Work-first interventions: types and effects

This report examines the evidence on approaches used to support people into employment, focusing on the effectiveness of supportive (“assisting”) and coercive (“sanctioning”) interventions within work-first Active Labour Market Policies. It was undertaken in the context of the UK Government’s Get Britain Working strategy, which aims to increase employment rates and reduce economic inactivity, particularly among groups facing significant barriers to work.

The review explores the strengths and limitations of the UK’s current employment support system and draws on international evidence from OECD countries between 2018 and 2024. Through a systematic review of 61 studies covering 70 interventions, the research assesses the impact of different approaches on employment outcomes, including employment likelihood, employment duration, wages, wellbeing, and benefit dependence.

The findings show that while employment services have traditionally focused on rapidly moving people into work, there is increasing evidence that more personalised and supportive approaches are more effective in promoting sustainable employment outcomes. Across the findings, several overarching themes emerged:

Evidence shows that assisting interventions can significantly improve employment outcomes. Interventions focused on job search assistance, training and vocational profiling consistently show the highest rates of positive outcomes, particularly in terms of increased employment likelihood, wages, and employment duration. These effects are more pronounced over longer periods (a minimum 12 months following the intervention) and are especially beneficial for disadvantaged groups, such as those with limited work capacity or the long-term unemployed. Tailored job assistance and coaching can substantially enhance the employment prospects of people with disabilities.

Monitoring and sanctioning interventions generate mixed results. While they can be effective in reducing unemployment duration and improving compliance-related intermediary outcomes, they are also frequently associated with higher instances of negative or non-significant results on wellbeing, wages, and long-term employment outcomes. Punitive measures implemented without support are less likely to reduce unemployment or economic inactivity compared to other types of intervention.

Combined approaches show potential for improving employment outcomes. Programmes combining assisting elements with sanctions often lead to positive outcomes, particularly in terms of increased employment likelihood and duration, and reducing unemployment duration and subsidy dependence. However, despite their apparent potential, the limited number of evaluations of these programmes means a more comprehensive study to confidently ascertain their effectiveness is required.

Wider evidence highlights the importance of frequent and personalised contact with employment advisers (especially during the first three months of unemployment), which becomes a driver to success. Lower caseloads, tailored action planning, and trust-based relationships contribute significantly to positive employment transitions.

The report emphasises that improving employment outcomes requires a shift away from a predominantly compliance-driven model towards one centred on personalised support, trust, and long-term progression. The findings suggest that sustainable employment is more likely to be achieved when individuals are provided with tailored assistance that addresses their specific circumstances rather than through punitive measures alone. As the government reforms employment support through the Get Britain Working strategy, the evidence points towards a more inclusive and enabling system that empowers individuals to secure stable, meaningful, and lasting employment.