Work Programme statistics: Inclusion analysis

Transcription

1 Work Programme statistics: Inclusion analysis 17 September 2015 Inclusion comment The Work Programme continues to show improved results within a period of increasing employment and falling unemployment numbers and rates. Performance for those who started in the last two years has been higher than that for the very large numbers who started in the first two years of the programme. Performance for disabled people and older participants remains far below overall performance levels. When the challenge is to halve the gap in disabled employment rates, this is a substantial challenge for the remaining two years of Work Programme referrals and for the programmes that follow. Disabled people are not the same as ESA claimants - 58% of disabled Work Programme participants claim JSA - so they are at high risk of being 'parked' in favour of those with a better chance of earning Job Outcome payments. There is relatively good performance for year olds but poor results for the over- 50s. The design of the Work Programme did not take into account the additional disadvantages in recruitment that older jobseekers face. Work Programme providers have less than two years of referrals remaining to the end of their contracts in March but will need to provide support and ensure job for a further two years and provide in-work and sustainment support beyond that. This will be a challenge when the focus is on the successor programmes. Summary DWP has published statistics from the beginning of the Work Programme in June 2011 to the end of June In this data release, we are able to report on the two-year job outcome performance i.e whether or not an individual has secured a job outcome during the entire length of time on the programme. 1

2 The headline results are: Out-turn performance has substantially exceeded our economy-adjusted benchmarks and is close to the unadjusted DWP expectations. The two-year Job Outcome performance is 25.3%, 0.1 percentage points below DWP's expectations. This figure is for the whole Work Programme from June 2011 to June Two-year performance over the whole programme has increased slightly, from 24.9% in the June release to 25.3% now. For those completing the programme in the latest two months, two-year performance has risen from around 27% to around 29% million people have been referred to the Work programme since June 2011, equivalent to 45% of the current total out of work benefit claimants (3.9 million). 459,400 people have had a 'sustained' job outcome through the Work Programme. 33.4% of all year olds referred to the Work Programme have had a sustained job outcome - across all Payment Groups. 32.9% of lone parents on the Work Programme have had a sustained Job Outcome. ERSA - the Providers Trade Association, report that over 731,000 participants have started work - and may eventually get a 'Job Outcome'. 12.1% of ESA new claimants get a job outcome within two years, above DWP's expectation of 10%. The equivalent figure for ex-incapacity Benefit ESA participants is 4.5%. People with a disability (15.9% get job ) and those aged 50 and over (14.2% get job ) are the least successful in getting a job through the Work Programme. Two-year performance in the lowest performing area - the North East (22%) - is 5.9 percentage points lower than in the highest performing area - the East of England (28%). The gap is closing - slowly. Local authority performance shows even wider differences - unemployment rate differences are part of the reason. Work Programme overall performance In general, performance is below DWP benchmark indicators and in line with, or above, our economy adjusted indicators. 2

3 On the two-year measure performance has increased by 0.4 percentage points to 25.3%. This is in line with what we would expect from previous performance on the one-year measure. On our one-year measure there has been a slight increase of 0.2 percentage points with performance at Looking at the overall job outcome measure, covering the first 19 months of programme referrals, performance is at 28.0%. This is 0.2 percentage points higher than last quarter's figure. Figure 1: Inclusion Job Outcome Measures for all participants: actual performance compared to DWP expectations adjusted for economy (the equivalent minimum benchmark) - Jun 2011-Jun 2014 referrals Equivalent minimum benchmark Actual performance Overall 28.0% 2-year 25.3% 12-month 11.9% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Conclusion The two-year measure is a robust indicator of performance. This shows that more than 1 in 4 of participants (25.3%) of participants secure a sustained job outcome within two years. However, this remains below what was stated as initial expectations for the programme. When we adjust for the fact that economic performance since 2011 has been below that expected at the time, performance looks better and is above our economy-adjusted expectation. Performance for ESA (and disabled people in general) remains low. DWP have separated out the New ESA Claimants group into two parts - one for those who were 3

4 originally expected to go on the programme, and a second one for the expanded group with a 12-month expectation before they would be fit for work. The original group shows a strong and welcome increase in performance. The second group, with a longer period before being fit for work, continue to have low job, but also show improvement in performance. Increasing performance for all groups remains a priority as the economy improves. All must share in any improvement in job and job sustainment. 4

