5 th International Research Conference on Social Security Warsaw, 5-7 March 2007

Transcription

1 5 th International Research Conference on Social Security Warsaw, 5-7 March 2007 "Social security and the labour market: A mismatch?" Jobcentre Plus or Minus? Eleni KARAGIANNAKI London School of Economics United Kingdom International Social Security Association Research Programme Case postale 1, CH-1211 Geneva 22 Fax: issarc@ilo.org Web:

2 Jobcentre Plus or Minus? Eleni Karagiannaki * Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE Abstract: Since April 2002 Jobcentre Plus has started to operate nationwide in the UK providing fully integrated benefit claiming and work placement/job-seeking activities for people of working age. This new organisation put an explicit work-focus in the delivery of the benefit system. In this paper our aim is twofold. First, we examine the effectiveness of Jobcentre Plus in terms of benefit and employment service delivery and we discuss the extent to which there is a trade-off in the delivery of an efficient benefit and employment service. Secondly we explore the extent to which Jobcentre Plus delivers an efficient service tailored to the needs of different clients putting particular emphasis on the implications of service delivery for those clients who are further from the labour market. Our evidence, which draws on a series of evaluation projects, policy documents and research papers, suggests that while Jobcentre Plus has had some positive effects on employment service delivery it had a negative effect on benefit service delivery especially in terms of benefit accuracy and benefit clearance times. The client group who had the most negative experience from the new Jobcentre Plus arrangements are claimants who are further from the labour market and for whom moving into employment is an inappropriate option. This client group cannot benefit from the employment service at least as it is currently delivered while at the same time they have to face unacceptable delays in the benefit claiming process. Keywords: Jobcentre Plus, welfare to work, non-jobseekers. * Research Officer, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE. e.karagiannaki@lse.ac.uk

3 Introduction Over the last years governments around the world have introduced a range of policies in order to transform their benefit systems from simply providing income support to unemployed and inactive benefit claimants towards combining this form of support with voluntary or mandatory attendance at a diverse range of job search, employment and training programmes. The aim of such attempts is to promote the employment and employability of benefit recipients. Although traditionally activation policies targeted people claiming unemployment related benefits, over the last years there have been attempts in many countries to extend activation policies to include a much wider claimant base including the non-working lone parents, disabled people and other benefit claimants for whom benefit entitlement is not conditional on availability for work (Gilbert, 1992; Gilbert, 2002; Lorentzen, and Dahl, 2005; Scarpetta, 1996; Thornton et al., 1997; OECD, 1996, 1998, 2003). Further to the introduction of different types of activation policies many governments around the world have been taking steps to integrate the agencies responsible for job placement and social assistance services into single gateway for the provision of employment advice, job placements and benefit payments (Clasen et al., 2001; Finn, 2000; Martin, 2000). The advantages of such integration have been sketched by many international organisations including the OECD and the EEC. As has been argued by policy recommendation documents, bringing together employment and benefit services under a single gateway agency would lead to a better coordination of employment and benefit services which could help improve the functioning of employment services and promote the effectiveness of employability programmes (OECD, 2000, 2003). Despite the potential benefits of combining employment and benefit services under a unified agency and extending the activation policies to a wider group of working age claimants, a potential risk that is inherent to the integration of employment and benefit services is that the high weight attached to the delivery of an efficient work-focused service may affect negatively benefit service delivery. This risk is inherent in the multi-tasking nature of organisations that integrate benefit and employment services and can be realised if the employment related element of service is prioritised over benefit service delivery. An associated risk is that the design of integrated benefit and employment services may not address the needs of benefit claimants who are further from the labour market and for whom moving back to work is either not a priority (e.g. lone parents, carers, disabled people for whom moving back to work is possible with appropriate support) or an inappropriate option (e.g. severely disabled people). In this paper we explore the above two issues based on evidence from Jobcentre Plus, the agency which since April 2002 provides a single gateway for the provision of benefit and employment support for all working age claimants (aged 16 to 64 for men, 16 to 59 for women) in the UK. Our aim is twofold: first we examine the effectiveness of Jobcentre Plus in terms of benefit and employment service delivery and secondly we explore the extent to which Jobcentre Plus delivers an efficient service tailored to the needs of different clients putting particular emphasis on the implications of service delivery for those clients who are further from the labour market. Our evidence draws on a series of evaluation projects, policy documents and research papers that have been implemented to examine the Jobcentre Plus service delivery. Following this introduction, section 2 provides a brief discussion of the wider policy context in the UK and how Jobcentre Plus fits within it. In section 3 we provide 1

