Local Government Association response to Pathways to Work Green Paper

The Local Government Association (LGA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Department for Work and Pensions’ Pathways to Work Green Paper. Councils are committed to supporting more people into good work and improving outcomes for residents with health conditions and disabilities. Local government has a vital role to play in delivering joined-up, place-based support that reflects the needs and strengths of local communities.

This response draws on the experience of councils across England and builds on the LGA’s long-standing calls for a more integrated, preventative and locally led employment and support system.

• Local government is not starting from scratch, and councils are already delivering these solutions. They are ready and willing to go further but need the right tools to do so.
• Local leadership is essential. Local government - councils and mayoral strategic authorities – already lead local Get Britain Working plans. As part of this role, they map across employment, health (and skills) what is happening locally and engage with local partners including JCP and ICBs. This role should be recognised and properly resourced.
• Safeguarding must be prioritised, and no tightening of benefits or conditionality should proceed unless local safeguarding and prevention services are demonstrably resourced to meet increased demand. Councils are already leading this work and must be supported to continue doing so safely.
• To do this, councils need sustainable, multi-year funding to invest in preventative, community-based services. Short-term grants should be consolidated into a single, flexible pot allocated through the Local Government Finance Settlement. The multi-year crisis and resilience fund announced in the recent spending review was a welcome first step.
• Reforms must avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and support must be person-centred and trauma-informed. Support conversations and assessments should be inclusive, flexible, and designed to build trust, particularly for those with complex needs or previous negative experiences of the system.
• Young people with disabilities or mental health issues face significant challenges when moving from children to adult services. Any changes to benefit eligibility must be aligned with wider transition planning and supported by clear guidance and advocacy.

Chapter 2: Reforming the structure of the health and disability benefits system

1. What further steps could the Department for Work and Pensions take to make sure the benefit system supports people to try work without the worry that it may affect their benefit entitlement?

The LGA has a longstanding ask for local welfare provision to be funded on a permanent, preventative basis. We want to ensure that good advice on entitlements alongside effective support on benefit and welfare rights, employment and skills, financial inclusion, debt, housing, social care and health is consistently available in every place. This will enable people to confidently access the help they need to enter employment and receive support.

This assurance should be aligned with a full, co-designed review of local discretionary funding including the household support fund, discretionary housing payment and homelessness support grant to ensure that councils and local partners are able to establish accessible, integrated community-based services. The multi-year crisis and resilience fund announced in the recent spending review was a welcome first step.

Many organisations in the advice sector are calling for this provision to be placed on a statutory footing.  The LGA would support this, if sufficient and sustainable funding was made available and local flexibility was permitted in models of delivery.  It is our view that councils are best placed to deliver and / or commission these services and promote integration and referrals alongside key partners including the Department for Work and Pensions, advice providers, health providers and other VCS partners.  Councils also have strong links with local employers and are employers themselves, with a high level of commitment to strengthening equality, diversity and inclusion in the workplace.

2. What support do you think we could provide for those who will lose their Personal Independence Payment entitlement as a result of a new additional requirement to score at least 4 points on one daily living activity?

The LGA would support transitional protections to ensure that no one is left worse off as a result of these reforms.

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is designed to help disabled people meet the additional costs associated with their condition. Tightening eligibility criteria (such as requiring a minimum score of four points on a single daily living activity) risks excluding people who still face significant barriers to work and independent living. It is unclear how such a change would support the Government’s stated aim of helping more disabled people into employment. On the contrary, reducing access to PIP may increase financial hardship and undermine individuals’ ability to engage with work or training opportunities.

We also note concerns raised by the Resolution Foundation regarding the removal of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). Individuals with temporary or fluctuating conditions -  those expected to last less than a year - may find themselves ineligible for both PIP and employment-related support, despite facing real challenges in the labour market.

3. How could we improve the experience of the health and care system for people who are claiming Personal Independence Payment who would lose entitlement?

Many who draw on adult social care services are younger, working-age adults with disabilities or serious mental health issues. While their aspirations—fulfilling independent lives, relationships, and employment—may align with those of older generations, supporting them effectively requires a distinct approach. 