5 Introduction What statistics have been released? DWP has published statistics from the beginning of the Work Programme in June 2011 to the end of June The data covers the first four years of the programme. The statistics give: The number of customer referrals to Work Programme providers, and the number that started on the programme. The number of job outcome payments that have been made to providers. These are paid after a customer has been in work for either three or six months. The number of sustainment payments to providers, and the number of individuals for whom at least one sustainment payment has been made. Sustainment payments are made for each four-week period a customer spends in work following a job outcome. The number of leavers from the Work Programme who are not in employment, but may have had a spell of employment during their two years on the programme. It is possible to analyse these statistics by each of the nine Payment Groups, localities, and participant characteristics. How is performance measured? DWP has two measures of performance: 1) The contractual measure is the Minimum Performance Level (MPL) for three key Payment Groups. The MPL is now measured on a revised basis based on either achieving or being on profile to achieve DWP's estimates of how many job should be achieved for each monthly group of referrals. 2) The DWP business plan measure is a monthly indicator and is a measure of how each monthly cohort of referrals is succeeding in getting a job within 12 months. Inclusion uses a third measure: 5

6 3) The Job Outcome Measure. This measures performance for every participant who could get a job outcome after 12 months and 24 months on the programme, and the overall measure for each cohort. Our Job Outcome Measure is the average proportion of customers achieving a job outcome within a year, two years, or their maximum time on the programme. As the Work Programme is now into its' fifth year of operation, the overall measure represents the achievements with the first 19 months of referrals, and the two-year measure covers the first 25 months of referrals, to June

7 The Work Programme as a whole How many job have there been? From the beginning of the programme to the end of June 2015, 459,400 job outcome payments have been made to providers. 129,000 of these were achieved in the most recent 12 months of the programme. Has DWP's Minimum Performance Level (MPL) been met? Our measures are similar to the DWP's revised measures, but we only include actual achievements, rather than including being 'on-profile' to meet the revised Minimum Performance Levels. We also represent our measures as whole-programme measures, with some time series detail. Our use of the DWP measures is based on the expectations that were published by DWP in their release today. Has Inclusion's Job Outcome Measure been met? We now have data for: 37 months of starts who have been on the programme for one year (the one-year Job Outcome Measure) 25 months of starts who have completed their two years on the programme (the two-year Job Outcome Measure) 19 months of starts who have completed overall and completed the job outcome period at the end (the overall Job Outcome Measure). DWP's performance expectations are: 11.4% on the one-year Job Outcome Measure 25.8% on the two-year Job Outcome Measure 28.5% on the overall Job outcome measures. 7

8 These are the benchmark indicators that we use to assess overall performance. We also make an adjustment for the economy because economic growth worsened after the Work Programme was commissioned and DWP's minimum expectations were set. However, economic growth has now picked up so we have re-estimated the economy effect (since the start of the programme) as a 13.0% reduction on the benchmark indicators. This has fallen from a 14.3% reduction we were applying before. Therefore our economy adjusted (equivalent minimum) benchmarks are: 9.7% on our one-year job outcome measure 22.1% on our two-year job outcome measure 24.6% on our overall job outcome measure. Figure 1 shows performance against these benchmarks. Figure 1: Inclusion Job Outcome Measures for all participants: adjusted DWP minimum benchmark compared to actual performance(jun 2011-Jun 2014 referrals) Equivalent minimum benchmark Actual performance Overall 28.0% 2-year 25.3% 12-month 11.9% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. Average weighted by monthly referral numbers. Out-turn performance has substantially exceeded our economy-adjusted benchmarks and is close to the unadjusted DWP expectations. If the economy continues to improve, and Work Programme performance improves in line with the economy or better, then the unadjusted expectations could be exceeded. 8

9 Is performance improving? On our one-year measure there has been a sustained increase in outturn in the latest data. This is from a low point for starters in late The low point for late 2012 starters is reflected through to their final appearance in these figures, at the overall (30 month) outcome total. On the two-year measure performance (at 25.3%) has increased by 0.1 percentage points since the last data release. This reflects recovery from the low performance of the late 2012 group of starters. The latest performance on the two-year measure is the highest yet achieved at 30.0% for starters in June The overall job outcome measure now has 19 months worth of data, and, at 28.0%, is slightly below DWP's expectations of where minimum performance should be. The latest figures show a fall, as the low-outcome late 2013 starters reach the 30 month point. Figure 2 below shows job outcome performance over time. Figure 2: Inclusion Job Outcome Measures for all participants Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. Are jobs being sustained? Yes, job sustainment remains strong. 9

10 One of the objectives of the Work Programme was to support participants to sustain employment for longer beyond their three or six month job outcome. Up to the end of June 2015, DWP had made 4,644,570 sustainment payments for participants sustaining work beyond a job outcome. This equates to 10.1 payments (or 40 weeks in work) following every job outcome that has been achieved so far. This is one week per job outcome higher than the last results. Figure 3 shows average weeks in work by payment group. This is composed of the weeks in work paid for sustainment together with the weeks in work up to the Job Outcome (26 weeks for the first two JSA groups 1, 13 weeks for the remaining groups). It shows that, on average, people who achieve a job outcome go on to stay in work for over a year. Figure 3: Average weeks in work per job outcome (Jun 2011 to June 2015) June 2015 release Sept 2015 release JSA JSA 25+ JSA Early Access JSA Ex-IB ESA Volunteers New ESA claimants ESA Ex-IB IB/IS (England only) JSA Prison Leavers Weeks in work per job outcome Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. 1 The 26 weeks in paid work to secure a Job Outcome applies to the JSA Payment Group and the JSA 25+ Payment Group 10