4 evidence concerning the employment service delivery, the benefit service delivery and service accessibility. Then in section 4 we discuss the balance of gains and losses for different client groups putting emphasis on elements that are of particular importance to clients who are further from the labour market and for whom moving back to work is not an appropriate option. Jobcentre Plus in a wider policy context Since 1997, when New Labour came to power the welfare system in the UK has undergone significant changes. Underpinning these changes has been the principle of Work for those who can and security for those who can t (DSS, 1998). The critical assumption surrounding this principle, and by extension the reforms of the welfare state, was that welfare dependency and unemployment can be reduced by improving the employability of benefit claimants and by connecting them more proactively to the labour market. Among the key changes was the introduction and extension of New Deal training and employment programmes targeting not only the unemployed people as traditionally defined but also a much wider client group including the lone parents and sick and disabled benefit claimants. These programmes were linked with broader tax benefit reforms designed to make work pay (Taylor-Gooby et al., 2004; Walker and Wiseman, 2003 outline and discuss in detail the effectiveness of various welfare reforms introduced under New Labour). All these programmes aim to create an employment-first welfare state and to help move people from welfare and into work emphasising both the rights and the responsibilities of the individuals. It was in the context of creating a work-first welfare state and promoting a new balance of rights and responsibilities that the government in April 2002 introduced Jobcentre Plus as the agency responsible for delivering an integrated employment and benefit service to all working age benefit claimants. The major feature of Jobcentre Plus is that it provides a single gateway to claiming benefits through compulsory attendance and participation in a work-focused interview with a Personal Adviser. The introduction of this work-focused interview as a compulsory stage of the benefit claiming process was designed to change the culture of the benefit system towards work and independence (Jobcentre Plus, 2003) by changing the aspirations and perceptions of inactive benefit claimants to consider work first before gaining entitlement to a benefit. Prior to Jobcentre Plus the integration of benefit claiming and work placements/job-seeking activities was piloted through ONE, an agency which operated in 12 areas of Great Britain during the period from June 1999 to October Following that in October 2001, 56 Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder offices started to operate in 17 areas of Britain. Jobcentre Plus was launched nationwide in the UK in April Since then and up until March 2006 new integrated offices have been gradually rolled-out throughout Great Britain creating a national network of integrated Jobcentre Plus offices. The Jobcentre Plus national roll-out involved a major re-organisation. This reorganisation included significant staff movements mainly from benefit processing to employment related functions as well as significant changes to the layout and location of offices. Further re-organisation resulted from the introduction of the efficiency savings programme a government programme that was introduced in April 2004 in order to increase savings in the public sector. Jobcentre Plus, as a significant part of 2

