Why not ONE? Views of non-participants before full participation
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. 127
By Daphne Cotton, Vanessa Stone and Andrew Thomas
This report is part of the ONE Evaluation. The study explores reasons for non-participation and presents early views on the principle of ONE. The research, carried out by BMRB international in 2000 comprised fifty depth interviews with lone parents, sick and disabled people, and carers, drawn from the three models of delivery – basic, call centre and PVS. The objectives of the research were to consider why clients chose not to participate in ONE and to identify issues that may have an impact on ONE after full participation.
Reasons for non-participation
Five main reasons for non-participation emerged from the research. These were:
Lack of understanding of ONE
- Some respondents misunderstood or only partially understood the concept of ONE.
- Some respondents reported that they had never received an explanation of ONE at the time of their initial contact; some said that the letter they received about ONE had not been clear
- A key misconception was that they would be forced to take a job if they took part in ONE.
Belief that ONE was not relevant to the client at the time of claiming
- Some respondents thought that a work-focused interview was not relevant to them in their present circumstances, for example clients who had stopped work to care for someone, or could no longer work because of illness or disability.
- In addition clients who were temporarily claiming benefits due to an accident or another short-term reason felt ONE was inappropriate as they planned to go back to previous employment or felt they were capable of finding work themselves. Some respondents wanted to finish education or training before looking for work, and therefore considered ONE irrelevant.
Inappropriate timing of invitation to participate in ONE
- For some respondents the reason for non-participation appeared to be more a question of timing than a rejection of the principle of ONE.
- Carers, who had just given up a job in order to care for someone full-time, were focused on their new commitment and appeared unable to think about the idea of work for themselves at the present time. Also for sick and disabled people who had recently given up work because of their illness or disability, it seemed to be too soon for them to think about work. Some respondents were in hospital when the invitation to participate in ONE came.
Influence of claiming experience
- Some long-term clients were sceptical of what they saw as ‘“yet another government initiative’”. Some of these respondents had experience of Jobcentre advisors and felt they were more concerned with filling their job placement targets then with helping individual clients or getting them into ‘proper’ jobs.
Process problems
- Some non-participation was the result of problems in the ONE process, rather than a decision on the part of the client not to take part. Some clients seemed unaware they had been invited to take part in ONE. Some clients only received an invitation to take part once they had submitted, and in some cases resolved their claim for benefit. Some clients reported getting no follow up call or no appointment for a Personal Adviser meeting when they had agreed to continue.
Views on the principle of ONE
There was considerable support for the idea of ONE in principle.
Dealing with benefits at one location
- Clients particularly liked the idea of visiting one location for claiming all benefits. Respondents felt that by cutting out the irritation factor, of having to go to different agencies and having to tell their story several times over, clients would be less likely to get frustrated and aggressive.
- There was also the perception that locating the benefit claiming process in a single office would result in reduced bureaucracy and greater efficiency for the benefit system.
Dealing with one adviser for benefits, job search and advice
- Respondents liked the idea of a Personal Adviser with whom they would deal for all aspects of their claim, and develop a trusting relationship.
- However, some respondents were afraid that Personal Advisers would try to interfere in their lives. There were also negative associations with ‘target driven’ Employment Service advisers who, respondents felt were not driven by a desire to help people into ‘proper’ jobs.
Referral to specialist agencies and training
- Respondents and in particular lone parents were enthusiastic about the help and training that could be offered through referral to specialist agencies.
- Scepticism was expressed by some that ONE could not offer appropriate training for all those who would benefit from it.
In-work support
- The prospect of in-work support was welcomed, especially by those respondents suffering from physical or mental health problems. Some respondents were afraid that they would not be able to cope with the demands of a full-time, or even regular part-time job.
Call centres
- There was support for the idea of making a claim for benefit over the telephone. Respondents felt it would save time and transport costs, and it would be especially helpful for people with young children, those who had an illness or disability, and those people who lived in rural areas. Respondents also thought it would be useful to have someone to help complete claim forms.
- However, some respondents expressed reluctance to discuss personal matters over the telephone and some expressed a preference for always speaking to someone face-to-face.
Full participation and sanctions
When respondents were given reassurance that they would not be forced to work in the immediate future, some felt positive about the potential benefits of taking part. There were three main objections to full participation:
- that it would be a waste of time and resources making people who were incapable of working take part in a work-focused interview.
- that it would be counter-productive to ask people to focus on work just at the time when they had put in a fresh claim for benefit and would be more concerned with justifying their claim to benefit than looking at possibilities for working.
- that some clients might be deterred from claiming benefits because of the prospect of having to attend a work-focused interview. Some were fearful that having an interview meant that they would be somehow forced into work.
- Most respondents took the view that if full participation were required, employing sanctions were fair and reasonable. These respondents believed that imposing sanctions would result in more people attending Personal Adviser interviews and more people looking for work. Some stressed that it was unacceptable to leave vulnerable people, such as, families with young children, without money and that people should not be forced to attend a work-focused interview when it could be of no benefit to them.
Publication details
Daphne Cotton, Vanessa Stone and Andrew Thomas (2000) “Why not ONE:” (DSS Research Report No.127) Leeds: CDS
Relevant publications
Hazel Green, Alison Smith, Robert Lilly and Alan Marsh (2000) “The First effects of ONE: Part A: Survey of clients ”and Clare Johnson and Shaun Fielding, “Part B: Qualitative research with clients ”(DSS Research Report No.126) Leeds: CDS