabled clients in the pilot areas who were not working at the time of interview, 21 per cent said that they were looking for work and most of the others, 69 per cent of non-workers, said that they would like a job at some time. There were no significant differences between the pilot and control areas. Almost half of sick or disabled clients who were looking for work said they were receiving JSA rather than a disability benefit, illustrating that there had been some movement between the type of benefits claimed since the first benefit enquiry.

Nineteen per cent of those who had attended a Personal Adviser meeting in the pilot areas were in paid work of 16 or more hours a week compared with 26 per cent of those who did not attend. It is possible that some of the sick or disabled clients expected to return to work quickly and so did not think it worth participating in ONE. A similar proportion of ONE participants and non-participants said they were not looking for work but would like a job (41 and 42 per cent respectively).

Economic activity of JSA clients

Thirty five per cent of the JSA clients in the pilot areas were in paid work at interview while 49 per cent said they were unemployed and seeking work. Multi-variate analysis found that there was no significant difference between pilot and control areas in the likelihood of JSA clients being in work at interview. The majority of non-working respondents said they were looking for work (86 per cent). Most of those who were not looking reported health problems and were no longer claiming JSA.

Reasons for not looking for work

Most lone parent clients who were not looking for work said it was because they were looking after the children (79 per cent in the pilot areas). Seventeen per cent said they could not find affordable childcare and 14 per cent felt they could not find suitable childcare. Fourteen per cent had some health problems and 12 per cent felt they were not prepared for work and needed further training. Forty per cent of lone parent clients gave more than one reason why they were not seeking work.

The majority of sick or disabled clients who were not looking for work said it was because of their health problems: 47 per cent in the pilot areas were temporarily sick or injured and 39 per cent had long-term health problems. There were no significant differences between the pilot and control areas or between participants and the non-participants in the pilot areas. Many non-working respondents also reported concerns about local job opportunities, financial concerns regarding moving off benefit, and a lack of confidence and work skills. This was true even among those in the pilot areas who had attended a Personal Adviser meeting.

Forty per cent of lone parent clients, 32 per cent of sick or disabled clients and 33 per cent of JSA clients thought that some people could claim benefits to top up their pay. Respondents were more commonly aware of help with rent and Council Tax payments in work (57 per cent of lone parent clients and 40 per cent of sick or disabled clients and JSA clients in pilot areas). There were no significant differences between pilot and control areas or between participants and non-participants in ONE areas.

Work expectations

The majority of respondents in all client groups who were looking for work were flexible in the type of work they would consider and had realistic wage expectations. Lone parents were hoping to earn around £150 per week but were prepared to accept lower wages – a minimum of £100 per week. The JSA clients and sick or disabled clients sought an average target wage of £200 per week and a minimum wage of around £150 per week. Hourly wage rates were similar for all groups as lone parent clients expected to work fewer hours than other groups. Target hourly wage rates were around £5 per hour and minimum wage rates were between £4 and £4.50 per hour. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in either target or minimum hourly wage rates sought by respondents in the pilot areas who were looking for work compared with those in the control areas. There was also no significant difference in wage rates between participants and non-participants in the pilot areas.

Job search activity

The most common methods used to look for work were looking at advertisements in local newspapers and visiting the Jobcentre. Lone parent clients used an average of three different methods to look for work. The sick or disabled clients used an average of four methods and the JSA clients an average of five methods. There was no statistically significant difference between pilot and control areas in the number of job search methods being used by respondents in any client group.

On average, lone parent clients looking for work had applied for one job in the previous four weeks. Sick or disabled clients had applied for an average of two vacancies and JSA clients had applied for four jobs. Lone parent clients in the pilot areas had spent an average of three hours looking for work on the week before interview. This was higher than in the control areas and the difference was statistically significant. On average, the sick or disabled clients had spent three to four hours looking for work in the previous week and the JSA clients six hours per week. There were no significant differences in job search activity between the participants and non-participants in the pilot areas except that lone parent participants used more methods to look for work (an average of four).

Conclusions

The analysis of the first phase of the quantitative survey of clients attempted to shed light on two specific objectives of ONE.

To what extent does ONE ensure that more clients experience effective, efficient service that is tailored to their personal needs?

The indications are that clients’ reception of ONE during the voluntary phase are generally positive. In all three client groups, ONE participants were more likely than non-participants to have received advice and help from staff, to consider that they had been treated as an individual and to report that they had been treated ‘very well’ by staff overall. The differences between participants and non-participants tended to be most marked for lone parent clients and least marked for JSA clients. Intuitively, it might be expected that lone parent clients would have the greatest potential to benefit from the ONE service. They are outside the labour market and so might value information, support and advice about getting back to work. Likewise, as they had children they would be more likely to qualify for in-work support if they took a low paid job. Thus, a ‘better-off’ calculation would be particularly relevant for them – and, as was shown, those taking part in ONE were much more likely than any other group to have received such a calculation. JSA clients, on the other hand, are already in the labour market and, irrespective of ONE, all have regular contacts with Employment Services staff. Sick or disabled clients fall between the two, perhaps reflecting the heterogeneity of the group. Those with chronic sickness or disability might well benefit from advice about getting back to work whereas those with a temporary condition may have no difficulties finding work or, as was the case with some of the survey respondents, they may already have a job to which they can return.

