New Deal for Disabled People: What’s New About New Deal

Introduction The aim the Labour Government’s employment policy is “... to ensure a higher proportion of people in work than ever before by 2010.” (HM Treasury, 2003, para 4.1). For disabled people this has been translated into a Public Service Agreement target for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) of increasing over the three years to 2006 the employment rate of people with disabilities and significantly reducing the difference between this rate and the overall employment rate. The New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) is Labour’s main employment programme for people in receipt of a disability or incapacity-related benefit, and, as a member of a ‘family’ of New Deal programmes, is an important component of the Government’s welfare to work strategy (Stafford, 2003b). NDDP was piloted and then in 2001 extended nationally.


Introduction
The aim the Labour Government's employment policy is "… to ensure a higher proportion of people in work than ever before by 2010." (HM Treasury, 2003, para 4.1). For disabled people this has been translated into a Public Service Agreement target for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) of increasing over the three years to 2006 the employment rate of people with disabilities and significantly reducing the difference between this rate and the overall employment rate. The New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) is Labour's main employment programme for people in receipt of a disability or incapacity-related benefit, and, as a member of a 'family' of New Deal programmes, is an important component of the Government's welfare to work strategy (Stafford, 2003b) Table 1). The programme is delivered by not-for-profit, private and public sector organisations and providers have been encouraged to be innovative so "transforming the way in which the benefits system supports disabled people who want to work" (DWP, 1998: 3)  NDDP also operates within a wider policy climate of work incentives, tax changes and employment service initiatives and schemes aimed at specific client groups or geographical areas. It is a supply side measure and whilst it can be seen as part of a wider package of measures, it arguably could be more effectively embedded with other policies that aim to advance the social and employment rights of disabled people.

Key findings from evaluations of NDDP
This section highlights some of the key findings from published evaluations of NDDP. Currently, there is a body of evidence on the implementation and delivery of the pilots and national extension, and a largely descriptive account of the programme's outcomes or impacts. Moreover, at the time writing the findings for the national extension cover only the first 18 months of the programme. The evaluation of the national version of NDDP is on-going and further findings will enter the public domain.

Low take-up of the programme by individuals
Arguably, a feature of the pilots and the national extension is that the take-up of NDDP is relatively low (Loumidis et al., 2001a;Corden et al., 2003;Woodward et al., 2003). The take-up rate for the PAS pilot was 7% (as at November 2000), a total of 18,166 clients; and in addition, nearly 5,200 clients registered for the Innovative Schemes. The estimated take-up rate for the national extension is lower at 1.9 per cent .
Qualitative research reveals that whilst the experiences of individual Job Brokers vary, the take-up of the national programme is less than they had expected (Corden et al., 2003).
The difference in the take-up rates of the PAS and national extension is intriguing. The take-up of the national extension can be expected to increase over time. However, it will be interesting to see whether it ever reaches 7%. Given the similarities between the two versions of NDDP, if the take-up rate for the national extension does not match that for the PAS, then this might be an example of a 'pilot effect', whereby the energy and possibly enthusiasm generated by a pilot cannot be reproduced at national level.
The relatively low take-up of NDDP reflects that (Arthur et al., 1999;Loumidis et al., 2001;Hills et al., 2001;Corden et al., 2003;Woodward et al., 2003):  The most common reason given by potential clients for not participating was that they were too unwell.  Some people did not identify themselves as 'disabled' and the name of the programme implied that it was not relevant to their needs.
Not surprisingly, levels of awareness of the programme are modest.
In the PAS pilot only a half of surveyed non-participants had heard of NDDP (Loumidis et al., 2001a); similarly, one year after the national extension was implemented over a half of the eligible population had heard of NDDP and/or a Job Broker operating in their area (Woodward et al., 2003).