5 the efficiency savings programme, has undergone significant changes. The key changes included the introduction of new work-processes including systems using telephones, computers and on line technologies for initiating benefit claims. The main aim of these new work processes has been to reduce the number of staff and to free staff to deliver employment advice rather than processing benefits. Jobcentre Plus service delivery Providing an efficient service for people who need financial support because they cannot work is as important as providing an effective service for helping people move into paid employment. Although the need to deliver efficient employment and benefit service is reflected clearly in the objectives that the Department for Work and Pensions has set itself there is an over-emphasis within Jobcentre Plus on moving people quickly into work. This emphasis can create problems both in benefit service delivery and also in those aspects of employment service delivery which relate to improving the employability of benefit claimants who are further from the labour market. The focus of this section is to examine the effectiveness of Jobcentre Plus with respect to helping people move into paid employment and to overcome barriers of employment, as well as to the extent to which it delivers an effective and timely benefit service which maximises the financial security of benefit claimants. Our evidence draws on a series of evaluation reports that have been implemented to test the Jobcentre Plus service delivery. Employment service delivery Employment service in Jobcentre Plus is mainly delivered by the work-focused interviews with Personal Advisers. During these work-focused interviews Personal Advisers must explain to clients the services available in Jobcentre Plus, identify barriers to employment and discuss with clients ways of overcoming them. Personal Advisers should explain to unemployed benefit claimants that they have to attend the relevant New Deal programmes and should also aim to encourage clients claiming inactive benefits to participate in relevant New Deal programmes (participation to which is in a varying degree compulsory for different client groups) in order to help them move into the labour market. For more job-ready clients Personal Advisers can perform a job search. At the end of these initial work-focused interviews appointments are arranged for subsequent meetings with Personal Advisers. Evidence from early evaluations suggests that Jobcentre Plus has had a small but significant positive impact on the labour market participation for at least some of the targeted client groups. Karagiannaki (2007) analysing the relationship between changes in the level of integration (defined as the percentage of offices that offer the integrated Jobcentre Plus service) within districts and over time and performance with respect to job entries showed that the new integrate Jobcentre Plus service increased significantly the job entries of unemployed, lone parents and sick and disabled client by 1.01, 1.00, and 0.48 percentage points respectively (Table 1). A small positive impact on labour market is also found by Corkett et al. (2005) for all the inactive benefit claimants. Despite these positive findings evaluations of Jobcentre Plus service delivery identified a number of gaps in the way that Jobcentre Plus delivers its services at least 3

6 insofar as it concerns the service delivered to clients who are further from the labour market. Particular problems were identified in the extent to which Personal Advisers engaged in meaningful and substantive discussions about work with less job-ready clients (especially at early stages of Jobcentre Plus). While quantitative research with staff and clients (Coleman et al, 2005) showed most clients had a work-related element in their work-focused interviews (somewhere between 77 percent and 95 percent in different client groups) 1, qualitative research showed that the depth and the focus of discussions about work was determined by the interest, the motivation and the ability of clients to start work (McKenna et al., 2005). For more job-ready clients work-related discussions had an explicit focus on job-search activity, while for clients who were further from the labour market discussions tended to concentrate either on the support the client could receive when work did become an option (especially for lone parent clients) or on the support clients could receive in order to overcome barriers to employment. A major obstacle to the efficient employment service delivery was Personal Advisers not having always the confidence to engage clients who are further from the labour market (Davies et al., 2004; McKenna, 2005). A further problem that was identified by relevant evaluation research was with respect to the amount of specialist advice that was given to clients. Only a small minority of clients (less than 20 percent) received information and advice on childcare and health related issues and even less referred to specialist agencies and training schemes (McKenna et al., 2005). Given that barriers to work for many clients relate to health and childcare issues, this finding suggests that the service is not adequate for clients who are at some distance from the labour market. This is a very significant gap in service delivery as this is the kind of service that Jobcentre Plus should provide. Two main factors can be identified behind gaps in the delivery of the work-focus. The first is related to the fact that staff lacked knowledge about external organisations, support groups and local provisions appropriate for clients who are further from the labour market especially those customers claiming health-related benefits (McKenna, 2005). The second is related to the job entry targets and the pressure that they put on Personal Advisers to direct clients towards unsubsidised work (Work and Pensions Committee, 2006). Under the pressure to achieve quick job entry points and given the time constraints caused by the high number of clients, Personal Advisers tend to work more with clients who either are relatively job ready or not at much distance from the labour market. This strategy not only puts customers under pressure to apply for inappropriate vacancies but also it cannot be expected to assist people who are further from the labour market because they face health, personal or social problems or clients for whom moving back to work is an inappropriate option. Overall, we could argue that while Jobcentre Plus is proved to be beneficial in terms of job outcomes for more job-ready clients and it has the potential of having some significant positive impact for less job-ready clients, the extent, quality and intensity of information do not seem to be adequate to address the needs of clients who are 1 The exact percentages of clients who had a work-focused discussion among different client groups are: 97 percent for job-seekers, 90 percent for lone parents, 86 percent for people with health conditions and 77 percent for carers. 4