To what extent does ONE put more benefit recipients in touch with the labour market?

Interviews took place four to five months after the respondent first enquired about benefit and so not a great deal of time has passed to observe movements into work or to detect any influence of ONE on job search behaviour. The relatively small number of ONE participants in pilot areas also makes it difficult to detect any ONE effect at this stage. More detailed analysis will be possible both for these respondents (when they are interviewed a second time) and for the next stage of the evaluation when participation is no longer voluntary. Results from the ongoing analysis of the local labour markets will also enable us to be more confident that any differences between pilot and control areas are not due to intrinsic differences in these areas.

Bearing these cautions in mind, comparisons between respondents in the pilot areas (participants and non-participants combined) with those in the control areas produced a consistent set of results for lone parent clients:

Lone parent clients in the pilot areas were more likely to be working at first interview
Non-working lone parent clients were more likely to be looking for a job
Lone parent clients in the pilot areas who were looking for work spent longer periods of time engaged in job search behaviour than did those in the control areas.

However, the same was not true for JSA and sick or disabled clients, as those in the pilot areas were no more likely to be working, or looking for work, at interview. In fact, in the pilot areas, sick or disabled clients who had not participated in ONE were more likely to be in work than were those who had participated. Some sick or disabled clients seemed to have experienced an improvement in their capability to work since they first claimed a disability benefit. It may also be that those who expected to return to work quickly were less likely to volunteer for ONE. This would be supported by the higher proportion of all non-participants who had a job at the time they enquired about benefit. Among all sick or disabled clients, 26 per cent of non-participants said that they had a job that had not ended compared with 16 per cent of participants.

Part B – Qualitative Research with Clients - Stage One

Design of qualitative research with clients

This research is from the first of three stages of qualitative research on the impact of ONE on labour market participation. The research investigated the experiences of individuals who had participated in the ONE service and who had had a meeting with their PA. 129 face-to-face interviews were undertaken with participants some 2-3 months after they made their claim. The sample included lone parents, individuals with health problems or a disability, as well as participants claiming JSA.

A number of ethnic minorities and existing claimants who were involved in ONE (referred to as ‘volunteers from stock’) were included within the sample. Research was undertaken across all three models of delivery. The evaluation objectives cannot be addressed fully through qualitative research alone, therefore other parts of the overall evaluation have also been designed to address these issues.

Objectives for this research

To consider whether more people get jobs and whether they get them more quickly than they might otherwise;
To see if more people stay employed for longer periods;
To consider the impact on people’s attachment to the labour market;
To assess if there has been a reduction in inactivity;
To report on how and why people respond to a voluntary approach to ONE;
To consider how far clients can be refocused on work as a first priority;
To examine the effectiveness of the Personal Adviser (PA) in identifying barriers to work, in considering clients' whole needs and in offering appropriate advice.

Presenting the findings from the qualitative research

This report addresses key aspects of the ONE service as experienced by participants. These are: (a) initial contact and Start-Up; (b) the initial PA meeting; and (c) any further contact with the PA or support services. It also considers how ONE impacted on participants, as demonstrated through any change(s) in attitude and/or behaviour.

It had been anticipated that the impacts of ONE would vary between client groups and across models of delivery. However, at this early stage in the ONE service, the impacts and outcomes of ONE appear to reflect a participant’s individual circumstances and how ONE responded to these. Further, the experiences of individuals varied widely and they attributed a range of different outcomes and impacts to the service.

Initial contact and Start-Up

Some participants found it difficult to distinguish between Start-Up and the initial PA meeting. In part this reflects the timing of this research, however these issues will be covered in more detail by research looking at the delivery aspects of the service. A range of experiences were reported across all models of delivery and all client groups.

In many cases participants did not recall the ONE service being explained to them at Start-Up, nor did they recall being offered the choice as to whether or not they wished to have a PA meeting.

The call centre model received mixed reactions. Some participants found it convenient, but others did not. Participants who visited an office to make a claim did not like being told they had to contact the call centre. An integrated electronic claim form has been produced for key ONE benefits; this is completed at Start-Up and should then be checked and signed by the participant. Some participants were dissatisfied because they did not receive a copy of the completed claim form prior to attending their PA meeting. Start-Up conducted via the call centre was focused largely on taking details necessary to make the claim.

