Terms of engagement

Download the report

Conditionality – the requirements placed on people on work-related benefits – is often presented as both necessary, to limit the time people spend on benefits, and popular with the public. This report, however, argues that increasingly strict and prescriptive conditionality is driving perverse outcomes and is neither understood by the public nor aligned with how they think people should be treated.

Based on a comprehensive suite of research – deliberative workshops with people with experience of the current system, discussions with employment support professionals, and detailed exploration of public opinion – we set out the case for an alternative approach that would better balance support and accountability, to improve experiences and outcomes while retaining public support.

Key recommendations

Our research clearly suggests that strict and prescriptive conditionality is not only ineffective but is often actively harmful to experiences and outcomes. Meanwhile, although the public wants some mechanism of accountability in the system, they support an approach that prioritises positive engagement over a focus on tightly policing the rules to ensure compliance.

We recommend ending the most strict and prescriptive aspects of the current approach to conditionality, such as a specified number of hours per week of job search and the requirement to apply for and accept any job recommended by a work coach.

We also call for more comprehensive reform to be trialled with people starting on universal credit who would be subject to full conditionality. This approach would look to maximise genuine engagement with support and would only resort to conditionality as a backstop:

• During an initial period (we suggest three months), work coaches would look to engage with people voluntarily, with a focus on understanding their experiences, skills, aspirations, and barriers and building an effective working relationship.
• Support should be flexible and built around a genuinely co-produced plan, which sets out mutual expectations between the work coach and the person they are supporting, but not prescriptive requirements to be monitored and enforced.
• If, after an initial period of attempted voluntary engagement, there is no evidence of activity or progress, a work coach could request a review as to whether more prescriptive conditionality is required. Additional barriers such as disabilities, health conditions, and caring responsibilities should exempt people from this.
• If more specific requirements are set but not met, a warning and another review should occur before any sanctions are imposed. Sanctions should never take a household below a minimum level of income necessary for them to meet their essential costs. Sanctions should also be refundable if someone reengages.

This approach would shift the system away from a starting question of ​“How much conditionality is it reasonable to place on this person?” to one of ​“How can we most effectively engage with and support this person?”. Our research suggests that this could hugely improve people’s experience of and commitment to employment support, particularly for those facing additional barriers. It would help more people into better jobs, while also maintaining public consent and support.