7 further from the labour market. By definition the context of the work-focus has nothing to offer for clients for whom moving back to work is an inappropriate option. Benefit service delivery In order to bring a work-focus in the delivery of the benefit system significant changes have been introduced in benefit claiming process. The new benefit claiming process consists of three main stages and was specifically designed to ensure that all working age benefit claimants are considering work before gaining entitlement to a benefit. At the first stage customers are encouraged to make their first contact with a Contact Centre by phone. During the phone call a First Contact Officer (FCO) takes details concerning the personal circumstances of the clients, the reasons for making a claim, checks the clients eligibility, arranges to send out the appropriate benefit claim forms and if appropriate books a work-focused meeting with a Personal Adviser. 2 In the case of job-oriented clients, the First Contact Officer also provides information about work and where appropriate performs a job search on behalf of clients. At a second stage clients visit their local Jobcentre Plus office the day that the meeting with the Personal Adviser meeting is fixed. Prior to the meeting with their Personal Advisers, clients have a meeting with a Financial Assessor who checks clients benefit claiming forms and answers their questions about the benefit claims. 3 At the third and final stage the client is seen by a Personal Adviser who assesses clients employability and provides employment assistance. The introduction of the efficiency savings programmes brought about further changes in the benefit claiming process. 4 The first of these changes was the reduction of the number of sites of processing benefits (which was implemented by centralising smaller into larger centres) while the second was the introduction of telephone and IT based systems in the benefit claiming process. Paper claim forms were not abolished under the new arrangements but claimants would normally have an extended telephone interview instead and staff at the contact centres would work to a detailed script to obtain the relevant information to establish and support customer benefit 2 The work-focused interview may be deferred or waived entirely depending on customers personal circumstances. Deferrals can be granted to clients who have a short-term injury and are claiming statutory sick pay, those who are recently bereaved, and those due to be hospitalised. Deferrals are intended to be short-term postponements, and individuals who are deferred are expected to attend a work focused interview at a later stage. On the other hand clients whose personal circumstances make a work focused interview inappropriate, for example due to a terminal illness or a progressive or degenerative disease will usually have their work focused interview waived for a long term period, unless the customers indicates that they would prefer otherwise. Decisions will be reviewed after a three year period, and a trigger meeting may then be offered (Taylor and Hartfree, 2003). 3 In ONE pilots there were not a separate Financial Assessor meeting. Benefit checks and any other benefit queries in ONE pilots were dealt during the Personal Advisers meetings. Evidence from ONE pilots suggested that clients were first and foremost interested in sorting out their benefit claim forms and this tended to undermine the delivery of the intended workfocus of the Personal Advisers meetings. Therefore the introduction of the Financial Assessor meeting prior to the Personal Adviser meeting within Jobcentre Plus was motivated by the belief that this would allow the Personal Adviser to focus on discussions concerning work and the steps that should be undertaken in order to overcome possible barriers to work. 4 Jobcentre Plus responding to the government s efficiency savings programme, set as a target to realise at least 960 million in efficiency savings (Work and Pensions Committee, 2006) 5

