The impact of Pathways to Work on work, earnings and self-reported health in the April 2006 expansion areas

Abstract

IntroductionPathways to Work (or 'Pathways') aims to support incapacity benefits customers in seeking work.It was piloted in three Jobcentre Plus districts in October 2003, with a further four pilot districts implementing the scheme from April 2004.Initially only those starting a new or repeat claim for incapacity benefits after these dates were obliged to participate in the programme.All new and repeat customers, other than those assessed as likely to find work within 12 months unassisted, or with severe health problems, were required to attend a series of Work Focused Interviews (WFIs) with Incapacity Benefits Personal Advisers.They were also offered a range of financial and non-financial support.Having piloted Pathways in seven Jobcentre Plus districts, it was decided to extend it nationwide in stages.The first three expansions took place in October 2005 (four districts), April 2006 (six districts) and October 2006 (three districts).Following these expansions, Provider-led Pathways was rolled out to cover the remaining 60 per cent of the country.By April 2008, when this roll-out was complete, all new and repeat incapacity benefits customers were required to participate in the mandatory elements of Pathways.Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) was introduced as a replacement for incapacity benefits in October 2008, and so from this point onwards Pathways has been compulsory for new and repeat ESA customers.Pathways is being evaluated by a number of research organisations, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Mathematica Policy Research, the National Centre for Social Research, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the Policy Studies Institute, the Social Policy Research Unit and David Greenberg of the University of Maryland.This report assesses the impact of Pathways on work, earnings and self-reported health outcomes in the April 2006 expansion areas.The analysis is based on surveys of incapacity benefits customers. Summary Subgroup analysesAn analysis of the impact of Pathways on particular groups of incapacity benefits customers found no evidence that employment impacts varied between subgroups in the April 2006 expansion areas.However, it was more effective for women than men in reducing the incidence of self-reported health problems which affected everyday activities.Pathways also reduced the incidence of self-reported health problems amongst those aged 50 or more 16 months after the start of the qualifying claim at a greater level compared to those under the age of 50.There was no evidence that the impact of Pathways on work or self-reported health differed between customers with mental health conditions and those with physical problems, or between those with dependent children and those without, in the April 2006 expansion areas.Although Pathways was more effective for some groups of customers than others, it did not have a statistically significant impact on any of the individual subgroups in the April 2006 areas.By contrast, within the pilot areas, it was possible to observe a statistically significant impact from Pathways on some subgroups.Possible explanations for the variation in the impact of Pathways between areasThe results for the April 2006 expansion areas are noticeably different from those for the pilot areas, but there are differences in approach across the two studies that should be taken into account when comparing the findings: Firstly, the sample used in the pilot areas included individuals enquiring about incapacity benefits rather than only those who actually made a claim, as was the case in the April 2006 expansion areas.This meant that the pilot areas results captured any impact that Pathways had in deterring potential customers from pursuing a claim for incapacity benefits, as well as the impact on helping them off benefit and into work.This was not the case in the April 2006 expansion areas, so any apparent impact from Pathways could be expected to be smaller.DWP are undertaking further analysis to seek to establish whether Pathways did in fact have a deterrent effect.Secondly, any analysis that is based on drawing samples at random from a population can only give an estimate of the true impact of a programme.Therefore, it is unsurprising that there was some variation in the observed impact of Pathways between the pilot and April 2006 expansion areas.Differences between the areas in the observed and unobserved characteristics of survey respondents may have meant that Pathways had a greater chance of being effective in some locations, e.g. if customers faced fewer barriers to work, or had a greater propensity to participate in the voluntary elements.Finally, there may have been differences between the pilot and April 2006 expansion areas in the resources devoted to implementing Pathways which explain the differences in its effectiveness.Further research could give an indication of the relative contribution of each of these factors to the apparent variation in the impact of Pathways between the pilot and April 2006 expansion areas.Incapacity benefits customers in the April 2006 areascharacteristics and outcomes 3 Incapacity benefits customers in the April 2006 areascharacteristics and outcomes 3.1

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.