The first report from the Work Programme evaluation (Newton et al, 2012) discussed the concept of personalisation and how it was operationalised in the programme. The rationale for this being that personalisation was emphasised as a key feature of the Work Programme in early policy documents and speeches by key political figures. For example, the Minister of State for Employment noted an ambition that a
personalised service would be delivered in a speech in 2010.
“The new Work Programme will be an improvement on the current offer. It will
deliver long-lasting tailored support. We are taking the first steps towards developing a package of support that includes a simplified benefits system that works alongside personalised back to work provision to support people
into sustained employment.”
(Chris Grayling MP, 2010) 74
The language of personalisation and ‘tailored support’ was also repeatedly deployed in the tender documents submitted by the successful prime providers. However, personalisation was not a notion that resonated directly with most participants
interviewed for the qualitative research. They spoke at length about their relationship with their adviser and how they felt about the support they received or did not receive but they rarely used the vocabulary associated with personalisation. A close look at the qualitative data in the early analysis (Newton et al, 2012) suggested that two different aspects of personalisation could be inferred from the provider and participant evidence: procedural and substantive personalisation.
Procedural personalisation referred to the personal interaction between provider staff and participants, and the extent to which participants were treated as individuals with sensitivity and respect. Substantive personalisation referred to support and services tailored to individual needs and the wishes of participants, such that a substantively personalised service would comprise elements of advice and support that both:
matched the work goals and aspirations of individual participants; and
addressed their individual needs or barriers.
Some needs or barriers might be associated with goals and aspirations (such as the need for professional training for preferred work or affording the purchase of licences to enable a person to be job ready). Others might be independent of specific work goals and aspirations (such as the need to deal with pain or manage financial issues that effectively slow down or prevent work-related activity, such as indebtedness). This chapter draws on evidence from the qualitative and quantitative work with participants on to present findings on these topics.
11.2 Procedural personalisation
The early evidence indicated that participants were appreciative of the personal manner and approach of advisers. They valued advisers who were interested in them, listened to what they said and remembered it at the next appointment. Some were surprised at the level of pro-activity shown by advisers on their behalf and
spoke positively about staff who were positive and encouraging, ‘trying their best’ and ‘wanting to help’ even when they were still waiting for tangible outcomes.
The subsequent qualitative fieldwork largely reinforced these messages. Participants’ experience of the provider’s office environment was important. Visiting a well-
organised and comfortable office, with a quiet waiting area, and being able talk to an adviser privately, without feeling rushed or overheard by others helped participants to
otherwise have easy access to computers or photocopiers. Some offices provided local newspapers and trade circulars and, again, these were appreciated. It was an advantage to have these facilities all together in a comfortable environment and to be able to call in to use them without an appointment.
There were no quantitative data from the participant survey that related directly to procedural personalisation (for example, no questions were asked in the survey about how participants felt they were treated by provider staff). However,
respondents in the first survey were asked about their views on the amount of contact they had had from their adviser which might be viewed as an indirect indication of whether the adviser was responding appropriately to the needs and aspirations of the participants. As reported in Table 5.7, nearly three-quarters (74%) responded that they thought the amount of contact was ‘about right’ although one in seven said it was not enough.
Whilst the majority were satisfied with the approach, a few themes emerged from those who were not. First, there was evidence of lack of procedural personalisation for parents (some of whom found the lack of facilities for children made arranging appointments hard); as well as for some of those with health conditions and disabilities. Entry doors to providers’ offices were not always easy to manage, for example when controlled by key pads, and participants with mobility constraints were critical of offices without lifts and poorly located toilets. Some participants with
hearing impairments experienced major problems in communication, and explained the importance of receiving clear and timely written correspondence from the
provider. Texting an adviser by mobile phone was helpful for deaf people, but some advisers were not supplied with mobile phones to enable this.
Second, some had concerns about the relationship with their adviser. For example staff changes and absenteeism were criticised as contributing to perceived lack of continuity in service and constraints on building relationships75. Some participants wanted longer appointments in order to talk in greater depth, and these were
dissatisfied with being required to attend five to ten minute meetings as if they were on “a conveyor belt” for simple job search checks. There was criticism about advisers who did not do what they said they would do, for example making enquiries about a training course or phoning back with information. Unexplained gaps and delays in contacts with the provider left people puzzled, and concerned about possible implications for sanctions.
A significant perceived disadvantage for some was that taking part in the programme meant they became ineligible for other kinds of support, including specific
training/education programmes (for example, funded through the European Social Fund), and local business advice which excluded participants (again due to
conditions imposed by the funder and to avoid falling foul of double-funding rules). These regretted their loss of opportunity and the perceived lack of service integration.