8 claims (Work and Pension Committee, 2006). The introduction of telephone claiming, including the development of Contact Centres and processing centres, and the introduction of a computerised benefit claming process, is known as the Customer Management System. The new work arrangements and processes which have been introduced mainly in order to achieve the work-related and efficiency savings objectives have created significant delays in the benefit claiming process. Before the introduction of the Customer Management System delays were mainly associated with difficulties in booking appointments with the Personal Advisers. The roll-out of the Customer Management System and the associated changes in the benefit claiming process has created further delays (Work and Pensions Committee, 2006). Delays under the Customer Management System arise from difficulties in getting through on the phone when people contact a Contact Centre to initiate their benefit claims; difficulties in completing the initial call (due to the lack of time, money or information); delays in receiving the call back for form completion (two to ten days depending on call centre involved), as well as from delays between the call-back and work-focused interviews (Work and Pensions Committee, 2006). As a result of these delays the proportion of clients attending or being scheduled to attend a work focused interview within four days (which is the target) has been falling since the peak achieved in October 2002 (of around 80 percent) reaching 48 percent in December 2004 (which is the latest date for which there is available information). The largest drop occurred in April 2003, which corresponds with the time when a large number of new integrated Jobcentre Plus offices were rolled out (Corkett et al., 2005). Comparisons across sites reveal that the largest fall occurred for sites which have adopted the Customer Management System (the roll-out of which was gradual). Overall, compared to the pre-jobcentre Plus benefit claiming process, the new arrangements have had significant negative effects on benefit clearance times. According to the figures presented in Table 2 the mean number of days that are required for benefit claims to be processed increased from 9.4 to 11.3 for Income Support, from 15.1 to 16.1 for Incapacity Benefit and from 9.8 to 14.5 for Jobseeker s Allowance. Significant negative effects were also identified with respect to other aspects of benefit service delivery. Karagiannaki (2007), analysing benefit service delivery performance indicators from April 2002 to March 2004 and relating them with variation in level of integration within districts over time showed that Jobcentre Plus has had a significant negative effect on accuracy for Jobseeker Allowance, Income Support and Incapacity Benefit (Table 3). The author attributed the negative effect of Jobcentre Plus to the high weight attached on the delivery of the work-focused service. Another area where significant gaps were identified was with respect to the quality and the extent of the benefit advice and information. While most research evaluating the Jobcentre Plus service delivery showed that the majority of Jobcentre Plus clients received advice and information about benefits related issues and that customers have had relatively high levels of satisfaction with respect to the advice and information on benefit related issues (Coleman et al., 2005) for a large minority of clients information 6

9 and advice on benefit related issues has been either inadequate and/or inappropriate. This has been highlighted both by qualitative research with staff and clients but also by evidence presented to the Work and Pensions Committee. According to the latter, within Jobcentre Plus there have been many instances where staff were refusing to initiate claims for appropriate benefits for many clients and/or were giving inappropriate benefit advice. Deficiencies with respect to the quality of benefit advice and information were identified by qualitative research with staff which showed that staff in some instances felt that they were ill-equipped to address complex benefit issues for some clients (Coleman et al., 2005). Also further evidence on this issue was provided by research with customers which suggests that information about other benefits and financial help was limited and some customers were disappointed their Financial Assessor did not provide them with information about further benefits they could claim (Davies et al., 2004). Staff identified a number of barriers to offering clients effective and accurate benefit advice including time and resources constraints, inadequate training and limited experience (Corkett et al., 2005; Talbot et al., 2005). Although some of these problems may be eliminated as staff gains experience others appear to be more structural (or more permanent) problems which are closely related to the reductions in staff that are responsible for delivering benefit related services. Staff reductions were the result of both the high weight attached to the delivery of the work-focus and the efficiency savings programme. The view that within Jobcentre Plus the weight attached to the delivery of an efficient employment service is higher compared to that attached to other elements of service have been raised by former Benefit Agency staff who also thought that the Jobcentre Plus performance targets put an explicit priority to front office in contrast with the treatment of the back office function of benefit processing (Johnson, 2003). Service accessibility The re-organisation of benefit processing combined with new multi-staged claiming procedure and the heavy reliance on the telephone despite being an efficient and cost effective way to deliver benefit service to the majority of clients, has raised serious problems of accessibility for many vulnerable and marginalised clients. According to evidence presented to the Work and Pensions Committee clients for whom the new mode of service delivery created serious barriers to access included clients with very low income with no landline, clients in hospitals and institutions with no access to private phone clients with mental health problems, physical disabilities and hearing problems. For these groups of clients the cost of calls, the length of time spent on hold, or listening to a recorded message are serious barriers to access. Although alternatives to phone contact are in place the over-emphasis on the telephone as the preferred model (in staff training and in allocation of resources) put constraints in the capacity of offering face-to-face or paper claims (Work and Pension Committee, 2006). The Social Exclusion Unit has recognised that although conducting business over the telephone and via internet is an important element of achieving efficiencies this approach raises some important questions about initial access of Jobcentre Plus service (SEU, 2005). The losers and winners under the new arrangements The introduction of the work-focused interviews with Personal Advisers as an additional compulsory stage of the benefit claiming process and the associated delays 7