Within the basic and PVS models the content and duration of Start-Up varied, reflecting the complexity of the claim. Those with complex claims were offered assistance in completing their claim form(s) to reduce the scope for error; participants with straightforward claims were asked to complete forms themselves.

A few Start-Up meetings covered job search and work, particularly in the PVS model. Some participants welcomed this as it introduced work at an early stage, and suggested that claiming would be a temporary measure. Others who had not talked about work at this stage said they would have liked to. However, some participants already had clear ideas about pursuing jobs, whilst others wanted to concentrate on sorting out their benefits.

The initial Personal Adviser meeting

PA meetings are supposed to take place within three days of Start-Up, unless deferred for good reason. Usually participants did have their initial PA meeting within the intended three days, although some participants saw a PA on the same day as Start-Up, whilst in other cases meetings were deferred. Few participants said they realised the PA meeting was voluntary. There were significant variations in the time allocated to participants for these meetings. On occasions longer meetings were pre-planned because the PA realised a lengthy meeting was required to resolve the claim and, possibly, talk about work. Sometimes, PAs organised follow-on meetings to complete unfinished business.

When an effective relationship was established between the PA and the participant at the initial PA meeting, this bolstered participants’ self-confidence in taking forward suggestions and their confidence in the ONE service. PAs with effective social skills were more successful in achieving this. In addition, a PA’s gender, age and ethnicity were helpful in securing dialogue with participants. Participants were supportive of PAs but felt they needed more training and support. In addition, the ONE office environment made participants across all groups feel welcome. Those who had previous experience of the Benefits Agency were especially positive about ONE’s informal atmosphere and the sense of security and comfort.

A PA’s overall knowledge of ONE and the extent to which individuals were interested in help with a claim and/or finding work can help (or hinder) a participant’s experience of ONE. Balancing the discussion between work and benefits at the PA meeting was an important facet of this. It was important to participants that their PA had knowledge of the range of benefits relevant to their claim; this gave them confidence in the service. Similarly, participants who felt that discussions and suggestions in relation to finding work were appropriate to their circumstances were likely to engage with ONE. JSA participants who had claimed benefits before, found it hard to distinguish between the advice given in ONE to that which they had previously experienced in the benefits system, though some were able to refine or refocus their ideas following the PA meeting.

Advice on job searching gave participants a general picture of a range of opportunities, but some – particularly JSA clients – felt that there was little they did not know already. The better-off calculation helped to signpost the financial advantages of being in work, or of increasing working hours combined with in-work benefits. Advice on overcoming barriers to work varied considerably across the groups. The Personal Capability Assessment (PCA) (which determines whether someone is or is not incapable of work for benefit purposes) was a useful starting point for sick and disabled participants, but the process needs to be speeded up to be effective. Lone parents appreciated discussing options for full-and part-time work and working hours as well as in-work benefits. Some ethnic minority participants remained sceptical about work because of previous work place discrimination, others appreciated being given advice on language courses or speaking to a PA from their ethnic group.

Beyond the Personal Adviser meeting

Many participants, particularly those in the basic and call centre models, did not know that they could get further advice and support from their PA. A number of participants felt that this would have been helpful, particularly those who had not had the opportunity to talk about work at their initial PA meeting. Not all participants wanted follow-up, since they considered themselves job-ready.

Participants who did know that they could get further support from their PA did not always know how to make contact with them, or whether it was their responsibility or the PA’s to arrange further contact. Those who had received follow-up were positive about it. Face-to-face meetings were particularly helpful since they provided the opportunity to discuss overcoming barriers to work and job search.

Referral to other advice and support was not usually discussed with PAs, and few participants knew that it was available. There was scepticism as to whether PAs were fully informed about referral options, even when they used a directory as a source of information. Some participants who wanted specialist support did not get a referral. Not all referrals were effective, especially when this advice was given over the phone.

Some participants – typically sick and disabled people and lone parents – were referred to specialists (Disability Employment Advisers [DEAs] and New Deal respectively). These referrals were effective since participants felt they accessed more information this way, but it also confused them as to where their main point of contact was. If participants had had prior contact with a DEA or New Deal PA they tended to turn to them rather than their ONE PA, because they had trust in their established relationship.

Changes in attitudes

There was widespread support for the concept of ONE, particularly the idea of providing a single point of access to benefit and a tailored, one-to-one service. However, many participants were not able to equate the service they had received with ONE as it was explained to them, particularly in relation to help with finding work. JSA participants who had previous experience of claiming felt that ONE was no different to the previous system. However, non-JSA participants who had previous experience of claiming in BA offices felt that ONE was an improvement on the service it preceded. Some first-time claimants wanted to reserve judgement until they knew whether or not ONE did deliver the service that is intended.