11 Work Programme Leavers There has been a total of 676,000 Work Programme participants who have finished their two years on the programme. Figure 4 shows the proportions of people known to have been in jobs at the two-year point (or had already achieved the maximum sustainment payment). The most recent figures have been excluded from the chart as figures for returning to Jobcentre plus take some time to be completed. The patterns for those completing with a job are lower than those for achieving a job outcome in two years as some of those who do achieve a job outcome are not in work at the two-year point (which means that providers cannot claim sustainment payments for any further time in work). Figure 4: Work Programme completers by status upon completing attachment period (Jun 2011-Mar 2013 referrals) Completed with job Returned to Jobcentre Plus 100% 80% 60% 74% 40% 20% 23% 0% Month of completion of Work Programme Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. 11

12 The Work Programme for participants How many people are taking part? Up to the end of June 2015, 1.76 million people had been referred to the Work Programme, of which 1.72 million (98%) started on the programme. Monthly referrals numbers have been steadily declining since the programme began. In the last three months, there were under 10 thousand referrals a month across the country. Figure 5 shows that the referrals have been concentrated in the three main JSA Payment Groups, but New ESA claimants have come to be a larger proportion of referrals. Figure 5: Work Programme referrals by Payment Group (Jun 2011-Jun 2015) Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. In the last three months, New ESA claimants have been 18% of referrals, compared to 38% in the JSA 25% group. JSA referrals were very slightly higher than ESA new claimants. 12

13 Figure 6 shows the percentages of referrals by Payment Group in the three months to June Figure 6: Work Programme referrals by Payment Group in April-June 2015 ESA Volunteers 3% JSA Prison Leavers 7% ESA Ex-IB 3% JSA Ex-IB 2% JSA Early Access 10% JSA % New ESA claimants 18% JSA % Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. Has it worked for all groups? Performance varies between the nine different Payment Groups on the Work Programme. DWP expected that job would vary between different participants, and set benchmarks for each Payment Group. Figure 7 shows performance for each group, on our two-year Job Outcome Measure, against the equivalent of DWP's minimum or illustrative expectations. Contractual minimum performance expectations only apply to the JSA group, the JSA 25+ group and the New ESA claimants (excluding 12 month prognosis) group. 13

14 Figure 7: Two-year job outcome measure: Actual performance compared to DWP expectations, by payment group (Jun-Jun 2013 referrals) Actual performance DWP expectations 1. JSA JSA JSA Early Access 4. JSA Ex-IB 5. ESA Volunteers 6. New ESA claimants 6a. New ESA claimants (excluding 12 6b. New ESA claimants (12 Month 7. ESA Ex-IB 8. IB/IS (England only) 9. JSA Prison Leavers 4% 33% 27% 26% 22% 10% 12% 13% 9% 20% 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. Average weighted by monthly referral numbers. Performance is currently above the benchmark for three of the nine Payment Groups. Performance for New ESA claimants is above expectation for each of the two subgroups and for the combined group. The biggest gaps against benchmarks have been for the ESA Volunteers and IB/IS volunteers groups. Both attachments and have been well below those expected, with the attachments in particular likely to be a reflection of wider elements of welfare reform. For the main group of adults claiming JSA (JSA 25 and over), performance is slightly above the benchmark. For the JSA group, performance is slightly below the benchmark. However, in these cases as well as others, if we adjusted the DWP benchmarks to reflect the poorer economy that expected in the first years of the 14

15 programme (when these two-year leavers would have started), they would have comfortably exceeded the expectations. Compared to last quarter's figures, performance has increased for all but three of the nine groups: ESA ex-ib claimants and ESA volunteers and the very small IB/IS volunteers group. Two of these are both voluntary participants and very small. However, for the three main groups there has been an improvement. Figure 7 shows performance for each group on our one-year Job Outcome Measure against the DWP's minimum expectation. Figure 7: One-year job outcome measure: Actual performance compared to DWP minimum benchmark, by Payment Group (Jun 2011-Jun 2013 referrals) Actual performance DWP expectations 1. JSA JSA JSA Early Access 4. JSA Ex-IB 5. ESA Volunteers 6. New ESA claimants 6a. New ESA claimants (excluding 12 6b. New ESA claimants (12 Month 7. ESA Ex-IB 8. IB/IS (England only) 9. JSA Prison Leavers 4% 5% 6% 4% 2% 7% 15% 13% 14% 13% 10% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. Average weighted by monthly referral numbers. Performance has been above DWP expectations at the 12-month point for most JSA groups. It has been below the expectations for the ESA New Claimants groups and the JSA Prison Leavers groups, perhaps reflecting that these groups require more investment of time and support to achieve. 15

