Getting the message across: providing information on work incentives
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. 85
By Gillian Elam, Mark Diffley, and Andrew Shaw
This report examines the provision of work incentives information by intermediary organisations. At least 18 work incentive measures were introduced between 1988 and 1997, to help people of working age to take up and remain in employment. An 'intermediary' is someone who, during the course of paid or voluntary work, is in contact with members of the public of working age and who might receive enquiries about, or simply discuss, entitlement to work incentives. The research was commissioned to explore the awareness and understanding of work incentives among intermediary organisations, to identify factors affecting the provision of work incentives information and advice, and to discover the extent and type of information or advice provided to clients of intermediaries. Depth interviews, group discussions, and a telephone survey of over 900 intermediaries were completed in the summer and autumn of 1997 by Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR).
In response to benefit queries, intermediaries may 'sign-post', 'inform' or 'advise'. Many acted as sign-posting organisations, referring queries on with minimal information about possible benefit entitlement. Some organisations provided basic information and/or contacted experts on clients' behalf. Advising involved using knowledge and reference materials to answer queries, but sometimes went considerably further. Advisers could recommend other claiming options, help with claims or pursue claims and appeals for clients.
- Organisations most likely to give advice were the Citizens Advice Bureaux and welfare rights organisations. These were leading experts in their locality and sources of information for others. Others who gave advice less regularly were specialists working with a particular client group, or labour market organisations involved in schemes aimed at long-term unemployed people or encouraging return to work.
- Intermediaries shared a view that work incentives were a complex part of the benefits system 'maze'. Consequently, giving good advice required considerable expertise, care and time. Even among those advisers who gave work incentives advice, relatively few were always confident that the information and advice they were giving was comprehensive and up-to-date.
- With the exception of family credit, work incentives were not sufficiently known among intermediaries for them to be able to name them without being prompted. With prompting, many incentives were quite widely recognised, though awareness of newer and more complex measures was low.
- Intermediaries did not rely on one source of information, but drew instead on a range of sources. DSS leaflets were used by the vast majority of all types of intermediary. In addition, the Child Poverty Action Group handbooks were very widely used by those who regularly gave advice.
- Intermediaries seek constructive relations with statutory agencies, but most also protect their independence.
Introduction
In 1997, The Department of Social Security (DSS) commissioned Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR) to study the provision of work incentives information by intermediary organisations. Work incentives are policy measures which aim to help people of working age to “take up ”and “remain ”in employment. Some of these measures seek to smooth transitions from out-of-work benefits to paid work, while others augment low earnings to increase in-work incomes. At least 18 work incentives were introduced between 1988 and 1997.
An 'intermediary' is someone who, during the course of paid or voluntary work, is in contact with members of the public of working age and who might receive enquiries about, or simply discuss, entitlement to work incentives. This includes people who are formal 'advisers', as well as those who may provide benefits-related information or advice though it is not part of the main purpose of their work. The research distinguishes primary advisers, such as Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx) and welfare rights organisations, and secondary advisers, which range from organisations serving specific client groups to labour market specialists. Also included are 'non-advisers' who may be asked questions relating to work incentives but who would always refer clients elsewhere for benefits information. Staff of statutory bodies, such as the Benefits Agency and Employment Service, are outside the scope of this study.
The objectives of the research were to explore awareness and understanding of work incentives among intermediary organisations, to identify factors affecting the provision of work incentives information and advice, and to discover the extent and type of information or advice provided to clients of intermediaries. Sources of information used by intermediaries were investigated; ways of best providing work incentives information to intermediaries were also examined.
The study comprised qualitative and quantitative stages. The qualitative research involved 3 extended group discussions and 18 in-depth interviews among purposively selected intermediaries. The quantitative survey was conducted by telephone using paper questionnaires. In total, individuals from 924 intermediaries were interviewed.
Benefits information and advice
In response to benefit queries, intermediaries may 'sign-post', 'inform' or 'advise'. Many acted as sign-posting organisations, referring queries on either with minimal information about possible benefit entitlement, or without any information at all. Other organisations provided information without fulfilling an advisory function. They provided basic information and/or contacted experts on clients' behalf. Advising involved using knowledge and reference materials to answer queries, but sometimes went considerably further. Advisers could recommend other claiming options, help with specific claims or pursue claims and appeals for clients. The level of service provided was a product of these factors:
- the intermediary's primary function
- availability of time and resources
- level of expertise in benefits advice
- demands of clients.
Information from the survey and the qualitative study was used to define three types of intermediary, namely “primary advisers, secondary advisers ”and “ non-advisers. ”
Primary advisers, such as CABx and welfare rights organisations, were leading experts in their locality and a source of information for others. Training and access to comprehensive information sources placed primary advisers in a better position to provide complete work incentives advice, having less need to sign-post clients.