10 in benefit payments is a clear example of the lower priority attached to benefit service delivery and highlights the risks associated with the integration of benefit and employment service under single gateway agencies. But also the findings suggest that the design and the way that Jobcentre Plus delivers different elements of its service do not address effectively the needs of clients who are further from the labour market nor of those clients for whom moving back to work is an inappropriate option. Although the negative effects of Jobcentre Plus on benefit service delivery affect all clients equally, for job-ready clients these effects are at least partly balanced by the delivery of a more effective work-focused service and the potentially positive effect that the new service can have in helping these types of people moving back into work. For clients who are further from the labour market but who in the medium term would like to move back to work, the service as it is currently delivered may not be particularly positive but addressing some of deficiencies the service could be prove beneficial. For clients, however, for whom work is not an appropriate option, not only does benefit service delivery deteriorated but also the work-focus of Jobcentre Plus is not tailored to their needs. These clients may require intensive help and co-ordinated specialist support of a different type not necessarily in direct relation to employment, that lies beyond the scope and capacity of Jobcentre Plus service as is currently delivered. Discussion and conclusions Our aim in this paper has been to assess the effectiveness of Jobcentre Plus in terms of the benefit and employment service delivery and to explore the extent to which is meeting the needs of clients who are further from the labour market and for whom moving back to work is an inappropriate option (at least in short/medium term). The evidence suggests that while Jobcentre Plus has had some positive effects on employment service delivery it had a negative effect on benefit service delivery especially in term of benefit accuracy and benefit clearance times. The client group who had the most negative experience from the new Jobcentre Plus arrangements are claimants who are further from the labour market and for whom moving into employment is an inappropriate option. This client group cannot benefit from the employment service at least as it is currently delivered while at the same time they have to face unacceptable delays in the benefit claiming process. These delays as we discussed in earlier sections of this paper relate to the introduction of the workfocused interview as an additional stage of the benefit claiming process and the inappropriate allocation of resources between employment and benefit services. Although some of these problems may be eliminated as staff gains experience, others appear to be more structural and relate to the reduction and re-allocation of staff from benefit to work-related functions. The excessive reliance on telephone and IT systems which is related to the implementation of the efficiency savings is another factor contributing to some of the problems that were identified with respect to benefit service delivery. Given the complexity of the benefit system what is needed for an efficient benefit service delivery is adequate and well trained staff with knowledge of the benefit system. 8

