Deep value assesment 18 sept 2014
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•528 views
This summary report outlines the findings and recommendations based on our research into how jobseekers’ needs and abilities are assessed. We conducted interviews and focus groups with benefit claimants and staff at a range of jobcentres and Work Programme providers across east London. Our full report is complemented with a review of literature analysing assessment in other sectors. A copy of the full report can be obtained from: Community Links 105 Barking Road London E16 4HQ www.community-links.org
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Similar to Deep value assesment 18 sept 2014
Similar to Deep value assesment 18 sept 2014 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Deep value assesment 18 sept 2014
- 1. Ben Robinson & Ellie Roberts Community Links
- 2. 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.
- 3. 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)
- 4. 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 updated Sharing information between providers
- 5. 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.
- 6. 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.
- 7. 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
- 8. 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.
- 9. 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
- 10. Philip Collett Founder and Managing Director GOALS UK
- 12. 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?
Editor's Notes
- Different approaches to employability assessments have been attempted in the UK. For example there have been calls for the introduction of a segmentation tool similar to the Jobseeker Classification Instrument (JSCI) used in Australia. Some Jobcentres have introduced different ways of doing assessment and to varying degrees – for example Jobcentres in Islington have trialled a “WorkStar” or “Outcomes Star” approach The Work Programme’s “black box” allows for providers to implement whatever assessment processes work best for them. These approaches vary in a number of ways: The overall ‘aim’ of the assessment can differ. Some assessments focus on segmenting jobseekers into different programmes of support or different payment levels for outsourced services. The Australian JSCI tool (see box X) is an example of a tool focused on segmentation. On the other hand, some forms of assessment are used instead to inform provision of support The extent to which advisor discretion is allowed. Assessment tools can be seen as lying along a continuum between following strict rules that bind advisors on the one hand, and allowing complete advisor discretion on the other. Some tools can support advisors to use their own judgement: for example the Danish Employability Profiling Toolbox allows advisors to weight different parts of the assessment tool differently, depending on which they see as most relevant to the customer. The extent to which the tool relies on ‘statistics’ rather the personal approaches. Statistical modelling approaches have been trialled in the UK –which gather data from various sources and use it to predict the length of time that a claimant may remain unemployed. Other tools build on the idea that strong human relationships make it more likely that information will be shared and that underlying issues are identified. The extent to which the assessment is one-off vs. ongoing. Some tools aim to be one-off, with the outcome dictating what stream of employment support jobseekers are triaged into. On the other hand, assessment processes can aim to be more ongoing, continually building up a picture of jobseekers’ needs and abilities. Assessment practices from other sectors also offer important learnings for the employment support sector. We reviewed some of these as part of our research and more information can be found in the report. In particular, assessment practices in the social care sector are good at offering a person-centred approach.
- Our research found that changes could be usefully made in each of the four areas illustrated in the diagram above. When looked at together, getting processes, partnerships, staff, and relationships related to assessment right, could significantly improve how well jobseekers’ needs and abilities are assessed and subsequently, their success in getting into work. It’s worth mentioning at this point that limited time and resources cross-cut all 4 themes and come out very strongly in how well staff felt they could ‘do’ assessment. Jobseekers and advisors alike bemoan the difficulties of properly assessing needs and abilities in such a resource-constrained environment – see quote. I’ll now talk through each of these four sections, highlighting what jobseekers and staff told us about how assessment works. Getting these four factors right could mean customers receiving a better experience of needs assessment, better service provision, and ultimately an increased likelihood of moving into long-term, sustainable employment. Successful assessment needs all four factors to be strong and working collaboratively – that’s why we’ve depicted them here as a Venn-diagram, each overlapping with the others.
- OVERVIEW There are many ways to approach assessment, from the timing of when assessment takes place to who undertakes it and how well they work with jobseekers throughout the process. Our research showed us that jobseekers’ experiences of assessment vary greatly from person to person. Some felt that the processes they underwent were successful at identifying their needs and abilities and others did not. A proportion of jobseekers could not identify that they had been assessed at all. Those that said it had gone well talked about their experiences of an ongoing process that they were actively part of. People’s needs and situations are constantly changing, and it is clear from our research that ongoing assessment is key to make sure changes in circumstance are picked up and used to guide support - but it doesn’t always happen. Jobseekers in particular did not feel that assessment was continuous– they felt like once they had done initial ‘diagnostic’ interviews, there wasn’t much more chance to feed in (first quote). Staff also acknowledged the limitations to conducting in-depth ongoing assessment: First concerned the tools staff use– some staff we concerned about how easily they could be updated, and what data could be incorporated, which is essential to enabling an ongoing assessment Another barrier identified was the sharing of information between services which is essential to ensuring ongoing assessment and no duplication. Work Programme advisors expressed frustration at the information they received from JCP – not covering all the assessment that had been undertaken and meaning they had to almost ‘start from scratch’ each time. We’ll return to this issue under ‘partnerships’ in just a minute.