Recently published research from the County Councils Network, ‘The Forgotten Story of Social Care’ brings to life the scale of the challenge ahead. 40 per cent of people drawing on adult social care support in England are working age individuals aged 18–64 with a disabled condition (a learning disability, a physical disability or a mental health condition) who make up the working age adult population, or individuals aged 65+ with a lifelong disabled condition (a learning disability or long-term mental health condition).

Change will leave some people facing anxiety due to financial insecurity. We know that good work is good for people’s mental and physical health and wellbeing. And likewise a strong health and care sector that supports people to live healthier lives is good for the overall strength of the economy. 

The three strategic shifts set out as part of the health mission – especially a shift to prevention and the community - will help those at most risk including people with disabilities and those living with long term health conditions. But resources and focus must shift in a meaningful way or the system will forever be reactive. 

Models such as Live Well in Greater Manchester recognise the need for a system response to enable people to have purpose, including through paid employment and volunteering. 

As the NHS and local government enter a period of substantial reform it is important that this does not distract from the task in hand of improving outcomes for the people we serve.  The current change to Integrated Care Boards and the forthcoming 10-year plan for health must not lose sight of the four key aims of Integrated Care Systems - especially around tackling inequalities; and helping the NHS to support broader social and economic development. 

We need a whole system / cross government approach to tackling health inequalities. The first step should be through the creation of a National Health Inequalities Strategy that would set out how to bridge the health inequality gap and ensure everyone can lead a healthy life, regardless of their circumstances. 

4. How could we introduce a new Unemployment Insurance, how long should it last for and what support should be provided during this time to support people to adjust to changes in their life and get back into work?

N/A

5. What practical steps could we take to improve our current approach to safeguarding people who use our services? 

Local government already leads on adult safeguarding under the Care Act 2014, coordinating multi-agency Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) and working closely with health, housing, and voluntary sector partners. Because DWP services work with many of the same residents, there is a clear opportunity to strengthen protection by embedding DWP more fully into existing local safeguarding systems.

Before any changes to benefit entitlements or conditionality are introduced, it is essential that local safeguarding and support services are demonstrably resourced to meet any resulting increase in demand. Without this, there is a real risk that vulnerable residents – particularly disabled people and those with mental health conditions) -  could be pushed into crisis, with knock-on costs for adult social care, housing, and the NHS.

A clear principle should underpin any reform: no tightening of benefits or conditionality should proceed unless local safeguarding and prevention services are adequately funded and integrated.

The LGA supports the continued development of trauma-informed approaches across employment and welfare services. This includes ensuring that all front-line DWP staff receive safeguarding and neurodiversity training co-designed with councils, covering areas such as Making Safeguarding Personal, domestic abuse, neurodiversity, and suicide prevention. 

We also strongly support the provision of independent advocacy and peer support for higher-risk groups (including unpaid carers, people with learning disabilities, autism or neurodiversity, veterans, and those in mental health crisis) to help them navigate both benefits and care pathways. These services are essential to upholding Care Act duties and ensuring people can access the support they need.

To enable councils and Integrated Care Systems to invest in preventative, evidence-based services that reduce safeguarding risks, the Government should consolidate short-term grants into a single, flexible funding pot, allocated through the Local Government Finance Settlement. 

Finally, there may be further opportunities to strengthen safeguarding through improved coordination between DWP and local partners. For example, clearer escalation routes, better data-sharing protocols, and more joined-up responses to early warning signs such as rent arrears or mental health crises could all help prevent harm. These are areas where further joint work between central and local government could be valuable, and where local innovation may already be pointing the way. 

We would welcome the opportunity to explore this further with Government and would be keen to support the co-design of practical solutions by convening local authorities and DWP partners around the table.

Chapter 3: Supporting people to thrive

6. How should the support conversation be designed and delivered so that it is welcomed by individuals and is effective? 

Everybody should have the chance to find work and improve their job prospects. 

The support conversation announced in the Green Paper for disabled people and those with health conditions is positive. DWP should co-design it with relevant partners (including local government, health and VCS sector representatives) and people that have experience of the system so that it is delivered by the right organisation, in the right way, place and time. 

It must be cognisant of the local health and wider support offer individuals are either already on, or which they may be eligible for and signposted to as a result of a support conversation. 

Since this kind of support is place- / community- based and mostly locally commissioned either through local government (in devolved and non-devolved areas) or health partners, the support conversation should be place based and tailored to local need and settings.