Most participants wanted to be in work rather than claiming benefit, though for some this was a longer-term goal. Those claiming JSA were closer to the labour market than non-JSA participants, but there were lone parents and sick and disabled people who were not claiming JSA who were work-focused. Participants were keen to stress that they did not necessarily want just ‘any job’ though, rather they wanted a job that was appropriate to their skills and interests.

In many cases, ONE has changed participants’ attitudes to work through the provision of a tailored service. Talking about work as a longer-term goal and the signposting of options such as training, voluntary work or part-time work/flexible hours that might move participants closer to the labour market, have also been important factors. However, ONE has done little so far to change the attitudes of those participants who either had a relatively clear idea of the work they wanted or who did not/could not work because of health reasons or caring responsibilities.

ONE has led to significant changes in attitudes to benefit and the benefits system because it responds quickly to individual needs through providing a single point of access to benefit and one-to-one advice from a PA. An important feature of ONE is that PAs can offer a wide range of advice about benefits and work, as well as about other issues such as housing. Participants who felt informed about the employment options available to them felt less dependent on benefits, either in the short or longer-term. They also felt more self-confident about pursuing these options. However, where ONE had not resolved benefits effectively, and where work was not discussed, participants’ confidence in ONE had been damaged. Consequently their attitudes towards benefits and work were unlikely to have changed.

Changes in behaviour

Changes in behaviour were underpinned by changes in attitudes. Although many participants had not changed their behaviour as a result of ONE at the time the research was undertaken, because they have changed their attitudes there is potential for behaviour to change in the longer-term.

There were various manifestations to the reported changes in behaviour. This included changes in benefit; for instance, some non-JSA participants were able to claim additional benefits as a result of ONE, which helped them to look for work, to increase their working hours and to help them once they were in work. In particular WFTC has assisted lone parents.

Across all groups there were examples of participants who opted for education and training either as a stepping stone to work, or just to learn for learning’s sake. It was not always easy for participants to access training; for example, some specialised courses were not always available locally. Although education and training is widely recognised as being a means of bringing people closer to the labour market, it was not always discussed at PA meetings.

Many participants experienced improvement in both the quality and quantity of their job search as a result of ONE. Work-focused advice helped participants appreciate the range of skills and expertise that they possessed, which opened up additional job opportunities. Some of those who felt that ONE had helped their job search had been successful in finding work. There were, too, participants who felt concerned that their PA suggested jobs that were inappropriate to their skills and experience. They did not understand why PAs felt they should consider such jobs.

ONE has helped some participants move into work. None of the participants involved in the research had found work but then re-entered ONE; even so it is too early to draw conclusions on the sustainability of jobs. In some cases moving into work was a direct result of ONE. This happened when participants were work-focused and looking for a specific job and when there was a vacancy in the area which the PA identified and helped the participant apply for. ONE helped other participants into work, but indirectly. These examples were found amongst participants who were work-focused and who had identified a range of jobs they would be interested in, and when the PA helped identify more specific opportunities. When combined with the attitudinal changes discussed previously, participants were more likely to be in work (and the ‘right’ work) quicker than they would otherwise.

The characteristics of jobs taken by participants were diverse. Generally, JSA participants with a previous benefit history moved into full-time work and job-ready lone parents moved into part-time work. Although some participants took work that was different to their longer-term goals, this usually reflected their immediate circumstances. It is too early to tell if participants have used those jobs as a stepping stone to a preferred job, but some PAs still look on their behalf. Some participants moved into temporary or fixed-term work as a stopgap; most felt it was unlikely that their job would become permanent, and neither did they want to stay in that job in the longer-term.

Conclusions

Participants have had varied experiences of ONE, depending on their individual circumstances and whether they were orientated towards or away from the labour market. Overall, across all models, lone parents tended to be most positive about their experiences and JSA participants least positive. The skills of the PA and the quality of the interaction between participants and PAs were key to a favourable experience of ONE.

At this stage it is too early to offer firm conclusions on the policy impact of ONE. However, the potential that exists within ONE is evident in the findings from this research. The main evidence of impact comes through the changed attitudes towards benefit and the benefit system and the finding that this underpins changes in behaviour over time. Whilst this research is focused on the policy impact of ONE, aspects of delivery cannot be ignored. A seamless service, tailored to the needs of individual participants (as identified by and with them) is fundamental to the success of ONE.

Publication details

Green H., Smith A., Lilly R., Marsh A., Johnson C. and Fielding S. (November 2000) “First Effects of ONE: Part A - Survey of Clients and Part B – Qualitative research with clients ”(DSS Research Report No 126) Leeds: CDS

Relevant Publication

Daphne Cotton, Vanessa Stone and Andrew Thomas (2000) “Why not ONE ”(DSS Research Report No.127) Leeds: CDS