Selection of clients by providers
The target population for NDDP is very heterogeneous. Whilst some pilot providers and Job Brokers worked with people who were a 'long distance' from the labour market there was a tendency for participants to be closer to the labour market than nonparticipants (Hills et al., 2001;Loumidis et al., 2001REFpresumably 2001a. Indeed, over time as the PAS pilot became more focused on employment as the primary programme outcome Three only those people closer to the labour market were caseloaded by advisers. Although some Job Brokers did not select at registration and could be opposed to the idea, the funding regime for the national extension did lead some Job Brokers to prioritise those clients who were more 'job ready'. These clients required less support and were more likely to generate an outcome related payment (Corden et al., 2003). Where work was seen as a longer-  (Loumidis et al., 2001;Hills et al., 2001;Corden et al., 2003).
There were, though, examples of good relationships (often based on existing contacts or other contracts) (Hills et al., 2001;Corden et al., 2003), and the pilots imply that relationships improve over time.

Frontline staff have a critical role
Although frontline staff have a key role in the delivery of NDDP (Hills et al., 2001;Loumidis et al., 2001a), there is no single model of staff organisation. The pilots also demonstrate that staff delivering NDDP required a wide range of knowledge and skills (Hills et al., 2001;Loumidis et al., 2001a). Staff needed to have an understanding of the needs of the client group, of disability, of benefit and employment services and of local employers, as well as technical, personal and interpersonal skills. Some pilot providers believed that the competencies required were too diverse and subsequently a degree of specialisation of tasks amongst staff emerged. The Job Brokers also seemed to have different models for organising staff, and the extent to which they had generic or specialised roles varied (Corden et al., 2003;McDonald et al., 2004). Generic roles enabled staff to develop an in-depth understanding of the client and their needs, clients only had to give information once and staff welcomed the autonomy it gave them. Whilst specialist roles, such as in job-searching or working Three with employers, allowed staff to develop expertise and strengthen the service delivered, as well as emphasising team working.

Working with employers is important
Employers' awareness of New Deal, as a brand, is relatively high, but was much lower for the nationally extended NDDP (Aston et al., 2003). Nevertheless, links with employers are important to the success of NDDP. For instance, the evaluation of the Innovative Schemes showed that schemes with good contacts with employers were more successful at finding job opportunities for clients (Hills et al., 2001). Providers' success in engaging employers varied, some employers were committed to employing disabled people others less so (Hills et al., 2001;Loumidis et al., 2001;Aston et al., 2003). However, working with employers could be a slow process, and providers were not always able to maintain the necessary sizable investment in time and effort (Hills et al., 2001;Loumidis et al., 2001).
Employers' low level of awareness of NDDP was partly because contacts with employers tended to be made by clients (Aston et al., 2003). This was perceived as beneficial by some employers as it left them in control of their recruitment and selection procedures.
For clients wary of being labelled 'disabled' it also meant that employers did not know they were registered on NDDP. This did not prevent Job Brokers working with clients behind the scenes.

Three
However, some clients were disappointed that Job Brokers did not have more extensive contacts with employers (see below) (Corden et al., 2003).
Approaches by Job Brokers were usually client-driven and in response to an advertised vacancy (Aston et al., 2003). Brokers were planning to develop their links with employers later on (Corden et al., 2003), a pattern of development that was characteristic of the PAS pilot (Loumidis et al., 2003).

Clients were generally positive about NDDP
In general, clients were positive about NDDP, they valued how services were delivered and actual services provided (Hills et al., 2001;Loumidis et al., 2001;Corden et al., 2003). Overall, clients held positive opinions about staff and were satisfied with their progression towards employment.
However, it is inevitable that with services aimed at such a heterogeneous user group there are some who were disappointed and dissatisfied with the programme. For some clients the programme did not maintain a sense of progression towards work and/or they were critical of the quality of service provision (Hills et al., 2001;Loumidis et al., 2001a). The early findings from the Three national extension suggest that dissatisfaction with NDDP arises when clients' expectations are not fulfilled (Corden et al., 2003).
Clients contact Job Brokers with a wide range of aims and aspirations, some are more work-focused than others Whilst the Job Brokers service, itself, offers a diverse range of opportunities.
The extent to which clients' expectations were met will depend upon how well they match with a particular Job Broker's provision. Corden et al. (2003) suggests reducing the risk of a poor match requires potential clients to be better informed about what specific Job Brokers can offer and what is expected of them.