To encourage individuals to talk about hopes and aspirations, we need to create the conditions for an open environment based on trust and confidence. The person delivering the support conversation needs expertise, time and knowledge to draw this out. In designing this, it might also be logical to decouple the ‘support’ element and any conversation with benefit compliance.

We do not recommend this is delivered through the current JCP model. This is because it does not appear to routinely map provision delivered by it or the wider employment support community locally, tends to be seen as a place where people ‘have’ to go to access benefits, rather than to access support to rejoin the labour market and moreover has less experience supporting people out of work who face multiple barriers to the jobs market, including those with health conditions. These all seem to be critical components to deliver an effective support conversation. Ultimately JCP’s aim should be to: 

1. Help short-term unemployed claimants into sustained work, 
2. Provide timely payments for those who cannot work, and
3. Early identify those in need of more intensive support and refer them to partners outside of JCP with appropriate skills and expertise.

We acknowledge that DWP is putting in place plans to reform and merge the JCP network with the National Careers Service (NCS) into a National Jobs and Careers Service (NJCS) and that a key principle for reform is to be more locally responsive, embedded and engaged. The reform needs to result in NJCS acting as though it is part of a wider place-based public employment eco-system which recognises employability services are increasingly delivered in different community locations.

There are several interventions and 'accelerators' in this space. While they are designed for specific needs, they make for a complicated system on the ground. Coordination and alignment is critical if we are to support people physical and mental health conditions including learning disabilities with additional support.  Examples include Health and work accelerators; in work support with a focus on musculoskeletal, diabetes and mental health;  Individual placement and support (IPS) models which are now used in a range of different settings, including for those experiencing severe mental illness. NHS has published guidance on IPS models that states this should be part of local community mental health provision but, unfortunately, these are not being provided in all places. 

It is worth noting that it is local government – councils and mayoral strategic authorities – are now responsible for delivering and leading on local Get Britain Working plans. As part of this role, they will need to map across employment, health (and skills) what is happening locally and engaging local partners including JCP and ICBs. This role should be recognised in the design and governance of any new national employment programmes, with funding and accountability aligned accordingly. 

It will be useful to take this into account as the support conversation is designed.

Bristol City Council which currently co-leads WorkWell West, use the Integrated Care Partnership to engage NHS and wider health services, whilst local authorities are the lead providers of work and health coaching for those unable to work or to find work due to their health condition. The partnership has achieved more effective integration with local GPs and health services and supported individuals with a wide range of health, employment/skills and wraparound support. Some individuals have been supported with adult and community learning provision alongside support from a specialist counsellor to help reduce anxiety and depression, with work and health coaches offering them support and structure. Together these elements have helped people on their journey to recovery and employment. 

This potentially provides some learning on how a place-based approach to the support conversation could work. 

Some councils are working together through combined authorities to ensure that economic growth and employment strategies are inclusive of people with a learning disability, neurodiverse and autistic people, and people with mental health conditions. For example, the South Yorkshire Mayoral authority has commissioned Individual Placement and Support in Primary Care (IPSPC) This project supports people who have a health condition to find and stay in employment.

Also, York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority has been chosen as a trailblazer to trial ways of getting people in ill health back into work.

To further strengthen this place-based approach, government should explicitly recognise and fund the critical role played by Occupational Therapy (OT) in council-led employment support. OTs address practical, environmental, and psychological barriers to employment, significantly improving individual outcomes. Recent LGA research provide compelling evidence of the impact of council OT services in supporting independence, employment readiness, and workforce development. For example, Essex County Council's OT-led sensory integration initiative demonstrates clear outcomes in supporting individuals with autism and learning disabilities into education by overcoming specific barriers related to sensory processing. Government investment in similar council-delivered OT services nationwide would substantially increase employment opportunities for disabled people. To scale the impact of Occupational Therapy in employment support, national investment is needed in workforce development and commissioning capacity. This should be part of a broader strategy to embed allied health professionals in local employment pathways.

Alongside targeted Occupational Therapy interventions, stable, secure housing is critical in ensuring individuals facing health challenges or disabilities can access employment support effectively. Supported housing, particularly when integrated into employment pathways by local councils, is proven to significantly boost employability outcomes. Councils already play a central role in commissioning and managing supported housing provision tailored to individuals with complex barriers, including mental health conditions, learning disabilities, autism, and substance misuse. LGA case studies illustrate a powerful link between stable housing and enhanced employment readiness.