Secondary advisers included a wide range of organisations. Some were specialists working with a particular client group. Others were labour market organisations involved in schemes aimed at long-term unemployed people or encouraging return to work. These intermediaries tended to see themselves as trainers rather than advisers and, therefore, provided lower level advice along with referrals and sign-posting. Secondary advisers generally had less opportunity to advise on work incentives. Non-advisers included the same types of organisation, but whose approach was never to give benefit advice but always to refer people elsewhere.
Primary advisers were more likely than secondary advisers to consider that giving work incentives advice was important to their organisation. Moreover, primary advisers were much more likely to advise regularly on work incentives. Half of primary advisers advised on work incentives at least once a week, compared with only one secondary adviser in seven. As many as a third of secondary advisers never advised on work incentives.
Unsurprisingly, therefore, secondary advisers had lower levels of confidence in their benefits knowledge, were concerned that clients might be misled if advice were to be given, and very commonly encountered problems whilst giving work incentives advice. This all contributed to secondary advisers' lower levels of advice giving.
Intermediaries shared a view that work incentives were a complex part of the benefits system 'maze'. Consequently, giving good advice required considerable expertise, care and time. Even among those advisers who gave work incentives advice, relatively few were always confident that the information and advice they were giving was comprehensive and up-to-date.
Thirty per cent of the non-advisers reported that they had never been asked by their clients about work incentives and nearly half said it happened less frequently than once per fortnight.
Slightly more secondary advisers (71%) than primary advisers (62%) referred some enquirers elsewhere for information. Moreover, secondary advisers referred a much higher proportion of work incentives enquiries. Large majorities of 'advisers who refer' (72%) and of all non-advisers (80%) referred clients to the DSS/Benefits Agency. However, it was far from the case that clients were referred only to the DSS/Benefits Agency. For instance, half of secondary advisers and non-advisers made referrals to Citizens Advice Bureaux. Referrals and sign-posting frequently involved suggesting a specific benefit which might suit the client's need or simply suggesting that a benefit may be available to meet this need.
Better-off calculations
Work incentives were associated with 'better-off' calculations. These calculations were felt to be administratively time consuming, potentially problematic and thought to require comprehensive benefits knowledge. Even when primary advisers carried out 'better-off' calculations, advisers would double-check benefits with information sources and only proceed with calculations once their client had provided accurate income details. Concern that clients might be given an incorrect calculation and that advisers would be blamed, along with the immense responsibility associated with providing such calculations, led some intermediaries to avoid making better-off calculations.
Awareness and understanding of work incentives
With the exception of Family Credit, work incentives were not sufficiently known among intermediaries for them to be able to name them without being prompted. Having heard of work incentives, when prompted, was taken to indicate levels of awareness. Levels of awareness were higher among primary advisers than secondary advisers and non-advisers. For example, 79% per cent of primary advisers had heard of Back to Work Bonus, whereas 65% of secondary advisers had heard of this measure. Secondary advisers and non-advisers displayed similar levels of awareness. Awareness of newer and more complex work incentives measures tended to be low. In particular, Child Maintenance Bonus was less well known by all groups of intermediaries. Awareness of measures associated with some incentives (Faster Family Credit and Thirty Hours Credit with Family Credit or Extended Payments for Housing and Council Tax Benefits) was also lower.
There were marked differences between primary and secondary advisers' own perceptions of their knowledge. A quarter of primary advisers considered their knowledge of the work incentives upon which they most often advised to be thorough, and a further third said that their knowledge was good. In contrast, half of secondary advisers felt they had only a basic knowledge of incentives which they advised upon most often, while only one in ten felt their knowledge was thorough. Nearly all primary advisers but only half of secondary advisers knew their main work incentives well enough to provide detailed advice upon them. However, three quarters of secondary advisers (and nearly all primary advisers) knew their main work incentives well enough to identify who would be entitled to them.
While some intermediaries' actual knowledge of work incentives was substantial, many others indicated shortcomings. Confusion surrounding the official names given to certain measures was apparent. Some advisers were unclear of the rules which govern certain incentives and how these and other incentives actually operate. Non-advisers, in particular, were wary of giving incorrect information and, feeling that it was impossible to retain up-to-date information, preferred a policy of referral.
Specific survey questions on certain work incentives revealed quite low levels of detailed knowledge, especially among secondary advisers. In general, intermediaries acknowledged this was not information they held in their memories. Incorrect responses were relatively infrequent.
