institute for employment studies

publications by IES authors

Evaluation of Access to Work

Hillage J, Williams M, Pollard E
Research Report, Employment Service, July 1998

This summary is from the Employment Service Research Report Evaluation of Access to Work.

Access to Work (AtW) is a programme run by the Employment Service (ES) which is designed to provide support to people with disabilities to help them obtain or maintain employment. It was introduced in 1994 and brought together a series of separate programmes which individually provided monies to, for example, purchase special equipment, adapt workplaces or help with fares to work to enable people with disabilities to compete on equal terms with their non-disabled colleagues. During 1996 some of the key funding procedures were changed, for example to ensure that employers shouldered an element of the costs involved.

In June 1997, the Employment Service commissioned the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) to conduct an evaluation of Access to Work, focusing in particular on the changes made to the programme in 1996. This summary sets out the main findings of the research.

Research approach

The main objectives of the evaluation were to determine:

• the impact of the changes that have been made to the funding arrangements
• the effects of cost-sharing upon AtW applicants, employers, ES personnel and programme delivery
• the level of dead-weight, that is the extent to which support would be provided without the provision of AtW
• the range and types of jobs held by AtW recipients
• the profile of AtW recipients.

In addition we were asked to draw comparisons where possible with the last AtW evaluation.*

This study involved gathering data from six separate sources:

• AtW applicants : via 492 face-to-face interviews
• AtW employers : based on 258 telephone interviews
• Placing, Assessment & Counselling Team (PACT) Managers : a mix of 26 face-to-face and telephone interviews
• Disability Employment Advisers (DEA) : 102 telephone interviews
• Regional Disability Service (RDS) Managers : nine telephone interviews
• JobCentre personnel : 100 telephone interviews.

The fieldwork took place between September and December 1997.

Key findings

Who receives support under Access to Work

The Access to Work applicants in our survey tend to be younger and less likely to be married compared with those in the previous study and in the population as a whole. Fewer of our applicants had hearing or eyesight conditions or multiple conditions than those in the last survey. This could indicate that Access to Work is starting to penetrate new groups of the disabled population. However, compared with the disabled population overall, AtW recipients are concentrated among those with sensory impairments and, to a lesser extent, mobility impairments.

A further compositional change may be indicated by the fact that there were fewer employees and more unemployed in our sample compared to last time. Also there has been an increase in the proportion of people applying for new jobs (whether employed or unemployed). This could be seen as evidence of Access to Work helping disabled people into work.

Most (three in five) Access to Work recipients work in the public sector – particularly in local authorities and the civil service (mainly the Employment Service, Benefits Agency and Inland Revenue). Perhaps reflecting the public sector dominance, 82 per cent of employers in the survey say they have a policy covering the employment of people with disabilities and two-thirds are aware of the Disability Symbol.

Access to Work recipients mainly work in clerical and secretarial occupations and are more likely to be employed in such jobs than the disabled population as a whole.

Programme administration

Evidence from the Manager and DEA interviews suggests that most PACTs operate a centralised approach to administering Access to Work, to maximise consistency and to cope with changes to the operation of the programme – especially cost-sharing. JobCentre personnel had also noticed a shift in the type of support available to them, with fewer internal DEA support staff and more designated disability liaison staff in JobCentres. Most DEAs felt that the time they spent on AtW had increased over the past year.

There appears to have been an increase in the use of Employment Service technical consultants, as opposed to other external experts. Difficulties experienced by DEAs in contacting consultants appear to have diminished since the last survey.

Mainstream JobCentre personnel had a higher level of awareness of AtW and were generally more confident in advising individuals about the programme than they were in the last survey. This may reflect the increased emphasis on training that appears to have taken place over the past two years. However, JobCentre personnel were less confident about talking to employers or training providers about Access to Work.

Managers and DEAs welcome the flexibility built in to AtW, although some feel it does create a few problems, such as understanding all the details of what is now a complex programme and ensuring consistency of treatment.

The application process

Relatively few PACTs appear to take a proactive approach to marketing Access to Work. Most adopt a more responsive attitude, giving out information on request rather than actively seeking applicants. This was partly because they felt they did not need to as awareness among potential recipients was fairly widespread, and partly because they were constrained by the absence of a marketing budget or had been told not to actively market the programme.

The low level of marketing may be reflected in the apparent drop in applicants first hearing about Access to Work through the PACT. There are some suggestions that referral through JobCentres have risen since the last survey, although the evidence is not conclusive. However it does appear that employers are a growing source of initial information to applicants about the programme and that referrals from employers are on the increase.

There are indications of a latent demand for the programme, however. Three-quarters of applicants had not heard of AtW, before applying. Some 40 per cent would have applied earlier had they realised they were eligible or knew more about the programme and while two-thirds felt they had applied at around the right time, 30 per cent felt that their application was ‘too late’.

The application process appears to run very smoothly. Only one in eight found difficulty filling in the application form, and they were the group most likely to receive support from DEAs. Most saw their employer when making their application and were happy with their employers’ involvement. Applicants were also generally happy with the advice and information received from the DEA, with those that were not tending to be unsuccessful applicants. Further evidence of satisfaction with the process is the very low level of appeals.

However, half the applicants in our sample reported that they had not received an Action Plan, although most of those that did, received it within seven days.

On average, it took 10 weeks for successful applicants to receive support. While most recipients were happy with the length of time it took to receive their support, a quarter felt it took too long. Although some received temporary support, there was concern expressed among our managers and DEAs about delays in delivering the necessary support – which tended to occur for a variety of reasons.