16 Has it worked for the most disadvantaged? Our estimates are based on 'Job Outcomes' and referrals over the entire Work programme, as two-year performance cannot be computed from the DWP release. Overall performance on this basis (26.1%), is slightly higher than on the two-year performance measure (25.3%). Figure 8: Job as a proportion of referrals by participant characteristics (June June 2015) Men Women 25.4% 26.6% People with a disability 15.9% Lone parents 32.9% Ethnicity: White Ethnicity: BAME 25.9% 27.2% Age: % Age: % Age: % Total 26.1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. Women (at 26.6%) have higher Job Outcome rates than men (at 25.4%). People with a disability (at 15.9%) have low Job Outcome rates. 639,000 people with a disability have been referred to the Work Programme. 58% (369,300) of disabled Work Programme participants claim JSA. The remainder are in the ESA payment groups. By ethnicity, BAME participants have slightly higher Job Outcome rates than white participants. By age, young participants have the highest performance, and the over-50s have the lowest performance of any group. 16

17 Has it worked everywhere? The Work Programme is delivered by providers working in contract package areas (CPAs). There are between one and three contractors in each area. The table below shows performance in each CPA. Work Programme performance varies between CPAs by 5.9 percentage points (down from the last release at 6.0%) on the two-year job outcome measure. The East of England, Surrey, Sussex and Kent, The East Midlands, the and Manchester, Cheshire and Warrington have the highest performance. The North East, Wales and Scotland have the lowest performance. There are some signs that CPAs with low unemployment rates are performing well (e.g. East of England), but other strong labour markets show very poor performance (Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Swindon, and West England). Equally, the rural West Midlands and Coventry has one of the highest unemployment rates but is among the best CPAs in terms of Work Programme performance. Figure 9: Two-year job outcome measure (%): table of performance across Contract Package Areas (Jun 2011-Jun 2013 referrals) 12-month 2-year Overall East of England 14% 28% 31% Surrey, Sussex & Kent 13% 28% 31% Manchester, Cheshire and Warrington 13% 28% 31% Coventry, Warwickshire, Staffordshire and the Marches 13% 27% 30% Thames Valley, Hampshire and Isle of Wight 13% 27% 30% East Midlands 13% 27% 29% North East 12% 25% 27% South Yorkshire 12% 25% 28% East London 12% 25% 28% Merseyside, Halton, Cumbria and Lancashire 12% 25% 27% Birmingham and Solihull, the Black Country 11% 25% 27% Devon and Cornwall, Dorset and Somerset 11% 24% 28% West London 12% 24% 27% West Yorkshire 11% 24% 26% Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Swindon, West of England 10% 23% 26% Scotland 11% 23% 26% Wales 10% 23% 25% North East Yorkshire and the Humber 10% 22% 24% 17

18 Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. Average weighted by monthly referral numbers. The table will mask wide variations in performance within CPAs at the local authority level. Annex One details performance in all local authorities. This shows that, on the two-year Job Outcome Measure, the top five best-performing local authorities are Brentwood (Essex), Babergh (Suffolk), Rochford (Essex), Vale of White Horse (Oxfordshire) and Mid Sussex. The lowest performing local authorities include a number of authorities with very small populations and very small numbers of Work Programme participants. Figure 10 shows a relationship between Work Programme performance and unemployment. For very low unemployment areas there is a very wide spread of performance. The Work Programme continues to produce lower job outcome rates in high unemployment areas. This is shown by the downward slope of the line. There is a wide spread around the line, particularly for areas with stronger labour markets (the left-hand side of the graph). So, as with the CPA-level analysis, it does not appear that the economy alone can explain much of the variation in performance. The variations in referrals by payment group is another source of variation. 18

19 Work Programme 2-year Job Outcome rate Figure 10: Two-year job outcome measure compared to unemployment rates across local authorities (Jun 2011-Jun 2013 referrals) 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Unemployment rate Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. 19

20 Work Programme finances What payments have been made? Up to June 2015, we estimate that DWP had paid providers a total of 2.01 billion. This is made up of: 510 million in attachment fees, which are paid when customers start on the programme. 503 million in job outcome payments. 992 million in sustainment payments. Figure 11 shows how the payment profile has changed over time. Figure 11: Payments to Work Programme providers by payment type 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 Attachment fees Job Outcome payments Sustainment payments 0 Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. 20

