Job Grant: analysis of consultation responses

3 Findings

This chapter presents the main themes and issues that emerge from the consultation, based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis of responses.

When discussing the prevalence of certain views, we have used the following terms to indicate the proportion of consultation responses that raised a particular point:

• "Few": 5-9%
• "Some": 10-19%
• "Many": 20-49%
• "Most" or "majority": 50-74%
• "Large majority" or "broad agreement": 75 -89%
• "Consensus": 90% or more

3.1 Who answered the consultation?

The consultation received a total of 96 valid responses. Slightly more organisations (52 responses or 54%) than individuals (44 responses or 46%) submitted answers.

Figure 1 - Breakdown of respondent types
[Source: Rocket Science analysis of consultation data]

3.2 Eligibility criteria

A large majority of responding individuals (84%) and organisations (79%) answered "yes" to the question of whether the eligibility criteria for the Job Grant are clear.^[1]

Figure 2 - Breakdown of responses to question 1
[Source: Rocket Science analysis of consultation data]

Overall, 13% of all consultees (10 organisations and 2 individuals) provided comments in relation to clarification of the eligibility criteria. Clarification was most often needed around whether a person could apply more than once for the grant, how the hours worked on zero hour contracts would be calculated, and what would count as evidence of employment.

Respondents proceeded to provide further comments on several aspects of the eligibility criteria:

• Many consultees (28% of all consultees; 26 organisations and 1 individual) expressed concerns around the criterion on qualifying benefits - The most common concern was the gap left for people aged 16-18 who are often not eligible for the qualifying benefits. This was followed by concern around how the grant would interact with other benefits and grants and whether it would prevent people from accessing these:

"The current proposal…is likely to be of limited use to many 16 - 18 year olds, who can't claim benefits until they turn 18 and will therefore not be eligible for the Job Grant."

• Some consultees (17% of all consultees; 14 organisations and 2 individuals) disagreed with the 6 months unemployed criterion - They felt that 6 months was an excessively long time to be unemployed before being able to access the grant. 8 consultees felt that many young people who did not qualify for other benefits or had additional barriers to employment would be particularly vulnerable to financial hardship. 3 consultees said the 6 months criterion might encourage some young people to stay unemployed for longer in order to access the benefit. 5 consultees felt that the criterion should not apply to groups with protected characteristics such as young parents and people with a disability:

"The 6 month unemployed criteria will mean that young people are in effect long term unemployed before they can access the Grant."

"The 6 month out of work qualifying period may result in some young people deferring their start date of work …This will be particularly true for young people who have been out of work for 5 months or so and who would just miss out by a few weeks."

• Some consultees (15% of all consultees; 14 organisations and no individuals) expressed concern around the 16-hour weekly employment criterion - These consultees raised issues around: challenges in relation to how hours worked on zero-hour contracts would be assessed, the impact on people wanting to pursue education or other training opportunities that would prevent them from fully meeting the requirement, the impact on people with a disability, health condition or other personal circumstance that prevents them from working 16 hours weekly:

"This could have the unintended consequence of a young person not taking opportunities that would further their chances of getting into long term work."

• Some consultees (11% of all consultees; 8 organisations and 3 individuals) disagreed with the age range criterion - These consultees felt that the 16-24 age criterion excluded groups such as older people who had suddenly become unemployed and young people beyond 24 who were still struggling to get into employment:

"The scheme would appear fairer if there was no age restriction as people who had an enforced carrier break (e.g. through long-term illness) can be equally affected."

3.3 Application period

Almost half of respondents - 46% of organisations and 39% of individuals - found the proposed application period of 14 days in advance of the employment start date and up to 14 days after employment has commenced not to be suitable.^[2]

Figure 3 - Breakdown of responses to question 2
[Source: Rocket Science analysis of consultation data]

Among these respondents, a number of issues were raised in relation to the suitability of the application period. The most frequent issue to be mentioned was the need to extend the application period beyond 14 days before or after the commencement of employment. Many consultees (35% of all consultees; 24 organisations and 10 individuals) commented on this. The majority of these respondents suggested the period should be extended to eight weeks overall.

The reasons given for this were:

• A longer time is needed to demonstrate eligibility for the Job Grant - such as providing proof of hours worked, especially if on zero-hour or part-time contracts:

"How a job offer based on a zero hours contract will be considered eligible employment…this involves averaging weekly hours over a 4 week period. We would question how a young person in such a job can demonstrate their eligibility for Job Grant within the 14 day application period if they will need to be in that job for 4 weeks for its eligibility to be established."

