Ben Robinson & Ellie RobertsCommunity Links

Background

Employability assessments vary according to a number of dimensions:

The overall ‘aim’ of the assessment. The extent to which advisor discretion is allowed. Whether relies on ‘statistics’ vs more personal approaches. One-off vs. ongoing assessment.

Four areas key to improving assessment:

Processes

Partnerships

Staff

Relationships

‘You’ve got to bear in mind that advisor diaries are fairly full and have only a limited amount of time to be working with clients on assessments and they need to make sensible decisions about what they can do in the time they have available.’ (JCP manager)

Processes: Ongoing Assessment ‘We want to make sure that help is established at the earliest possible point and that it continues throughout the customer’s journey with us.’ (JCP manager)

‘Maybe in the initial interview, I can't remember, they asked the details. But after that you just go there and sign in. ‘ (JCP customer)

Two barriers identified by staff: Quality tools needed which can continually be updatedSharing information between providers

Processes: Participatory assessment

‘The claimant commitment has put the onus on the customer to drive their own journey and process, whereas before they [advisors] were totally determining what happened and that’s what the expected paradigm was.’ (JCP Manager)

‘I think if they went through with you what your strengths are, your weaknesses, your passions, then that would have been better.’ (Work Programme Customer)

Jobseekers argued that employment support services should listen more, and expect more of them in self-assessment.

Formulaic, ‘tick-box’ assessment tools are problematic.

Partnerships

Communication and information sharing between employment support providers is key to ensuring ongoing assessment without duplication.

‘[advisors] never communicated with each other. They admitted their records weren't up to date’. (Work Programme Customer)

Data sharing issues emerged as barrier.

Suitable referrals post-assessment can give jobseekers faith in the assessment process.

Staff

‘I think it [the experience] does depend on the advisor. You get some advisors… some of them are great, some of the are alright and some of them not so. It depends on the person really’ (Work Programme Customer)

Advisors differed in the quality of assessment they undertook – jobseekers sometimes surprised by the extent of variation.

Staff were very keen for more training on assessment Staff were keen to share ideas on how to assess customers Time and resources again emerge as key barriers

Relationships

‘If a customer is an alcoholic, unless he comes in absolutely reeking of drink at 9am, you’re not necessarily going to know unless he tells you…. It’s about getting the customer’s confidence, building that relationship to be able to have that honest conversation.’ (JCP manager)

Encouraging Deep Value relationships can ensure that jobseekers feel they can disclose all relevant information, but there are barriers…

JCP advisors are hopeful that the Claimant Commitment will help with developing more constructive relationships.

Policy recommendations

Regularly updating assessments

Making assessment more collaborative, incorporating strengths

Improving information sharing

Appointing ‘lead advisors’ to support people with complex needs

Piloting new ways of facilitating deep value relationships

Philip Collett Founder and Managing DirectorGOALS UK

Questions and reflections

Further questions for discussion

Are we moving towards or away from deep value assessments?

How could the Claimant Commitment be developed further to promote deep value relationships?

How could assessment more effectively incorporate information about complex needs?