Research and analysis

Restart Scheme: Evaluation summary

Published 9 May 2024

This report was authored by researchers at Learning and Work Institute (L&W) and Ipsos.

Jess Elmore, Deputy Head of Research, L&W
Naomi Clayton, Deputy Director, L&W
Jack Bradstreet, Researcher, L&W
Joanna Crossfield, Research director, Ipsos
Oliver Gooding, Research manager, Ipsos
Jamie Roberts, Senior research executive, Ipsos
Rachael O’Donovan, Research executive, Ipsos

Overview

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) launched the Restart Scheme in June 2021, as part of the government’s ‘Plan for Jobs’, in response to the expected increase in long-term unemployment resulting from the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The Restart Scheme was designed to provide up to 12 months of personalised support to participants to help them to find and maintain sustainable employment.

DWP commissioned eight prime contractors across 12 contract package areas (CPAs) covering England and Wales, to provide coaching and tailored support to participants on the scheme. The contracts were hybrid ‘payment by results’ contracts, meaning that a fixed delivery fee was combined with payments dependent on the number of participants moving into sustained work. The provision of tailored support which drew on strong partnerships with employers, local stakeholders, and support services was a key feature of the scheme.

Restart Scheme was mandatory for eligible participants. The first referrals to the Restart Scheme were in July 2021 with an initial focus on those who had been on Universal Credit in the Intensive Work Search (IWS) regime between 12 and 18 months, were in IWS at the point of being referred and had not spent any time in the last six assessment periods in Working Enough or Light Touch - In Work workgroups. The eligibility criteria were later widened in response to lower-than-expected referrals due to unemployment rates being lower than anticipated following the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Referrals to the Restart Scheme are due to finish in June 2024, with the last Restart participants completing the scheme in August 2025. The intention is to extend referrals to the scheme by two years to June 2026.

Research Context

It is important to recognise the impact of the external context on Restart delivery and outcomes. The Restart Scheme was implemented alongside a range of other support programmes and when COVID-19 restrictions were still being experienced by individuals and organisations. The scheme operated in a changing labour market which can be characterised by a reducing unemployment rate, rising employment rates, rising levels of economic inactivity and high levels of vacancies. In addition to this, a cost-of-living crisis impacted on both individuals and support organisations during the Restart delivery period. This was a different labour market from that anticipated in the planned response to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

These contexts had an impact on the number of referrals Restart providers received, on the profile of Restart participants and the needs and barriers they experienced, as well as wider challenges in areas such as partnership working.

The Restart Scheme successfully adapted to these changes to the external context. This was primarily through DWP’s broadening of the eligibility criteria and actions by providers to support a wider range of participants than anticipated.

The purpose of the research was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Restart Scheme, which could be used to inform any live running improvements to the service over the scheme’s contract, shape the design of any potential successor programme, and build the long-term evidence base for how best to design and run similar programmes in the future. The research explored how well and why the scheme worked for different participant groups, and how far providers were able to deliver a tailored programme of support.

Methodology

The research comprised three strands: a longitudinal cohort study, a survey of Restart providers and case study research of 12 geographic areas. The Restart evaluation is one component of a wider programme of research and evaluation of the Plan for Jobs labour market response to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. A process evaluation of Kickstart was published in July 2023 and a cross cutting evaluation of Plan for Jobs is due to be published in 2024. An impact evaluation of the Restart Scheme will also be available at a later date.

The longitudinal cohort study comprised quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews with Restart participants and non-participants. It explored the outcomes achieved by different participant groups and what enabled these outcomes.

Wave 1 surveyed 5,285 Restart participants. It was completed between April and May of 2022. Wave 2 was completed between February and April 2023. It surveyed 3,698 Restart participants (1,541 follow-up Restart participants who took part in wave 1 and wave 2, and 1,522 Restart participants who took part at wave 2 only), and 635 non-participants who had been referred to Restart but had not started on the scheme. This group would have met the eligibility criteria and are therefore a useful comparator to the main Restart population, but are not a direct control group as the profile of this group is different and other factors may have resulted in them not starting the Restart Scheme.

Follow up qualitative interviews with selected survey participants took place after each wave of the survey with 30 interviews in the first wave and 38 in wave 2.

The provider survey was an online survey sent to providers across all Restart sites from contact details provided by DWP. Respondents were asked their views about the delivery of the Restart Scheme, their wider partnerships, the support offered to participants, and the effectiveness of the scheme. The survey took place in between January and February of 2023 and received 138 responses.

The case study research comprised 12 geographically focused case studies, one in each contract package area to establish a detailed understanding of how the Restart Scheme was delivered across different local areas. The research was conducted in three waves: December 2021 to January 2022, June to October 2022 and May to August 2023. It included a total of 346 qualitative interviews with Restart participants, Restart providers, Jobcentre Plus staff, employers, and wider stakeholders. It also included 22 observations of Restart providers and Restart delivery, as well as desk research and analysis of local labour market information.

