Andy Cook is Chief Executive of the Centre for Social Justice.
Westminster wonks, glued to Office for National Statistics releases as they rightly are, make the same grave error again and again: We forget that underneath the often bewildering jargon of economic and welfare policy, there are real lives at stake.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the recent debate over so-called economic inactivity.
Yes, understanding the data is critical. It’s why the Centre for Social Justice was arguing several months ago that the media’s obsession with early retirees was obscuring the most pressing driver of people exiting the workplace: long-term sickness.
In fact, there are now fewer people who are economically inactive due to early retirement than before the pandemic, while the numbers of those inactive due to long-term sickness has risen by 16 per cent.
This is also how we’ve been able to uncover the hidden scars of lockdown, which saw an explosion in working-age welfare; data from the the Department for Work and Pensions suggests there remains around 1.6 million more claimants since 2020 producing a £13bn increase in our benefit spending.
But spreadsheets never tell the whole story. I set up a charity in Loughborough in 2003, aiming to get young people who’d been trapped in the welfare system into jobs.
There, I saw first-hand the impact of inactivity across the entire household: the kids seeing worklessness as the norm, parents feeling less and less able to ever get out, grandparents left to fend for themselves.
In short, economic inactivity for many means living a life on the margins; written off by society, and blocked from the copious social, financial and indeed health benefits gained by others through work.
The imminent Spring Budget, with its expected focus on the labour market, is the best chance we’ve had in years to overhaul the way the welfare system help those furthest away from the jobs market into employment.
There has been talk of additional requirements for claimants to increase job searches or their working hours – a welcome step.
But, critically, this will make no difference to the 3.5 million inactive claimants who are exempt from any conditionality rules, due to being in what is known as the No Work Requirements (NWR) category.
This group, having been signed off after an assessment due to caring responsibilities, physical and, increasingly, mental health conditions, is exempt from sessions with work coaches, CV support, or other such requirements.
Many people in this bulging category may never be able to work and should not be treated in the same way as those who are fit. But from our research at the CSJ, we know that at least 700,000 say that they would like to work, with even more saying they could with the right support.
That number represents more than half of all vacancies currently in the economy, ready and willing to get into work – and is the same as the entire population of golfers who play regularly in England, retired or not.
I can’t think of a wider open goal than helping to unlock this group of people’s potential, saving billions on the nation’s benefits bill and firing up our economy.
We have good evidence of the difference that can be achieved. The Working Well programme in Greater Manchester has helped thousands of people facing highly complex barriers into employment since 2014.
How? By recognising that the major barriers to work – fluctuating conditions, low confidence, housing, debt, family problems at home, etc. – are complex.
The support worker assigned to a claimant under this model therefore plays a much more wide-ranging and intensive role than a work coach: producing a wraparound support plan for participants, connecting them directly with the local charities and services best placed to support them, and ensuring claimants are making progress.
The results speak for themselves. Some 42 per cent of participants are in jobs after just over a year, compared to just 25 per cent of those on the wider Work and Health Programme after two years. By contrast, just two per cent of this group typically move into work without the same support.
This programme is remarkably similar to the original design for Universal Support – the long-forgotten sister to Universal Credit. Now is the time to roll out a revamped Universal Support, using the huge underspend on the poorly targeted Restart scheme.
But to ensure claimants take up the new offer, the Government also needs to send a signal that it is on people’s side.
While long-term rewiring of the system is needed to improve the work capability assessment process (requiring primary legislation), a powerful interim step would be to guarantee claimants moving into work the security that they can move back to their earlier benefits should this not work out.
Meanwhile the new Universal Support workers would personally mediate between claimants and their new employers, ensuring every chance of success.
There are more than 700,000 people on benefits who want to work with the right help. Universal Support would transform the economy’s fortunes. But more importantly, it would transform thousands of lives.
Andy Cook is Chief Executive of the Centre for Social Justice.
Westminster wonks, glued to Office for National Statistics releases as they rightly are, make the same grave error again and again: We forget that underneath the often bewildering jargon of economic and welfare policy, there are real lives at stake.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the recent debate over so-called economic inactivity.
Yes, understanding the data is critical. It’s why the Centre for Social Justice was arguing several months ago that the media’s obsession with early retirees was obscuring the most pressing driver of people exiting the workplace: long-term sickness.
In fact, there are now fewer people who are economically inactive due to early retirement than before the pandemic, while the numbers of those inactive due to long-term sickness has risen by 16 per cent.
This is also how we’ve been able to uncover the hidden scars of lockdown, which saw an explosion in working-age welfare; data from the the Department for Work and Pensions suggests there remains around 1.6 million more claimants since 2020 producing a £13bn increase in our benefit spending.
But spreadsheets never tell the whole story. I set up a charity in Loughborough in 2003, aiming to get young people who’d been trapped in the welfare system into jobs.
There, I saw first-hand the impact of inactivity across the entire household: the kids seeing worklessness as the norm, parents feeling less and less able to ever get out, grandparents left to fend for themselves.
In short, economic inactivity for many means living a life on the margins; written off by society, and blocked from the copious social, financial and indeed health benefits gained by others through work.
The imminent Spring Budget, with its expected focus on the labour market, is the best chance we’ve had in years to overhaul the way the welfare system help those furthest away from the jobs market into employment.
There has been talk of additional requirements for claimants to increase job searches or their working hours – a welcome step.
But, critically, this will make no difference to the 3.5 million inactive claimants who are exempt from any conditionality rules, due to being in what is known as the No Work Requirements (NWR) category.
This group, having been signed off after an assessment due to caring responsibilities, physical and, increasingly, mental health conditions, is exempt from sessions with work coaches, CV support, or other such requirements.
Many people in this bulging category may never be able to work and should not be treated in the same way as those who are fit. But from our research at the CSJ, we know that at least 700,000 say that they would like to work, with even more saying they could with the right support.
That number represents more than half of all vacancies currently in the economy, ready and willing to get into work – and is the same as the entire population of golfers who play regularly in England, retired or not.
I can’t think of a wider open goal than helping to unlock this group of people’s potential, saving billions on the nation’s benefits bill and firing up our economy.
We have good evidence of the difference that can be achieved. The Working Well programme in Greater Manchester has helped thousands of people facing highly complex barriers into employment since 2014.
How? By recognising that the major barriers to work – fluctuating conditions, low confidence, housing, debt, family problems at home, etc. – are complex.
The support worker assigned to a claimant under this model therefore plays a much more wide-ranging and intensive role than a work coach: producing a wraparound support plan for participants, connecting them directly with the local charities and services best placed to support them, and ensuring claimants are making progress.
The results speak for themselves. Some 42 per cent of participants are in jobs after just over a year, compared to just 25 per cent of those on the wider Work and Health Programme after two years. By contrast, just two per cent of this group typically move into work without the same support.
This programme is remarkably similar to the original design for Universal Support – the long-forgotten sister to Universal Credit. Now is the time to roll out a revamped Universal Support, using the huge underspend on the poorly targeted Restart scheme.
But to ensure claimants take up the new offer, the Government also needs to send a signal that it is on people’s side.
While long-term rewiring of the system is needed to improve the work capability assessment process (requiring primary legislation), a powerful interim step would be to guarantee claimants moving into work the security that they can move back to their earlier benefits should this not work out.
Meanwhile the new Universal Support workers would personally mediate between claimants and their new employers, ensuring every chance of success.
There are more than 700,000 people on benefits who want to work with the right help. Universal Support would transform the economy’s fortunes. But more importantly, it would transform thousands of lives.