21 Over the last year, we estimate that DWP has paid providers 528 million. 75% of this total has been sustainment payments for those who had already secured a job outcome. The remaining 25% was for Job Outcome payments. Figure 12: Work Programme: Breakdown of DWP payments over year to June 2015 Attachment fees 0% Job Outcome payments 25% Sustainment payments 75% Source: DWP: Information, Governance and Security Directorate; Inclusion calculations. These figures have been estimated using actual numbers of attachments, job outcome payments and sustainment payments. Job outcome payments incorporate an estimate of the average price discount that providers offered in their bids to DWP. This shows that the attachment fee income has been in decline over the course of the programme. This is partly due to referrals falling, and the attachment fee being reduced year on year. The fee was reduced to 75% of the original amount in April 2012, and to 50% in April From April 2014 onwards providers receive no up-front funding via attachment fees at all. Fees for Job Outcomes are now declining as they are reduced by 10% (magnified by discounts offered by providers) each year from April 2014 How much has DWP spent on each person? We estimate that DWP has paid providers an average of 1,141 for each participant referred. 21

22 The average DWP spend so far is not the same as the total average spend per participant will be once they have all finished the programme (as some participants are only part-way through their time with providers). The average DWP spend per participant has risen since over the last quarter by This is due to continuing sustainment payments for those who have already had a job outcome. 22

23 Annex 1: Performance in local authorities Table 3: Job Outcome measures (Jun 2011-Jun 2014 referrals) and unemployment rates (Jan 2011-Jun 2015) by local authority Local Authority 12-month 2-year Overall Unemploym ent rate Brentwood 13% 42% 40% 4% Babergh 17% 38% 36% 5% Rochford 18% 37% 39% 5% Vale of White Horse 11% 37% 40% 4% Mid Sussex 12% 36% 37% 3% Bracknell Forest 18% 36% 40% 5% Mid Suffolk 14% 36% 35% 4% Tonbridge and Malling 17% 35% 37% 5% Chichester 17% 35% 37% 5% Rushcliffe 14% 35% 34% 5% Broadland 11% 34% 36% 4% Horsham 16% 34% 37% 4% Chiltern 5% 34% 40% 4% South Holland 18% 34% 35% 6% Dartford 18% 34% 38% 6% South Kesteven 17% 34% 34% 5% Wychavon 15% 34% 33% 5% East Hertfordshire 18% 33% 35% 4% Sevenoaks 16% 33% 36% 4% South Oxfordshire 10% 33% 34% 4% St Edmundsbury 13% 33% 35% 5% Suffolk Coastal 13% 33% 35% 4% West Oxfordshire 4% 33% 40% 4% Broxtowe 17% 33% 35% 7% Lichfield 15% 33% 33% 5% Huntingdonshire 17% 33% 37% 5% Forest Heath 9% 33% 35% 5% Braintree 16% 33% 34% 6% Broxbourne 13% 33% 36% 6% Dover 14% 33% 33% 8% Canterbury 16% 33% 35% 7% Reigate and Banstead 16% 32% 36% 4% 23

24 Local Authority 12-month 2-year Overall Unemploym ent rate Winchester 9% 32% 36% 4% Lewes 14% 32% 35% 5% East Lothian 17% 32% 35% 6% Stroud 11% 32% 34% 4% Woking 15% 32% 36% 4% Tunbridge Wells 11% 32% 32% 4% Moray 13% 32% 31% 5% Chorley 17% 32% 33% 5% Stafford 16% 32% 33% 5% Stevenage 17% 31% 33% 7% Castle Point 14% 31% 34% 6% North Warwickshire 6% 31% 29% 5% Epping Forest 18% 31% 32% 6% Fenland 14% 31% 33% 8% North Kesteven 15% 31% 33% 5% Wokingham 9% 31% 37% 4% South Norfolk 15% 31% 35% 5% Hart 8% 31% 40% 4% Test Valley 12% 31% 32% 4% Amber Valley 15% 31% 35% 6% Chelmsford 17% 31% 33% 6% Adur 5% 31% 33% 6% Hinckley and Bosworth 14% 31% 35% 6% North Tyneside 14% 31% 33% 9% King's Lynn and West Norfolk 16% 31% 33% 7% Trafford 15% 31% 34% 6% North Hertfordshire 14% 31% 36% 6% North Norfolk 15% 31% 38% 5% Solihull 16% 31% 33% 7% Cannock Chase 16% 31% 35% 7% Eastleigh 15% 31% 34% 4% Fareham 12% 30% 33% 4% Bury 15% 30% 33% 7% Milton Keynes 13% 30% 34% 7% Stockport 16% 30% 33% 6% Cherwell 10% 30% 36% 4% Welwyn Hatfield 13% 30% 31% 6% Havering 14% 30% 33% 8% Tandridge 10% 30% 37% 4% Thurrock 15% 30% 35% 8% Cheshire West and Chester 15% 30% 34% 6% 24