However, the current Housing Benefit rules for “specified” (supported) accommodation still penalise tenants who move into work, clawing back most of their earnings through reduced benefit and higher personal rent and service-charge contributions. Councils are already experimenting with local fixes. In the West Midlands, St Basils’ “Live & Work” scheme keeps rents deliberately below Local Housing Allowance so that young residents on NHS apprenticeships can live and work entirely benefit-free, building savings and a work history instead of losing income to taper rates. But such initiatives rely on one-off philanthropy and cannot be scaled without national support.

7. How should we design and deliver conversations to people who currently receive no or little contact, so that they are most effective?

Reaching people who receive little or no contact is best delivered by those most trusted, which is primarily community and place based, rather than central government teams or providers that cannot easily connect with the wider eco system of support, and that could lead to people disengaging. 

Evidence from the LGA’s Make It Local: local government's vital role in addressing economic activity | Local Government Association suggested it is important that support is accessed in community locations with a growing number of examples of local ‘hub’ models providing a welcoming access point that does not have the perceived negative connotations of sanctions associated with JCP. Other examples showed that it is helpful to link employment support to other front-line services such as health, housing, and community learning, as the JCP route will not work for everyone. The research also included a North East Essex deep dive where participants described ‘piggyback’ working, which is effective in exploiting the touchpoints that potential clients have with other local services or simply with trusted community assets and activities.

There is also a significant role for health and care professionals in identifying and referring people who may benefit from a support conversation. GPs, mental health teams, social workers, and housing officers often have trusted relationships with individuals who are disengaged from employment services but may be ready to take steps toward work or training. These professionals can act as vital connectors into the local employment support system.

The voluntary and community sector also plays a critical role in reaching marginalised groups, including people with complex needs, those with lived experience of trauma, and individuals who may not trust statutory services. Many VCS organisations already deliver employment-related support in informal, culturally competent, and trauma-informed ways. Their involvement in designing and delivering support conversations is essential to ensuring that services are inclusive and effective.

It is also important to recognise that many of those who are least engaged may face digital exclusion. Ensuring that support is available in accessible, face-to-face formats is essential to avoid reinforcing existing barriers. This includes outreach in community venues, home visits where appropriate, and support in multiple languages or formats.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that some people may be disengaged due to previous negative experiences with the welfare system. For these individuals, a trauma-informed approach is essential. Support conversations must be delivered in a way that is non-judgemental, person-centred, and focused on building trust over time.

Local authorities are well placed to coordinate this work, using local data and intelligence to identify individuals who may benefit from engagement. However, to do this effectively, councils need access to flexible, long-term funding that enables them to work with their local networks of community providers and statutory partners to design and deliver tailored approaches. 

8. How we should determine who is subject to a requirement only to participate in conversations, or work preparation activity rather than the stronger requirements placed on people in the Intensive Work Search regime. 

Local delivery partnerships should have the freedom and flexibility to decide who should be eligible for a support conversation. Moreover, we need a more holistic system where everyone undergoes a triage/skills check which then determines which pathway is right for them – with some people requiring more intensive input, but all requiring support from a career coach.

In our written evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee Reforming Jobcentres inquiry we recommended a multi-agency and early assessment process which puts customer needs first, rather than the delivery partner, is vital. An agreed set of criteria should drive referrals to the most appropriate provision, be it local or national, which all partners should adhere to. All unemployed people should have their needs assessed so that a decision can be made as to: 

1. Whether or not they require other support alongside employment support; 
2. What level of intensity of support is required; and 
3. Who is best placed to support them. 

This assessment should be carried out at the outset and reviewed on an ongoing basis, recognising that people’s needs may not be immediately apparent and that circumstances can change.

To be effective, this triage process must be inclusive and trauma-informed, recognising that some individuals may face multiple and overlapping barriers to work. It should be designed to accommodate people with disabilities, mental health conditions, neurodiversity, caring responsibilities, or experiences of trauma, and must avoid a one-size-fits-all approach.

This assessment should be shared as part of a local employability ecosystem which includes:

 1. Jobcentre Plus work coaches 
 2. Contracted out employment support 
 3. Devolved, local discretionary and community support.