• More time should be allowed for making arrangements and money for these arrangements should be made available in advance - given the likelihood of large upfront expenses (e.g. buying work clothes, arranging alternative care for dependents, arranging transport), money should be made available as soon as possible to prevent the applicant from falling into financial hardship before their first salary is paid:

"If a young person was paid monthly by their new employers, there will be a considerable 'lying-in' time until their first payment. This may lead to the young person paying for their initial costs upfront, and running out of money before their first salary."

• Many young people will not be aware that they are eligible for the Job Grant within the specified timeframe - extending the application period would improve their chances of learning about the grant:

"Our experience in engaging with young people suggests that often they require the information on a number of occasions and in a variety of formats before they are fully aware of support available."

• Gathering evidence for the application and processing times are likely to be long - applicants will be required to provide evidence from the employer first, which will delay the process, and processing times for the application will further delay the payment of the grant. Allowing a longer period for application would mitigate these aspects.

"Due to requests for references, security checks, PVG applications, etc…they will not know when they are within 14 days of starting as they are entirely dependent on a third party providing information to their new employer."

3.4 Payment format

A majority of responding organisations (71%) and individuals (68%) agree overall with the proposed format of the payment, i.e. a one-off payment of £250 or £400 for those with children.

Figure 4 - Breakdown of responses to question 4
[Source: Rocket Science analysis of consultation data]

31% of all consultees (21 organisations and 9 individuals) provided comments around the payment format. The most common themes to emerge from the comments included:

• Many of these consultees (43% of those who provided comments around the payment format; 8 organisations and 5 individuals) suggested considering a more flexible amount tailored to different needs - Consultees were concerned that some young people could incur higher costs in relation to starting employment than others, such as higher travel costs for people in non-urban areas, specialist equipment for some types of job, and care costs for people with caring responsibilities. Some consultees also felt that certain young people might need a lower amount than that suggested in the Job Grant:

"Some young people will only need a small amount to cover local travel for an opportunity whereas others may need support with travel, clothes, and childcare which would exceed £400."

• Many of these consultees (33% of those who provided comments around the payment format; 6 organisations and 4 individuals) suggested providing payment in instalments - The main reason given was that young people might struggle to manage a large sum of money. Some respondents suggested a flexible approach to how payment was made, as for some people a single payment would help cover costs of large expenses (e.g. childcare), while for others it would not be as useful:

"Young people may not have the ability to budget, therefore a one-off payment could be spent before they receive their first pay."

• Some of these consultees (23% of those who provided comments around the payment format; 7 organisations and no individuals) encouraged allowing repeat applications - It was felt that, given the insecure nature of work, especially for young people, and issues related to sustaining employment, eligible applicants should be allowed to apply to the grant more than once within established timeframes (e.g. after 6-12 months):

"We do not agree that an individual should only be able to apply once…Given the increasingly insecure nature of work, particularly for young people, it would be useful to allow more than one application if a young person experiences other periods of unemployment"

3.5 Supporting a smooth transition into employment

Most organisations (67%) and the large majority of individuals (84%) believe that the Job Grant, as set out in the consultation paper, meets the policy intent to support a smooth transition into employment for young people on low incomes.

Figure 5 - Breakdown of responses to question 6
[Source: Rocket Science analysis of consultation data]

Some consultees (12% of all consultees; 5 individuals and 12 organisations) provided additional comments related to how the Job Grant supports smooth transition into employment. The most frequent points raised included:

• The Job Grant effectively facilitates sustainment of employment - by providing funds for essential expenses (travel, clothes, childcare), relieving stress and anxiety related to money, and helping regularise a routine, which are all elements felt to determine whether a young person will be able to sustain their job:

"The benefits of this may include not only an incentive to gain employment but also as an inducement to remain in gainful employment. The likes of working out routines for the first few weeks with a new job may be aided by an extra injection of personal cash flow."

• Promotion and advice around the grant have to be made widely available - in order to provide easy access and guidance, maximise take-up and help applicants in making a successful claim. It was felt that the transition to financial independence can be difficult for young people, and adequate resources should be made available to support this process and help applicants develop the knowledge and attitudes they need to be financially capable:

"In addition to a straightforward application process, ensuring that the Job Grant is widely promoted to young people, together with information and independent advice being available to help to claim, will be essential to ensure maximum take-up of the new payment."

• It should be ensured that vulnerable young people access the appropriate support when applying for and receiving the grant - given by appropriate advisers, support and social workers. It was felt that both in terms of practicalities (e.g. gathering evidence, engaging with agencies, completing the steps to apply for the grant) managing the money, young people with additional needs and barriers to employment need close support in order to use the grant to successfully transition into employment:

"A range of barriers preventing young people who need support from claiming benefits, including not having the right documents, not wanting to engage with the system, and not being able to navigate it."