25 Local Authority 12-month 2-year Overall Unemploym ent rate South Northamptonshire 4% 30% 41% 3% Surrey Heath 13% 30% 34% 5% Tendring 16% 30% 31% 9% Arun 15% 30% 33% 5% Aylesbury Vale 16% 30% 38% 5% Tameside 15% 30% 32% 9% Shropshire 15% 30% 33% 5% Erewash 15% 30% 31% 7% Corby 13% 30% 32% 8% New Forest 16% 30% 33% 4% Warrington 15% 30% 32% 6% Staffordshire Moorlands 10% 30% 33% 5% Worthing 13% 30% 33% 6% Midlothian 14% 30% 32% 7% Brighton and Hove 14% 30% 33% 7% Maidstone 14% 29% 33% 6% Gravesham 14% 29% 30% 8% Newcastle-under-Lyme 13% 29% 31% 6% East Hampshire 6% 29% 31% 4% West Lancashire 16% 29% 32% 7% Waveney 15% 29% 33% 8% Daventry 12% 29% 30% 5% South Cambridgeshire 12% 29% 34% 4% Basingstoke and Deane 15% 29% 34% 5% Blaby 13% 29% 31% 5% Redbridge 15% 29% 31% 9% Colchester 12% 29% 34% 6% Southend-on-Sea 13% 29% 31% 8% South Staffordshire 15% 29% 33% 6% Wigan 14% 29% 32% 8% Malvern Hills 6% 29% 33% 5% Cheshire East 14% 29% 33% 5% Bromsgrove 10% 29% 29% 5% Kettering 13% 29% 29% 6% Darlington 13% 29% 30% 9% St Albans 8% 29% 29% 4% Ashford 16% 29% 34% 6% Dacorum 14% 29% 32% 5% Flintshire / Sir y Fflint 13% 29% 32% 6% City of London 0% 29% 29% East Dunbartonshire 15% 29% 30% 5% 25

26 Local Authority 12-month 2-year Overall Unemploym ent rate Oadby and Wigston 8% 29% 34% 6% Stratford-on-Avon 7% 29% 30% 4% Tamworth 12% 29% 34% 7% Uttlesford 9% 29% 33% 3% Croydon 14% 29% 31% 9% Shepway 13% 29% 32% 7% Breckland 16% 28% 31% 6% Hillingdon 15% 28% 32% 8% Sutton 13% 28% 30% 6% North Lincolnshire 14% 28% 30% 7% Aberdeen City 14% 28% 32% 5% Gateshead 14% 28% 30% 10% South Gloucestershire 12% 28% 32% 5% Derbyshire Dales 8% 28% 31% 4% Bassetlaw 14% 28% 30% 7% East Devon 10% 28% 32% 4% Crawley 12% 28% 31% 7% Oxford 15% 28% 32% 6% East Cambridgeshire 8% 28% 33% 5% Waverley 7% 28% 33% 4% Wycombe 15% 28% 31% 6% Bolsover 13% 28% 33% 7% East Northamptonshire 13% 28% 28% 5% Windsor and Maidenhead 14% 28% 31% 4% Bolton 14% 28% 30% 9% Gedling 14% 28% 31% 7% Newark and Sherwood 16% 28% 31% 6% Sefton 13% 28% 31% 8% South Somerset 12% 28% 30% 5% Rugby 8% 28% 29% 5% Boston 11% 28% 31% 6% Maldon 6% 28% 30% 5% Basildon 14% 28% 29% 8% Oldham 13% 28% 30% 10% Scottish Borders 15% 28% 31% 5% Harlow 15% 28% 32% 9% West Dorset 2% 28% 27% 3% South Hams 4% 28% 33% 4% Rochdale 12% 28% 30% 10% Coventry 14% 28% 31% 9% Rossendale 13% 28% 30% 7% 26

27 Local Authority 12-month 2-year Overall Unemploym ent rate Redcar and Cleveland 14% 28% 29% 11% Cambridge 12% 27% 30% 5% Reading 13% 27% 33% 6% Watford 10% 27% 31% 5% Mid Devon 4% 27% 27% 4% Medway 13% 27% 30% 9% Mendip 6% 27% 33% 5% North East Derbyshire 15% 27% 32% 6% Carlisle 13% 27% 30% 6% West Lothian 14% 27% 30% 7% Worcester 13% 27% 32% 7% Conwy / Conwy 14% 27% 31% 7% Charnwood 14% 27% 30% 6% North West Leicestershire 9% 27% 30% 6% Herefordshire, County of 12% 27% 31% 5% Teignbridge 9% 27% 31% 5% Plymouth 13% 27% 31% 8% Barking and Dagenham 13% 27% 30% 13% South Ribble 16% 27% 30% 5% Three Rivers 4% 27% 30% 6% Lancaster 13% 27% 29% 7% Central Bedfordshire 13% 27% 30% 5% Copeland 11% 27% 29% 7% Norwich 12% 27% 28% 9% Wealden 11% 27% 26% 4% Derby 12% 26% 29% 9% West Lindsey 15% 26% 28% 7% Wiltshire 13% 26% 28% 5% Waltham Forest 12% 26% 29% 10% Mansfield 12% 26% 28% 9% Telford and Wrekin 13% 26% 30% 8% Hambleton 6% 26% 27% 4% Ashfield 13% 26% 28% 9% Fylde 6% 26% 29% 5% Kirklees 13% 26% 29% 8% Dudley 12% 26% 28% 9% Rother 11% 26% 28% 7% South Bucks 4% 26% 29% 4% West Devon 4% 26% 35% 4% Stoke-on-Trent 12% 26% 29% 9% Harborough 6% 26% 37% 4% 27