11 Policy implications The government s welfare reform during the last decade was built on helping more people into paid work by creating a new balance of rights and responsibilities based on the principle work for those who can, security for those who cannot. The creation of Jobcentre Plus had a central role in the creation of the new balance of rights and responsibilities and the promotion of the principle of work for those who can and security for those who cannot. However, as it was demonstrated in this paper within Jobcentre Plus more emphasis is put on the work for those who can part and less on the security for those who cannot side of the principle. This imbalance has created some serious problems in Jobcentre Plus benefit service delivery. Delays in making and processing benefit claims and deficiencies in the quality of benefit advice have consequences not only on the immediate short-term hardship of benefit claimants (debt, informal work etc) but also they create an inflexible benefit system with disincentives for benefit claimants to change benefit status or to take up a job which might not work out. Such disincentives have negative consequences on moving people into work and consequently on the wider government objectives of reducing child poverty and promoting social inclusion. Restoring the balance between rights and responsibilities within Jobcentre Plus by promoting work for those who can and at the same time ensuring the delivery of an efficient and inclusive benefit service is thus crucial. There are mainly two issues to be addressed. First, managers and policymakers should realise that the real efficiency savings cannot be achieved unless savings are not affecting negatively the quality of benefit service delivery. Also it should be realised that the delivery of an inclusive benefit service requires highly trained staff with manageable caseloads. Otherwise savings are short-term and illusory. Secondly, there should be a rebalance of emphasis given to job entry and benefit delivery targets as well as a greater availability of specialist staff that would be able to address the needs of different client groups. Only when these issues are addressed Jobcentre Plus could claim to have achieved its objectives of providing an inclusive, integrated service for all claimants of working age. The extension of Pathways to Work and the recent reforms of the Incapacity Benefit which were introduced by the new welfare reform Green paper in 2006 (DWP, 2006) are putting an increased emphasis on moving the inactive benefit claimants back to work. Both these policies require intensive support for clients. Increased caseload for each Personal Adviser will put further strains upon the system. It is thus essential that Jobcentre Plus addresses the deficiencies in service delivery ensuring that the workfocus is not be made at the expense of an effective benefit service delivery or claimants welfare. Acknowledgements: The author is grateful to Dr Tania Burchardt for most helpful comments and suggestions. Any errors and ambiguities are the author s responsibility. 9

12 References Benefit Agency (2002), Annual Report and Accounts , London: The Stationery Office Clasen, J., Duncan, G., Eardley, T., Evans, M., Ughetto, P., Oorschot, W. and Wright, S. (2001), Towards single gateways? A cross-national review of changing roles of employment offices in seven countries, Zeitschrift für Internationales und Ausländisches Sozialrecht, 15: 1, Coleman N., N. Rousseau and H. Carpenter (2004), Jobcentre Plus Service Delivery Survey, IAD Social Research Division Research Report no. 223 Coleman, N., E. Kennedy and Hannah Carpenter (2005), Jobcentre Plus Service Delivery Wave Two: Findings from quantitative research, DWP Research Report No 284. Davies V., J. Taylor, Y. Hartfree and K. Kellard (2004) Delivering the Jobcentre Plus vision: Qualitative research with staff and customers (Phase 3), IAD Social Research Division Research Report no DSS (Department of Social Security), (1998), New ambitions for our country: A new contract for welfare, Cm 3805, London: The Stationery Office. DWP (Department of Work and Pensions), (2006), A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work ( Empowering_people_to_work-Full_Document.pdf). Finn, D. (2000), Welfare to work: the local dimension, Journal of European Social Policy, 10: 1, Gilbert, N. (1992), From entitlement to incentives: the changing philosophy of social protection, International Social Security Review, 45: 3, Gilbert, N. (2002), Transformation of the Welfare State. The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press. House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, (2006) The Efficiency Savings Programme in Jobcentre Plus Second Report of Session , House of Commons London: The Stationary Office Johnson S. (2003), Jobcentre Plus Performance targets: A review of the evidence, , Policy Research Institute Leeds Metropolitan University Jobcentre Plus (2002), Quality Framework. Jobcentre Plus (2003), Jobcentre Plus Vision Jobcentre Plus (2003), Jobcentre Plus Annual report and Accounts. Jobcentre Plus (2007), Summary of Performance against targets 2006/07 Karagiannaki, E. (2007) Exploring the Effects of Integrated Benefit Systems and Active Labour Market Policies: Evidence from Jobcentre Plus in the UK Journal of Social Policy, vol. 36(2): Lorentzen, T. and Dahl, E. (2005), Active labour market programmes in Norway: are they helpful for social assistance recipients?, Journal of European Social Policy, 15: 1,