Key findings on participant outcomes

The findings from this research, while not an impact assessment, suggest that the Restart Scheme supported participants to achieve positive outcomes both in terms of sustainable employment outcomes and wider outcomes (including well-being, qualifications, proximity to the labour market and job-searching skills). Evidence from the longitudinal cohort study suggests that Restart participants were more likely to be in work than non-participants. At wave 2, nearly 4 in 10 (38%) of follow-up participants were in work, an increase of 21% from wave 1.

The research identified that the support received enabled some Restart participants to achieve a range of intermediate outcomes including increased confidence and motivation, increased job-search self-efficacy, increased skills, and reduced job selectivity.

The qualitative research strands identified key factors that enabled participants to achieve these intermediate outcomes:

• The primary factor was individual participants’ interactions with their Employment Advisor
• The second factor was a holistic tailored programme of individual support
• Holistic tailored support was enabled by providers being able to access wider partnerships
• A good relationship between Jobcentre Plus (JCP) and the provider was a key factor in ensuring that participants engaged with the Restart Scheme

The case study research identified that these intermediate outcomes enabled some participants to achieve employment outcomes.

The survey showed that those with a more consistent work history, women, those with a child aged under 19, those with English as a second language and those with higher qualifications were more likely to be employed at wave 1 of the longitudinal survey. Those with health conditions or caring responsibilities (such as caring for someone with a health condition, disability, or an older person) were less likely to achieve an employment outcome.

Nearly two thirds (64%) of participants found the Restart Scheme useful at wave 1. Findings from the survey suggested that participants with higher qualifications, those who had worked more since leaving school and the self-employed were less likely to find the Restart Scheme useful. The survey showed that while a greater proportion of Restart participants were in work than non-participants, similar proportions of participants and non-participants were claiming Universal Credit (UC). This suggests that the outcomes achieved were not always sufficient to enable eligible participants to stop claiming UC.

Wider Findings

Referral volumes were generally lower than expected and participants were presenting with higher needs and more substantial barriers than anticipated. Providers were concerned about what they saw as high levels of ‘unsuitable’ referrals. The referral process generally worked well after some initial challenges but there was some evidence of a lack of clarity on the part of both JCP and providers particularly over which participants should be referred to which programme of support.

Participants’ relationship with their Restart Employment Advisor was a key determinant in participant experience. Participants were more often positive about the relationship than not, but some felt their needs were not understood, or that their advisor did not have the skills needed to help them. Others reported that they had changed advisors several times and this had negatively impacted on the quality of support received.

Providers reported delivering a range of support activities most commonly support with CV writing and job searching. Participants also accessed a range of wider support and training, including contact with employers, referral to external partners and funding to support with costs.

There was some evidence of tailoring for individual participants; some of those with English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) or childcare needs, or those with transport barriers received targeted support. However, the scheme was less able to help those with physical health conditions or more severe mental health conditions, the longer-term unemployed (generally characterised as more than two years) and the more highly skilled.

There was less evidence of tailoring by local area. This was the expectation that providers should design and tailor their support service in accordance with the local labour market. Where this was in place it was successful, however, this tailoring was not consistently observed within the research and was dependent on having good local partnerships in place and sufficient specialised staff.

Communication between JCP and providers was important in determining participant experience. The relationship was generally good and had improved over time but varied between different providers and JCPs. There were clear factors that helped a positive relationship, including consistency of staff, single points of contact and providers regularly visiting JCP sites.

There was varied evidence on whether mandation was effective for encouraging engagement with some participants, with some providers and JCP seeing it as essential in ensuring engagement with the Restart Scheme. However, others were much less sure of its value. Beyond these mixed views, there was clear evidence that the administrative process of mandation did not work effectively. Providers did not generally understand the process, found it time consuming, and had to wait a long time for responses from JCP.

Providers engaged with employers in a range of ways and through a range of activities. There were successful examples of engaging with national employers, or employers with high recruitment needs, as well as local tailoring through activities such as sector routeways. However, there was less evidence of engaging with smaller or more specialist employers.

There was evidence of good partnerships between providers and partners. However, not all providers engaged with a full range of partners. When looking at how effectively providers engaged with other local partners, this was partly dependent on the strength of existing networks and support systems.

Considerations for future delivery

The report sets out implications of the research and considers what lessons can be learnt for future delivery:

• DWP should explore whether more targeted referral criteria in future programmes would allow for more effective support
• DWP should further review the effectiveness of Customer Service Standards and performance management to ensure future programmes deliver a minimum service standard to all participants
• DWP should consider how to ensure that guidance on referral criteria is clearly communicated to JCP and providers
• Further consideration is needed on how to support people with health needs within future employment support provision
• Further consideration is also needed on how the more highly skilled or those with specialist qualifications can be supported
• Good practice in how to recruit, train, and retain Employment Advisors should be shared with providers
• DWP should consider how to encourage good communication between JCP and providers. Further consideration is also needed from DWP on how to effectively manage the end-to-end mandation process
• DWP should consider how to further enable partnership working. DWP may also wish to consider taking a more active role in stakeholder management for example by sharing aggregated data or convening Local Engagement Meetings
• Further consideration is also needed on how providers engage with employers.