28 Local Authority 12-month 2-year Overall Unemploym ent rate Knowsley 11% 26% 29% 11% Doncaster 12% 26% 28% 10% East Staffordshire 9% 26% 26% 5% Slough 12% 26% 31% 8% Bath and North East Somerset 11% 26% 28% 5% Newcastle upon Tyne 12% 26% 28% 11% Harrow 13% 26% 28% 7% Barnsley 12% 26% 28% 10% West Berkshire 11% 26% 29% 4% Wyre Forest 13% 26% 30% 7% Southwark 12% 26% 29% 10% Bexley 12% 26% 28% 7% East Renfrewshire 9% 26% 29% 6% St. Helens 13% 26% 28% 9% Ceredigion / Ceredigion 3% 26% 26% 6% Rushmoor 11% 26% 31% 6% Ealing 12% 26% 29% 10% Bromley 12% 26% 29% 6% Sedgemoor 13% 25% 29% 6% Havant 12% 25% 28% 7% Taunton Deane 9% 25% 29% 5% Warwick 10% 25% 27% 5% Northumberland 11% 25% 27% 7% Chesterfield 12% 25% 32% 8% Haringey 13% 25% 29% 10% Swindon 12% 25% 27% 7% Northampton 12% 25% 27% 7% Bedford 12% 25% 27% 7% Wirral 12% 25% 29% 8% Pembrokeshire / Sir Benfro 12% 25% 30% 7% Nuneaton and Bedworth 15% 25% 28% 7% Lincoln 12% 25% 27% 9% Rotherham 12% 25% 28% 10% Sunderland 11% 25% 27% 11% Enfield 12% 25% 28% 10% Mole Valley 7% 25% 25% 4% County Durham 11% 25% 27% 9% Sandwell 11% 25% 27% 12% Wrexham / Wrecsam 13% 25% 28% 7% Wyre 11% 25% 28% 6% Perth and Kinross 13% 25% 29% 5% 28

29 Local Authority 12-month 2-year Overall Unemploym ent rate Salford 12% 25% 28% 10% Torridge 6% 25% 27% 6% Greenwich 11% 25% 28% 10% Stirling 10% 25% 29% 7% Nottingham 12% 25% 27% 13% High Peak 10% 25% 31% 6% Allerdale 14% 25% 28% 7% Guildford 5% 25% 27% 5% Denbighshire / Sir Ddinbych 9% 25% 28% 7% East Lindsey 13% 25% 26% 7% Merton 12% 25% 29% 7% Sheffield 11% 25% 27% 10% Brent 11% 25% 26% 10% East Riding of Yorkshire 11% 25% 26% 6% Swale 13% 25% 29% 8% Cornwall 11% 24% 27% 6% Hounslow 13% 24% 28% 7% Poole 12% 24% 29% 5% Birmingham 11% 24% 27% 13% Hammersmith and Fulham 11% 24% 27% 8% Hertsmere 9% 24% 27% 5% Edinburgh, City of 13% 24% 27% 7% South Derbyshire 12% 24% 25% 5% South Lanarkshire 12% 24% 27% 7% Manchester 12% 24% 27% 11% South Tyneside 11% 24% 25% 12% Peterborough 11% 24% 27% 9% Hartlepool 11% 24% 27% 14% Luton 11% 24% 27% 9% Liverpool 11% 24% 27% 12% Stockton-on-Tees 11% 24% 26% 10% Leicester 11% 24% 27% 12% Gwynedd / Gwynedd 12% 24% 26% 6% Ipswich 10% 24% 27% 8% Torbay 10% 24% 28% 8% Angus 11% 24% 28% 6% Elmbridge 6% 24% 25% 4% Bradford 12% 24% 26% 11% North Lanarkshire 12% 24% 26% 10% Exeter 10% 24% 30% 6% Southampton 11% 24% 26% 8% 29