"For some young people…the temptation of suddenly having £250 in their bank account may be a challenge…it would be beneficial if the agency working with the young person could be informed of the award so they can offer further support to ensure the funding is put to best use..."

3.6 Potential unintended consequences

Most organisations (73%) and many individuals (36%) indicated that they could identify potential unintended consequences which have not been considered in the proposal.

Figure 6 - Breakdown of responses to question 8
[Source: Rocket Science analysis of consultation data]

A large part of the comments provided on this aspect have been reflected in previous sections of this report, as they relate to concerns around how eligibility criteria might be challenging to assess and how they might exclude a range of stakeholders (e.g. assessing hours worked on zero hour contracts, excluding people claiming some types of benefits and grants, restricting the age range for eligibility, having a short application period).

Further comments around potential unintended consequences were provided by 22 consultees (23% of all consultees; 12 organisations and 10 individuals):

• Many of these consultees (32% of those who provided comments on potential unintended consequences; 4 organisations and 3 individuals) had concerns around accountability for repayments in case of early termination of employment - Their main concern was whether there would be an effective accountability mechanism in place to address early termination of employment and repayments of the grant:

"It would be difficult to ascertain whether the individual or business is at 'fault'. I wouldn't want people to have additional debt or potential fraud allocations. It would have to be made clear what responsibility comes with the funding."

• Many of these consultees (27% of those who provided comments on potential unintended consequences; 6 individuals and no organisations) had concerns around fraud or money not being used as intended - They felt that the grant would be open to fraud by people who would take up short-term or temporary employment or leave the job soon after starting:

"Early job leavers who just start a job to get the money."

• Many of these consultees (23% of those who provided comments on potential unintended consequences; 5 organisations and no individuals) had concerns around money going further for people in urban areas than for those in rural areas - They felt that given the higher cost and restricted frequency of public transport in rural areas, this could negatively impact people living in rural places. This was felt to be both in terms of costs indirectly related to starting employment (e.g. traveling to go buy work clothes or to go to the JobCentre) as well as costs of transportation to reach the workplace:

"Public transport is more expensive in rural areas and often does not run past a certain time…young people usually need to learn to drive/ride and purchase a car/bike/scooter which is much more expensive. Purchasing items for work such as clothing may also involve a long journey to the nearest shopping place."

3.7 Impacts on different groups

Impacts on groups with protected characteristics

Approximately 1 in 5 responding individuals and organistions (20% of responding individuals 17% of responding organisations) said that they were aware of impacts on groups who share protected characteristics which have not been identified in the proposal.

Many consultees (26% of all consultees; 19 organisations and 6 individuals), provided further comments on this aspect. The main points to be raised included:

• Most of these consultees (60% of those who provided comments on the impacts on groups with protected characteristics; 11 organisations and 3 individuals) felt that disabled people were not at the heart of the Job Grant initiative - It was felt that the list of qualifying benefits excluded specific disability support (e.g. DLA, PIP) and that the Grant excluded disabled people who were not on benefits but still needed support to access employment. It was also felt that the additional costs faced by disabled people were not taken into account (e.g. taxi for those physically impaired, communication support for deaf people). Consultees believed that the application process should be made more user-friendly for disabled people and that it should be actively promoted to these groups:

"Given the government's commitment to halving the disability employment gap it surely makes sense to extend the eligibility criteria applied to care leavers to young people who have a disability…Due to the additional barriers they face many young people with disabilities do not retain their first or second jobs for long and can need a few attempts to get into sustained work."

• Many of these consultees (20% of those who provided comments on the impacts on groups with protected characteristics; 5 organisations and no individuals) believed that people who were carers or parents should be exempt from some eligibility criteria - It was felt that young people who are parents should qualify for exemption to the 6 months unemployed criterion due to their caring responsibilities and consequences that long-term unemployment could have on young children. It was felt that the number and age of children should be considered when establishing the sum of the grant. A few consultees also felt that the carer allowance should be added to the list of qualifying benefits:

"In circumstances where a caring role ends and a young person may transition from receiving Carer's Allowance to being in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance, we find it unfair and not in line with the principles of dignity and respect that the young person will need to wait six months before they become eligible to receive a Job Grant."