This should be joined up, adaptable and fluid to enable jobseekers to move from one support offer to another, irrespective of who delivers it and without having to repeat assessments from scratch. This wards against inappropriate referrals that prioritise national provision over others, or where support needs are not being met which can risk people falling into long(er) term unemployment. 

Local areas such as Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire have already demonstrated the value of integrated assessment models in improving outcomes for people with complex needs. These examples show how local coordination and shared intelligence can lead to more personalised and effective support.

Digital tools and shared data systems can also support this process by enabling smoother transitions between services and reducing duplication. However, these must be implemented in a way that protects privacy and ensures accessibility for all users.

DWP should commit to work with local government to develop a joint assessment and referral process that aims to match participants with the best provision regardless of who delivers it.

9. Should we require most people to participate in a support conversation as a condition of receipt of their full benefit award or of the health element in Universal Credit?

The Department for Work and Pensions needs to openly and honestly appraise its track record on removing entitlement to benefits and / or imposing sanctions on disabled people and people experiencing mental or physical illness. It is the LGA’s view that the DWP needs to strengthen its approach to safeguarding and build on good existing partnership working and information sharing with councils and other statutory partners, before it introduces any further conditionality.

The emphasis should be on offering support, not threatening sanctions. Any increase in conditionality must be accompanied by robust evidence-based support so that it leads to improved outcomes, minimises scope for error, has robust, accessible processes for challenge and appeal and does not risk pushing people into hardship.

Implemented in the right way, a ‘support conversation’ could be a gateway to accessing a wide range of advice, services and guidance.  But we know from previous efforts to incorporate these kinds of wider assessments into discussions between job seekers / claimants and work coaches that the time is often too limited, and the parameters too constrained, to allow people to open up about their circumstances or receive useful and meaningful referrals and support.

As set out in our response to question 1, the LGA strongly supports the establishment of consistent and reliably resourced advice provision across the country, to ensure that people receive all the help they need to respond positively to reforms and, where possible, improve their employment outcomes. This should include integration and referrals across foundation services like housing and social care, which play a vital role in enabling people to access and remain in work.

As noted in our response to Question 2, changes to benefit eligibility (such as tightening access to PIP) risk increasing financial hardship for disabled people. It is therefore essential that any new conditionality is introduced only alongside robust, well-resourced support systems that prevent harm and promote inclusion

10. How should we determine which individuals or groups of individuals should be exempt from requirements?

Exemptions should be determined through thorough, evidence-based consultation with voluntary and community sector organisations; health and social care providers and people with lived experience of ill health and disability.

Where significant number of exemptions are advised by these stakeholders, government should consider whether the costs of determining and administering the exemptions, and the stress and uncertainty caused to people about whether they meet exemption criteria, calls into question the suitability of the requirements themselves as a just and efficient way of achieving spending reductions.

Government should also consider whether delays and variations in the wider health and care system, for example in securing a mental health assessment and diagnosis, risk deepening existing inequalities between those who have been able to access support, and those who haven’t.

11. Should we delay access to the health element of Universal Credit within the reformed system until someone is aged 22?

While the LGA has not taken a formal position on the age threshold for accessing the health element of Universal Credit, we urge the Government to consider the specific needs of care leavers and young people with complex needs. Evidence shows that care leavers face disproportionately high risks of unemployment, poor mental health, and housing instability. Any delay in access to support risks compounding these disadvantages. At least one in six children and young people aged 7 to 16 years have a probable mental health disorder. This increases to one in four for young people aged 17 to 19 years.

12. Do you think 18 is the right age for young people to start claiming the adult disability benefit, Personal Independence Payment? If not, what age do you think it should be?

The LGA has no view on the appropriate age for young people to claim adult PIP, but we would caution that the transition to adulthood is already a complex and often challenging time for many young people and their families, particularly for those with disabilities or long-term health conditions.

LGA research and guidance on preparing for adulthood highlights that young people with learning disabilities, autism, or mental health needs often face significant disruption when moving from children’s to adult services. This period can involve changes in education, health, housing, and care arrangements, and is frequently accompanied by anxiety, uncertainty, and a loss of continuity in support.