30 Local Authority 12-month 2-year Overall Unemploym ent rate Gosport 10% 24% 26% 6% Powys / Powys 9% 24% 26% 5% Great Yarmouth 11% 24% 27% 9% Tower Hamlets 10% 24% 26% 12% Walsall 11% 24% 25% 11% Eden 0% 24% 24% 3% Islington 12% 24% 27% 9% South Ayrshire 11% 24% 27% 8% Bridgend / Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr 11% 23% 26% 8% Halton 12% 23% 28% 9% South Lakeland 3% 23% 29% 3% Leeds 10% 23% 26% 9% Wellingborough 10% 23% 27% 8% Lambeth 11% 23% 26% 9% Hackney 11% 23% 26% 10% Barnet 10% 23% 26% 7% Selby 9% 23% 27% 6% Camden 12% 23% 27% 8% Barrow-in-Furness 10% 23% 25% 9% Calderdale 10% 23% 24% 8% Hastings 11% 23% 27% 9% Wakefield 10% 23% 26% 9% Glasgow City 12% 23% 25% 11% Gloucester 8% 23% 25% 7% West Somerset 5% 23% 19% 5% Eastbourne 11% 23% 26% 7% Kensington and Chelsea 11% 23% 26% 7% Newham 10% 23% 26% 12% Lewisham 10% 23% 26% 9% The Vale of Glamorgan / Bro Morgannwg 10% 23% 28% 7% Thanet 11% 23% 24% 11% Redditch 8% 23% 28% 6% North Ayrshire 12% 23% 24% 12% Ryedale 2% 23% 25% 4% Burnley 10% 23% 24% 9% Monmouthshire / Sir Fynwy 7% 23% 24% 5% East Dorset 2% 22% 32% 4% Melton 0% 22% 24% 4% Caerphilly / Caerffili 9% 22% 25% 9% 30

31 Local Authority 12-month 2-year Overall Unemploym ent rate Wandsworth 11% 22% 27% 6% North Somerset 10% 22% 26% 6% Weymouth and Portland 7% 22% 26% 6% Fife 11% 22% 24% 8% Aberdeenshire 9% 22% 26% 3% Merthyr Tydfil / Merthyr Tudful 10% 22% 26% 11% Middlesbrough 10% 22% 24% 14% York 11% 22% 24% 6% Preston 10% 22% 25% 8% Newport / Casnewydd 10% 22% 24% 9% Swansea / Abertawe 10% 22% 26% 8% Rhondda, Cynon, Taff / Rhondda, Cynon, Taf 9% 22% 25% 10% Pendle 8% 22% 24% 8% North East Lincolnshire 10% 22% 23% 11% Wolverhampton 10% 22% 24% 13% North Dorset 2% 22% 36% 4% Hyndburn 13% 22% 23% 8% Cardiff / Caerdydd 9% 21% 24% 9% Scarborough 8% 21% 24% 8% East Ayrshire 10% 21% 23% 10% Kingston Upon Thames 10% 21% 29% 6% Renfrewshire 11% 21% 25% 8% Richmondshire 0% 21% 26% 5% Bristol, City of 9% 21% 24% 8% Highland 11% 21% 23% 5% Dumfries and Galloway 11% 21% 25% 7% Epsom and Ewell 3% 21% 26% 4% Isle of Anglesey / Ynys MÃ n 10% 21% 23% 7% Harrogate 5% 21% 23% 4% Carmarthenshire / Sir Gaerfyrddin 9% 21% 24% 7% Forest of Dean 6% 21% 25% 6% Isle of Wight 10% 20% 23% 8% Blackburn with Darwen 9% 20% 24% 9% Falkirk 10% 20% 22% 8% Inverclyde 11% 20% 22% 10% West Dunbartonshire 9% 20% 23% 10% Torfaen / Tor-faen 10% 20% 24% 10% Blackpool 9% 20% 23% 10% 31

32 Local Authority 12-month 2-year Overall Unemploym ent rate Cheltenham 8% 20% 24% 7% Portsmouth 9% 20% 23% 8% North Devon 3% 20% 25% 5% Clackmannanshire 9% 20% 21% 9% Argyll and Bute 7% 20% 21% 6% Kingston upon Hull, City of 9% 20% 21% 14% Spelthorne 6% 20% 25% 5% Bournemouth 9% 20% 24% 7% Cotswold 2% 20% 27% 4% Richmond upon Thames 9% 20% 25% 5% Neath Port Talbot / Castellnedd Port Talbot 8% 19% 23% 8% Runnymede 3% 19% 23% 4% Tewkesbury 4% 19% 26% 5% Blaenau Gwent / Blaenau Gwent 8% 19% 23% 13% Westminster 9% 19% 22% 7% Dundee City 7% 17% 20% 10% Ribble Valley 0% 13% 29% 4% Christchurch 2% 13% 20% 5% Craven 0% 13% 36% 5% Purbeck 2% 11% 17% 4% Eilean Siar 2% 11% 15% 6% Shetland Islands 0% 10% 10% 3% Orkney Islands 0% 7% 14% 4% Rutland 0% 5% 7% 4% 32