Rethinking conditionality to support more people into better jobs

Over the last decade, increasingly strict and prescriptive conditionality has been introduced into the benefits system. This has been justified on the basis that such conditionality is necessary to push people into work, and that it's popular with the public.

The research is the culmination of a six-month research project involving deliberative workshops with people in the benefits system, a roundtable with employment support providers, and focus groups and polling with the public.

It 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.

Key findings

• Increasingly strict and prescriptive conditionality is undermining the quality of Jobcentre support - pushing people into poor-quality work or away from engaging with support altogether
• A more flexible and supportive approach, where conditionality is used as a backstop rather that the default, could improve experiences and outcomes, particularly for those currently reticent to engage with support
• Although the public want a mechanism of accountability in the system, they don't want this to come at the expense of good outcomes and would be receptive to the alternative approach we are proposing

Recommendations

• The research suggests that strict and prescriptive conditionality is ineffective and harmful to people's outcomes
• It calls for the strictest aspects of the current approach to be ended - such as the number of hours per week of job search needed
• Alongside this, it calls for an approach where conditionality is only used as a backstop, to encourage more genuine engagement with the system

Read more about the key findings and recommendations in the full report below.

We co-funded this report the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Central London Forward and Manchester City Council. The project's main funder was the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.