13 Martin, P. J. (2000), What work among active labour market policies: Evidence from OECD countries experiences, OECD Economic Studies Paper No. 30. McKenna, K., A. Slater, J. Steels, H. Walton (2005) Delivering the Jobcentre Plus Vision: Qualitative Research with Staff and Customers (Phase 4), DWP Research Report No 253 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1996), The OECD Jobs Strategy: Enhancing the effectiveness of Active Labour Market Policies, Paris: OECD. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1998), Key Employment Policy Challenges Faced by OECD Countries, Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional papers 3, Paris: OECD. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2003), Benefits and Employment, Friend or Foe? Interactions between Active and Passive Social Programmes, in OECD Employment Outlook: Sanderson I., Jobcentre Plus National Customer Satisfaction Survey 2003, Policy Research Institute Leeds Metropolitan University Scarpetta, S. (1996), Assessing the role of labour market policies and institutional settings on unemployment: a cross-country study, OECD Economic Studies, 26: 1, Social Exclusion Unit (2005) Improving Service, Improving Lives: Evidence and Key Themes ODPM: London Talbot, C., J. Wiggan, N. Hendey, A. Rafferty, R. Calcraft, M. Freestone and B. Wyatt (2005) Jobcentre Plus customer service performance and delivery: A qualitative review, DWP Research Report No 276 Taylor, J. and Y. Hartfree, (2003) Deferrals in Jobcentre Plus: Research into Staff Understanding and Application of Deferral Guidance for Non-Jobseeker s Allowance Customers DWP In-House report No. 121 Taylor-Gooby, P. T. Larsen and J. Kananen (2004) Market Means and Welfare Ends: The UK Welfare State Experiment Journal of Social Policy vol. 33(4): Thornton, P., Sainsbury, R. and Barnes, H. (1997) Helping Disabled People to Work: A Cross-National Study of Social Security and Employment Provisions, SSAC Research Paper 8, London: The Stationery Office. Walker, R. and M. Wiseman (2003) Making welfare work: UK activation policies under New Labour International Social Security Review, vol. 56:

14 Table 1 Performance at different level of integration The effect of integration on job entries-difference in job entries between zero 1 and full 2 integration Job entries-jobseekers *** Job entries-disabled people *** Job entries-lone Parents *** Note: Author s calculations based on figures reported in Karagiannaki (2007). The figures of this table are predicted values from a series of regressions estimating the effect of the level of integration on performance with respect to job entries. ***, ** and * denote significance at 1%, 5% and 10% significance level respectively. 1. No office within district is integrated Jobcentre Plus office % of offices within districts are integrated Jobcentre Plus offices. 3. Job entries as a percentage of total number of clients of each client group. Table 2 Comparison of Benefits Agency and Jobcentre Plus clearance for Income Support, Incapacity Benefit and Jobseeker s Allowance: Mean number of days Benefit Agency Jobcentre (2001/02) 1 Plus (2002/03) 1 Jobcentre Plus (2006/07) 2 Income Support Incapacity benefits Jobseeker s Allowance Note: 1. Statistics taken from Jobcentre Plus Annual Report and Accounts (2002/03). Statistics based on performance data for 2006/07 ( Table 3 Performance at different level of integration Districts level of integration Full Integration 1 No integration 2 Difference Jobseeker s Allowance ** accuracy 3 Incapacity Benefit accuracy *** Income Support accuracy *** Note: Author s calculations based on figures reported in Karagiannaki (2007). The figures of this table are predicted values from a series of regressions estimating the effect of the level of integration on performance with respect to benefit accuracy. ***, ** and * denote significance at 1%, 5% and 10% significance level respectively. 1. No office within district is integrated Jobcentre Plus office % of offices within districts are integrated Jobcentre Plus offices. 3. Accuracy of processing benefit claims (% of accurate claims out of total claims checked). 12