Respondents nonetheless commonly said they had ready access to information which could supply the answers to specific questions on regulations. For each of the measures concerned, more than 90% of primary advisers and about 70% of secondary advisers felt confident that they had access to information to provide an answer within a few minutes. Often, awareness of work incentives was sufficient to indicate to the claimant that benefits existed which were worth investigating, and so if they could not themselves provide the information, intermediaries were capable of directing clients appropriately. Low awareness thus did not necessarily mean that clients would miss out on information about work incentives.
Information sources
Intermediaries did not rely on one source of information, but drew instead on a range of sources. The volume and sources of information used by intermediaries was driven in part by how much advice work was done, and the demands of clients. On average, advisers used four to five printed sources and nearly as many non-printed sources. Non-advisers tended to draw on a smaller range of material.
DSS leaflets were used by the vast majority of all types of intermediary. In addition, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) handbooks were very widely used by primary advisers. These two sources stand out in their importance to primary advisers. Telephone helplines, the Disability Alliance handbook, the NACABx system and personal contacts also scored highly on importance to primary advisers. Except for the NACABx system, all these sources were important to sizeable numbers of secondary advisers. However, many more secondary advisers relied on local organisations - perhaps primary advisers - and the Benefits Agency catalogue as important sources.
DSS leaflets were also an important source of information for most non-advisers and the most important source for nearly half. Helplines, contacts and local organisations were important to some non-advisers, but comprehensive handbooks or information systems were mentioned only very rarely.
Intermediaries valued the perceived neutrality and objectivity of publications produced by national voluntary organisations. Advisers felt that independent publications, unlike official agency publications, did not place too much emphasis on benefits take-up at the expense of highlighting clients needs and financial realities. Independent publications were felt to cater for the client interests rather than the interests of statutory agencies and, therefore, not to over promote return to work. The leading independent sources of information were rated most highly. In contrast, though DSS leaflets were commonly an important source of information, they did not score well in assessments of how often they provided comprehensive and up-to-date information and, overall, how useful they were.
There was widespread agreement it was difficult to keep up-to-date with changes to the benefits system. There was a shared perception that there had been a great deal of change, and that more was likely to follow. So, in practice, intermediaries were experiencing problems keeping up with changes, sometimes hearing of new benefits by chance in the media or by accident from clients.
The DSS leaflet called 'Be Better Off Working', introduced in April 1997, had been seen by relatively few intermediaries. Those who reported having seen the leaflet (or who possessed the leaflet) tended to view it favourably. The leaflet was said to be clearly laid out, cheerful, comprehensive in its coverage of benefits, and relatively jargon-free. There was considerable support for having one booklet which covered the range of work incentives. Nevertheless, some intermediaries said that claimants would not read such a large booklet. The financial reality faced by claimants was felt to have been omitted from the leaflet, as it did not thoroughly point out benefit pitfalls and potential costs of working. The title, 'Be Better Off Working', was felt to glorify returning to work, ignoring the sometimes negative financial implications of doing so. Intermediaries considered it important not to push claimants into a situation where they would be financially worse off and, therefore, not to over-promote return to work without first considering the pitfalls.
Conclusions
In order for a policy measure to act as an incentive rather than a bonus when claimants take-up work, knowledge of work incentives has to be available at different stages of jobseeking. These stages and the circumstances of those looking for work vary greatly. This suggests many opportunities for a wide range of intermediaries to provide work incentives advice, but also presents sizeable challenges.
Intermediaries seek constructive relationships with statutory services, whose own information services they would wish to see improved. However, intermediaries must maintain their independence in order to protect relationships with their clients.
Primary advisers were capable of providing fairly complete advice about work incentives, but would rarely be contacted during 'day-to-day' job search. Secondary advisers seemed more likely to have contact with potential beneficiaries of work incentives, but often were unsure and unconfident about giving advice. Among these intermediaries there is a great opportunity for raising awareness of work incentives. But an expanded role would need to be negotiated and nurtured carefully. Many organisations would be willing only to fulfil a sign-posting role, though some might become involved in advice and information provision. All would require sufficient awareness to recognise the situations in which work incentives are applicable and the required nature and level of information. Those willing to provide more than a signpost need accessible and comprehensive information about individual benefits and links to other relevant incentives.
Many possible improvements were suggested by intermediaries during both qualitative and survey interviews. The most popular area for comments was 'updating' of information and materials. This was followed by improved quality of printed material, improved service to advisers, more information and communication and more use of computers and information technology.
Although the intermediaries had distinct perspectives and information needs, it seemed that some specific approaches to keeping up-to-date would be universally popular:
- a named telephone contact or direct lines to social security specialists;
- access to experts in the benefits relevant to intermediaries' clients;
- regular liaison with - and training by - the local statutory agencies; and
- supply of clear information prior to implementation of changes.