Type and impact of the support provided

The proportion of applicants receiving support prior to their Access to Work application appears to fallen since the last survey, suggesting a fall in the level of dead-weight associated with the programme.

In one-fifth of cases, the employer provides additional support on top of Access to Work and in 30 per cent of cases, the recipients’ working arrangements have been adapted from the norm, eg in relation to the number of hours worked or the content of the job.

Special aids and equipment are the most common form of support, covering two-thirds of cases. Around one in five applications involved adaptations to workplaces and one in six concerned help with travelling to and from work. Applications for aids and equipment have fallen since the SCPR study, while adaptations to premises have risen. In our survey, there were many fewer applications for two or more forms of support compared with the previous research.

Half of our recipients felt that Access to Work had helped them a great deal and a further quarter said AtW had helped a little in securing employment. There has been an increase in the proportion of applicants who felt they would have got the job they were going for without Access to Work support over that reported in the previous study.

However, employers provided a more positive response. One in six said that they would not have kept the disabled employee on without the Access to Work intervention – double that in the previous survey. Small establishments (under 10 employees) and charitable establishments were most likely to report that they would not have kept the disabled employee on with AtW support.

The vast majority of employers (over four in five) said that AtW had led to improved morale and efficiency among the recipients and three quarters felt that therefore the support had contributed to overall productivity of the workplace.

Cost sharing

Within the PACTs, there appears to be a good level of understanding about the process of cost sharing. The guidance on the issues is felt to be improving, however managers feel that more training could be provided on negotiating skills. Generally, PACT staff felt the principle of cost sharing was a good one and the proportions employers were expected to contribute to ‘about right’.

Across the board, we found that PACTs and employers had few problems agreeing the terms of their cost share. This may reflect the low level of negotiation actually taking place. Under half the employers in our sample actually paid a contribution – although where they did it averaged just over 40 per cent of the total cost of support.

Most of the employers (60 per cent) who made a contribution said that they would have been prepared to pay more, and a similar proportion (61 per cent) of recipients thought their employer would have been willing to make a further contribution. The additional amount employers were willing to pay was generally equal to, if not higher than, the amount of their original contribution.

One in eight recipients also contributed to the cost of their support.

Ownership and purchasing of services and equipment

Employers took responsibility for buying the equipment and services for around a half of successful Access to Work applicants.

The change towards employer purchasing was viewed fairly positively by PACT managers and DEAs. However a number of concerns were raised, including lack of expertise in making the appropriate purchase, that employers may be less able to secure value for money, and that employer involvement could lead to delays. Some of these concerns were reflected in the fact that a third of employers who had bought the equipment would have preferred the PACT to have done so.

There appeared to be some confusion over the ownership of equipment. One in three employers did not know who owned it and a third of DEAs also felt employers were unsure about ownership responsibilities. However, very few employers had any concerns about ownership or purchasing.

When they are responsible for purchasing, PACTs take a variety of measures to secure value for money, including using central supplies units and obtaining at least three quotes.

Follow-up arrangements

One-third of AtW recipients and a quarter of AtW employers had contact with the PACT after they had received the support – usually within a matter of a few weeks.

Follow-ups were made for a variety of reasons including finding out whether the equipment was working, seeing whether further support was required or for procedural or funding reasons. Where made, employers considered such follow-up very helpful.

One-third of employers did not know who was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the equipment, although very few expressed any concerns over the issue.

Management arrangements

PACTs use the PSS system to monitor aspects of the AtW process, however the system is not totally trusted, particularly regarding the accuracy of the information held, and many PACTs have developed their own parallel monitoring systems. PACT managers reported that is was particularly difficult to monitor spending against budgets. PACTs generally monitor applicant satisfaction – but fewer systematically collect employer views.

The main sort of guidance on AtW is the written manual, which is generally thought to have improved in recent years, but still suffers from being difficult to navigate, seemingly contradictory in places, and sometimes insufficiently specific or up-to-date.

Most training, particularly for DEAs, is conducted on-the-job and felt to be useful. However, one-third of DEAs felt inadequately trained, especially those who had not had any off-the-job training. Managers felt that more training could be provided in a number of areas, particularly on negotiating skills (for use with employers).

General satisfaction

Employers and recipients are generally happy with the Access to Work programme, both with the level and nature of the support provided and the efficiency and responsiveness of the way it works.

AtW is also well regarded by managers – both because of the help it provides and the way it operates as a programme.

DEAs also hold AtW in high regard, especially for the help it provides people with disabilities to secure employment. Including the recent changes, most DEAs – especially longer serving staff – think that Access to Work is better than the previous programmes in this area.

Conclusions

In a number of ways the operation of Access to Work has improved in recent years, although there are still elements of the application process that could be better (eg follow-up contacts) and recipients’ satisfaction with the help they received from DEAs has declined (from a very high level).

The cost sharing and purchasing/ownership changes introduced in 1996 seem to have had little detrimental impact on employers or recipients, although they have generated concern among staff.

We found evidence to suggest that the level of dead-weight is declining, as Access to Work begins to help new groups, previously unhelped by employer or State, secure employment.

There is evidence of a latent demand for the support provided as a significant proportion of applicants were unaware of the programme before they applied and would have liked support earlier.

* S Beinart, P Smith, K Sproston, The Access to Work Programme: a survey of recipients employers, Employment Service Managers and Staff, SCPR, 1996.

Evaluation of Access to Work, Hillage J, Williams M, Pollard E. Research ReportEmployment Service, 1998.
ISBN: (no ISBN). £free

• How to obtain this publication