- The other key finding about processes was that assessment should effectively utilise jobseekers’ own knowledge of their skills and abilities and involve them in assessment – as the quote here highlights, there was an appetite from customers for this to happen. However, the research found that most respondents did not feel that their opinions were taken on board, or that there was even much room for this to happen – some talked about feeling rushed during appointments, seeing advisors infrequently, or being sent on unsuitable courses as evidence that participatory assessment did not always happen. Staff (especially JCP staff) felt that there WERE opportunities for more participatory assessment to happen – especially with the new CC as the quote on the slide highlights. So whilst changes may not have filtered through to the ground, it seems that steps are being taken to encourage more joint working – there was a feeling that some of these things would take time to properly bed down. One manager told me about advisors and computer screens. Total culture change.
- In a complex employment support system with many organisations and contracted services, strong partnerships are essential, but they do not always seem to flourish. The research found that staff were keen to improve partnerships and work more effectively together for the ultimate benefit of supporting the customer in the best possible way. Communication is of course key to this, and both organisations came up with suggestions for ways comms might be improved including warm handovers at referral points, informal network/ breakfast meetings, and processes for more ongoing comms whilst customers are being supported through the WP. Customers also realised that communication between providers could be improved and seemed frustrated by obvious gaps and inconsistencies, especially in relation to having to repeat information or be reassessed. (re-assessments are important but they should build on not duplicate previous assessment). Having suitable referral routes was another issue raised by customers – some of whom felt they had not been given opportunities to access appropriate or timely support directly related to their individual needs (where needs were disclosed, following assessment). There was disappointment clearly apparent amongst jobseekers. Whilst staff did not share these views about referral routes, they did recognise the limitations in support available – some admitted that there were some customers/ barriers that are just very difficult to properly support. More time and resources could drastically improve this. Tell story of JCP advisor who told us about the difficulties she had supporting a jobseeker with mental health and learning needs
- Jobseekers reported large differences in the quality of their relationships with advisors. Some jobseekers spoke positively of the impact of being assessed by staff who are competent and referred to their advisors as “brilliant”, “professional”. Others were unfortunately not so positive about their experiences. Customers were well aware of the different experiences that could be brought about by being assessed by different advisors as the quote above highlights. This was also echoed by staff: ‘we’ve got fairly effective methods of doing it, but it does depend on the quality of the person doing the interview’. In order to combat these differences in customer experience, advisors at both JCP and the Work Programme felt that better training was essential. Advisors reported that they wanted more practical training on using tools and systems, as well as in the general/ organisational approach to assessment. Staff thought that training to use IT systems could increase their ability to elicit information from customers and record it properly. They were also keen to share ideas about ‘what works’ in assessing customers as there are so many different approaches and tools currently used. Time and resources were again a key theme underpinning the different treatment that staff were able to provide, as the following quote illustrated: ‘It’s a constant balancing act - you’ve got to weigh up the time you give to someone trying to address their needs, being assessed, with the thought that ‘you know I’ve got five people I could put into work this week’ and focussing on them’ (Work Programme advisor).
- Advisors noted how difficult it could be to ascertain all the necessary information about an individual – noting that it was partly the responsibility of the jobseeker to tell them relevant information. However, some jobseekers told us that they found disclosing information about sensitive or complex issues difficult. The importance of building strong and trusting relationships in order to talk about these issues – eg: homelessness, domestic violence - is therefore crucial to strong, effective assessment. However, there are barriers to doing this: 1 = Time and resources (again) 2 = Jobseekers were particularly critical of being assessed in group induction sessions, which are a very common feature of Work Programme provider models. People felt that these sessions prevented them developing a rapport with the advisor, or getting their points of view across. However, JCP staff said the new Claimant Commitment was proving to be beneficial in supporting the development of stronger and more constructive relationships – more mutual, more co-produced but need time to bed down.
- Questions on the research Ask about what people in the room are doing in this area.