Employment outcomes
Although employment outcomes are not the only possible measure of the success of NDDP they are central to any assessment of the programme. The original target for the national extension of NDDP was 90,000 job entries over three years (Employment Service, 2000). included an 'area' comparison, whereby outcomes for the 12 pilot areas were to be compared against a national survey of the Three incapacity benefit population (Loumidis et al., 2001b). However, the final report of the independent evaluation did not report any estimate of the net impact of the Service. This was mainly because of a poor match between those that participated in PAS and respondents in the national survey. Instead, the then Department for Social Security attempted an estimate of the impact of the pilot using administrative data (Redway, 2001). However, due to small sample sizes, it was unable to measure any increase in moves off incapacity benefits by the eligible population in the 12 PAS pilots.
In basic terms:  by June 2000 39% of participants in the tranche 1 Innovation Schemes and 26% in tranche 2 schemes had moved into work (Hills et al., 2001)  by November 2000, 26% of participants (4,800) in PAS areas had moved into employment (Loumidis et al., 2001)  between July 2001  However, what is unknown is how many of those moving into work would have done so in the absence of the programme. Whether NDDP has a significant impact on employment outcomes is, therefore, unproven. Hopefully, the on-going evaluation of the national extension of NDDP will provide an assessment of whether or not the programme makes a difference.

In-work support
The pilots identified the need for in-work support if former clients were to achieve sustained employment. In-work support is a This might reflect the nascent nature of the service, and levels of in-work provision may increase as more clients move into employment, or it might mean that there is a low demand for inwork services, but this is unlikely.

Cost effectiveness
There is limited evidence on the cost effectiveness of NDDP. represents good value for money may be know in the future.

Discussion and conclusions
This paper has reviewed key findings from the published evaluations of NDDP. The scope of the findings to some extent mirror the research designs followed. Thus there is a body of knowledge emerging on the process of implementing and delivering NDDP, but there is limited information on the impact of the programme. Whilst the evaluations also incorporate a longitudinal dimension, they do not provide information on the longer-term outcomes of NDDP; so whether the programme has any lasting Three impact or if participants and non-participants tend to arrive at the 'same' destination is unknown.
The evaluation of the national extension of NDDP is, at the time of writing, on-going. It was originally conceived as a social experiment, with Job Brokers' clients randomly assigned to action and control groups. Such a design would have provided policymakers, providers and disabled people with creditable and robust estimates of the net impact and value for money (through a costbenefit analysis) of NDDP. However, using random assignment with the client group was highly contentious, and Ministers decided not to proceed with an experimental design in December 2001. Hopefully, survey and administrative data will eventually provide an assessment of the impact of NDDP. Such an assessment is important to all those with an interest in disability and employment issues because of the emphasis placed on evidence based policy making by Government.
Reassuringly, there is a high degree of consistency between findings from the pilots and the national extension. The pilot findings cover two years, effectively the early and later stages of the pilots, whilst the findings for the national extension encompass only its 18 months of operation. This similarity is to be expected as the target populations are essentially the same (mainly recipients of Incapacity Benefit) and the services provides are Three broadly the same (principally caseworkers offering a fairly low level intervention to people who are relatively close to the labour market). Over time more significant differences between the pilots and the national extension may emerge. Nonetheless, whatever happens rigorous evaluation of NDDP should be welcomed by those with an interest in helping incapacity benefit recipients move into employment, in particular assessing the net impact of employment and other outcomes is vital.