• Many of these consultees (20% of those who provided comments on the impacts on groups with protected characteristics; 5 organisations and no individuals) mentioned the impact of the Job Grant on care experienced people - Given that care experienced people are more likely to have less developed networks of support to rely on, consultees felt that they should be treated differently from other young people. It was felt that care experienced people should be exempt from the qualifying benefit criterion as they are often aged 16-18 and cannot access the benefits, and that they should be allowed to apply more than once, as they are more likely to have worse outcomes and struggle more to sustain employment compared to their peers:

"The magnitude of additional barriers faced by care leavers in accessing and maintaining employment in comparison to their peers should warrant greater support."

• Some of these consultees (12% of those who provided comments on the impacts on groups with protected characteristics; 1 organisation and 2 individuals) were concerned about the impact of the Job Grant on ethnic minorities and refugees - Given that refugees experience delays in receiving their benefits, and are more likely to not have a support network to fall back on, and that people from black and ethnic minorities experience more barriers to employment compared with their peers:

"When status is granted [to a refugee], resulting in the right to work, the lack of any financial reserves can make the transition into employment particularly challenging…paying young refugees a Job Grant at the higher rate of £400 will help mitigate the impact of supporting the costs of those first weeks and months of employment."

Impacts on children's rights and wellbeing

21% of all responding organisations, but only 2% of all individuals indicated that they were aware of impacts on children's rights and wellbeing which have not been identified in the proposal.

17 consultees (15 organisations and 2 individuals) provided further comments:

• Most of these consultees (58% of those who provided comments on children's rights and wellbeing; 8 organisations and 2 individuals) were concerned about the impact of the Job Grant on young people's mental health - There were concerns that employers would not provide the required evidence on time, and young people would struggle to meet the application deadline, causing detriment to their mental health due to stress and anxiety. Detrimental impacts to mental health were also mentioned in relation to the 6 months unemployment criterion. Concerns were also raised around how a large lump sum of money could lead to debt, and higher alcohol and drug consumption in some vulnerable people:

"The first few weeks in employment for young people are the most challenging. Adapting to a new environment and routine, plus absorbing a wealth of new information can be overwhelming. This, coupled with additional costs incurred after benefit payments have ceased and no wage has been received, can cause significant stress and anxiousness about the future in young people."

• Many of these consultees (26% of those who provided comments on children's rights and wellbeing; 4 organisations and no individuals) were concerned about the lack of a right to appeal - They felt that providing no route of appeal was incompatible with the rights-based approach taken by the Scottish Government in the development of the new social security system:

"Providing no route of appeal for people against determinations by Social Security Scotland is incompatible with the rights-based approach taken by the Scottish Government in the development of the new social security system."

• Many of these consultees (26% of those who provided comments on children's rights and wellbeing; 4 organisations and no individuals) were concerned about the quality of employment - They felt that some employers might not co-operate with the scheme and that young people might enter jobs where unfair or poor employment practices were carried out in order to access the grant:

"Participants at our consultation event raised concerns about employers not co-operating with the scheme, not putting job offers in writing, withdrawing job offers, as well as general concerns about young people entering jobs where unfair or poor employment practices were carried out."

Impacts on businesses

Only a few organisations (8% of all responding organisations) and individuals (7% of all responding organisations) said that they were aware of impacts on businesses which have not been identified in the proposal. A few consultees (4% of all consultees; 3 organisations and 1 individual) provided additional comments on this aspect. Some of these comments expressed concern around the negative impact on businesses in instances where they might hire someone who then leaves after receiving the grant. Other comments related to positive impacts on businesses, with consultees feeling that the Job Grant might lead to a positive start to work, supporting job sustainment and retention of employees:

"This support provided to young people is likely to result in positive outcomes for businesses who are less likely to have to deal with the anxieties that young people might have right at the start of a job e.g. cost of getting to work, appropriate clothing etc., and is more likely to lead to a positive start to work supporting job sustainment and retention of employees"

Impacts on island communities

Some organisations (12% of all responding organisations) indicated that they were aware of impacts on island communities which have not been identified in the proposal. A large majority of individuals (98% of all responding individuals) said that they were not aware of any such impacts. A few consultees (5% of all respondents; all organisations) provided additional comments on this aspect. These comments involved concerns on the higher transportation costs faced by people living on islands, which made it more difficult for them to attend JobCentre appointments and job interviews, apply for benefits including the Job Grant, and reach their workplace once they secured a job:

"Travel in islands can be significantly more expensive than on the mainland. Both buses and ferries are required for some and this could cost up to £10 each day. It may cause inequality for those in remote areas of the Islands, offering the full £400 to those on remote Islands would improve their ability to manage travel in the short term."