Although the legal threshold for adulthood is 18, the legislation governing support for young people is fragmented. Some adult-focused legislation begins at 16, while some children’s entitlements extend beyond 18. This creates confusion for families and practitioners alike, and can result in gaps in support or delays in accessing adult services.

Introducing a change in benefit entitlement at this point (particularly one that requires a new assessment process) risks compounding these challenges. For some young people, the transition to adult PIP may coincide with the withdrawal of other forms of support, such as EHCPs or children’s social care, making the process feel abrupt or destabilising.

Any changes to the age threshold for adult PIP should therefore be considered in the context of wider transition planning. There may be merit in aligning benefit transitions more closely with the timing of other support changes, or in providing additional guidance and advocacy to help young people and families navigate the process.

Chapter 4: Supporting employers and making work accessible

13. How can we support and ensure employers, including Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, to know what workplace adjustments they can make to help employees with a disability or health condition? 

Councils and strategic authorities have extensive engagement with the widest range of employers across a place, from large to small, and across sectors, link in with trade bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce and Federation of Small Businesses, and have taken on the role of Growth Hubs. Many also have in place Good Work charters or similar to bring employers together offering networking and peer learning, but through this also provide a support offer, and any national support could also be delivered through these. Creating and utilising peer networks can allow businesses to share best practice and learn from each other’s experiences. 

To help employers, including SMEs, understand and implement workplace adjustments for employees with disabilities or health conditions, awareness and support around services such as Access to Work must be improved. Many employers are unaware of it or fear potential costs. It should serve as a central resource hub, offering clear guidance, FAQs, case studies which share success stories and real-life examples can show the benefits and encourage uptake, and toolkits to help employers navigate common workplace barriers and solutions. This could support employers and employees to have as much information as possible online.

Over and beyond that though, particularly for local SMEs, a named contact with face-to-face support is needed to help work through the practicalities. This could range from local authority employment support and economic development teams, plus VCS enterprise support agencies, with coordination support from strategic authorities. 

14. What should DWP directly fund for both employers and individuals to maximise the impact of a future Access to Work and reach as many people as possible? 

National funding needs to be flexible and routed through local partners, with the ability to support wraparound provision and roles to act as intermediaries. 

To maximise the impact of a future Access to Work scheme and ensure it reaches as many people as possible, adequate funding and staffing is essential to ensure timely support, particularly during employee induction periods, when delays can be most damaging. 

There needs to be a range of targeted supports for both employers and disabled individuals. Key among these is funding for assistive technology licensing and a centralised online portal that streamlines access to information, applications, and funding claims. Funding IT leadership and integrating multiple assistive technologies into a single platform with a subscription model would reduce the need for multiple licenses. These tools would significantly improve efficiency and accessibility for all users.

Investment in training and guidance is critical. This includes disability awareness and inclusion training for employers, and specialised training for managers to build confidence in supporting disabled employees. Support should not end at recruitment—ongoing guidance is needed to help employers and individuals adapt reasonable adjustments as roles evolve, ensuring long-term career progression and inclusion.

Improving access to professional and clinical advice is also essential. Addressing the skills shortages for in occupational therapists and occupational health specialists and ensuring advisers have access to this specialist information and advice will ensure more effective advice. 

Additionally, funding for a more flexible travel support scheme is needed—one that does not rely solely on Blue Badge eligibility, which can exclude many who still face real barriers to travel.

Finally, DWP should invest in mental health support, recognising the high rates of unemployment related to neurological and mental health conditions. Pre-employment support, such as confidence-building and skills training, must also be funded. Crucially, Access to Work must be better funded and supported by a coordinated approach across agencies, with a strong focus on changing employer attitudes—as stigma and lack of confidence remain some of the biggest barriers to employment for disabled people.

15. What do you think the future role and design of Access to Work should be? 

Access to Work really needs to be integrated alongside Connect to Work. Ideally, it would be locally delivered working through local VCSE and other partners. A national digital platform can sit alongside this and can help but as described above, we need a local contact who can support with practicalities. 

The key purpose of Access to Work should be to act as a strategic enabler of inclusive employment. To achieve this, the service must be redesigned to a digitally driven, and expert-led system that provides assessments and advice but also tackles systemic barriers to disability inclusion in the workplace.

A key priority should be streamlining the application and assessment process through AI and automation. By using technology to triage support needs, offer troubleshooting advice, and reduce manual processing, Access to Work can speed up decision-making, lower administrative costs, and significantly improve the user experience.

The service should also act as an expert hub and knowledge broker, sharing best practices, innovative solutions, and data-driven insights to support employers and influence wider government policy. This would position Access to Work as a central authority on workplace adjustments and disability inclusion.

To provide effective and tailored support, Access to Work needs specialised teams with expertise in specific conditions, including mental health, and must expand its scope to focus not just on getting disabled people into work, but also on job quality, retention, and career progression. This shift requires outcome-focused measures, looking at long-term impacts like sustained employment and inclusive workplace cultures.

While digital tools can improve efficiency, it is also essential that Access to Work and related services remain accessible to those who face digital exclusion. Councils have seen first-hand how digital-only services can exclude people with learning disabilities, older adults, or those in rural areas with poor connectivity. A hybrid model must include face-to-face support and accessible formats.

Finally, a successful redesign must be part of a broader systemic integration with health, social care, and skills services. A coordinated, holistic approach will better support disabled people throughout their employment journey, making Access to Work a cornerstone of inclusive workforce development.

16. How can we better define and utilise the various roles of Access to Work, the Health and Safety Executive, Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to achieve a cultural shift in employer awareness and action on workplace adjustments? 

It is essential to better define and align the roles of these national bodies. They each have valuable expertise, but their efforts must be more clearly outlined, strategically coordinated, and mutually reinforcing.

First, the roles and responsibilities of each organisation should be clearly defined, with complementary areas of work explicitly identified and referenced in guidance and communications. This clarity will help employers and employees navigate the system more easily and understand which body to turn to for specific support or information.

To promote collaboration, these agencies should develop shared case studies and joint communications that highlight best practices, legal obligations, and practical solutions. A unified message across agencies can reinforce expectations and reduce confusion for employers.

Improved coordination of services, such as through joint advisory support and consolidated guidance, would provide a more seamless and efficient experience. A single point of access or unified resource hub could streamline information and help employers implement adjustments more confidently.

Finally, leveraging AI and data analytics across these bodies can help identify trends, gaps, and opportunities for targeted interventions. Shared insights would support strategic planning and better resource allocation, enabling all agencies to work more proactively and effectively in driving cultural and practical change in workplace inclusion.

17. What should be the future delivery model for the future of Access to Work? 

Crucially, this delivery model must be part of a wider, integrated system that connects Access to Work with health, social care, education, and skills development services. A more joined-up approach would ensure disabled individuals receive coordinated, wraparound support throughout their employment journey, from preparation and placement to career development and retention. 

The ability to locally procure providers such as local VCSE and other partners and manage the service with funding devolved / localised is essential. Ideally it could be integrated into supported employment programmes – including WorkWell, Connect to Work and Supported Internships. 

It could be routed through Connect to Work (CtW) - a supported employment ‘place, train and maintain’ service that will be phased in across 2025 and managed by local government, especially given it relies on effective engagement with employers. Employment Specialists will have a core role to engage employers to identify job opportunities that are a good match between the needs and aspirations of programme participants and employers, and engage employers to support programme participants to stay in work. 

Local or regional hubs—potentially delivered in partnership with local authorities or disability organisations—could offer tailored, face-to-face or community-based support. These hubs could provide expertise on local employment contexts, deliver in-person assessments, and help with complex or nuanced cases where digital-only services may fall short. It would need to be fully monitored and evaluated so there is continuous improvement.

Essentially, all schemes need to be translated to employers so they can make sense of the offer and how different components connect. Some recognisable branding, potentially linked to the branding of Local Get Britain [insert place name] Working plans would be helpful.

Areas report delays of more than six weeks for an employer application for Access to Work to be processed, which is a long time for a newly appointed employee to wait for the support they need to take up their new job. This process needs to be more efficient and provide timely outcomes. 

To address this, Access to Work could adopt a hybrid approach, combining a central digital platform with a network of regional or local delivery hubs. This model would allow for both efficiency and personalisation—leveraging technology for streamlined processes while ensuring that support remains accessible and responsive to local and individual needs.

The central digital platform could serve as the core entry point, providing an easy-to-navigate system for applications, assessments, tracking progress, and accessing guidance. Automation and AI could enhance speed and consistency, reducing administrative delays and enabling quicker decisions.