Written evidence submitted by the British Association for Supported Employment (ESD0075)
General- The British Association for Supported Employment {BASE} are a national charity funded through membership with a mission that employment must be for all. With a clear evidence base, around high aspiration, quality, and partnership working, the supported employment model, empowers individuals, communities, and employers to access good quality careers for disabled, neurodivergent, and disadvantaged people. BASE brings a wealth of strengths, knowledge, and expertise, having been the leading voice around Inclusive Recruitment for over 15 years, developing the national occupational standards, Quality assurance framework. BASE develops partnerships partnership to work from a removal of barriers perspective and Employers are valued as an equal partner, where long lasting relationships are built that supports the ongoing positive cultures embedded within organisations. The model was originally designed to overcome the huge barriers that exist for people with a learning disability and or autism into employment, once embedded into recruitment practices.
BASE’s mission is
• To positively represent, connect and collaborate with our rich and diverse members and to constantly champion an aspirational vision, so that everyone who wants to work, has the right support to do so.
• To create a UK wide employer work culture, where inclusion is the golden thread and employers feel empowered to move from disability confident to disability confident in action.
• To lead with compassion and integrity where humans are at the heart.
BASE represents approximately 360 member organisations, including national employers and has developed strategic partnerships to lead the way in embedding the evidenced based model at the heart of UK employment focused provision.
Why has progress with closing the disability gap slowed in recent years?
The persistent disability employment gap in the UK is the result of complex, systemic issues that span decades of policy and practice.
Historically, employment programmes have prioritised an “any job” approach, often underpinned by punitive conditionality and sanctions. These measures have disproportionately harmed disabled people, exacerbated financial insecurity and undermined mental health. Research from the University of Essex and Inclusion London found that sanctions within the Employment and Support Allowance system caused significant psychological distress, with some participants reporting suicidal ideation due to the fear and unpredictability of sanctions [1].
Despite substantial investment, there is limited evidence that nationally commissioned Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) programmes—such as the Work and Health Programme—have delivered meaningful outcomes for disabled, neurodivergent, or disadvantaged individuals, particularly those with complex health conditions [2]. A thematic review by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds highlighted systemic discrimination and employer bias as key barriers, with disabled people facing exclusion at every stage of the employment journey—from recruitment to retention [3].
International evidence consistently supports the effectiveness of Supported
Employment models, particularly those that offer holistic, wraparound support to both jobseekers and employers. These models—such as Individual Placement and Support (IPS), have demonstrated significantly better outcomes, including higher employment rates and longer job retention, especially for individuals with mental health conditions [4]. The British Association for Supported Employment (BASE) is demonstrating how a co-ordinated and business centred approach, supporting large employers to understand how Supported Employment can move them along their disability confident journey and setting up specific programs with global organisations such as Amazon.
While over 19,000 employers have signed up to the Disability Confident scheme, recent analysis reveals that even those at the highest level are no more likely to employ disabled people than non-members. The scheme has been criticised as “window dressing,” with disabled employees reporting no better workplace experiences compared to those in non-participating organisations [6]. Employers we work with consistently express the need for practical, coordinated support—such as that provided through Supported Employment—to enable sustainable inclusion.
It is encouraging to see the government investing in the Supported Employment model, using both Individual Placement and Support (IPS) and Supported Employment Quality Framework (SEQF) model fidelities, through initiatives such as Connect to Work and the investment into quality assurance reviews. These steps have the potential to drive up positive outcomes and improve the culture and approach to disability employment in the UK. Evidence shows that both IPS and
SEQF models, when implemented with fidelity, deliver significant improvements in job outcomes, job retention, and wellbeing for disabled people and those with complex needs (NIHR research summary; [7] However, there remains a risk that, through some aspects of commissioning, small grassroots specialist programmes—many of which have a strong track record of supporting those furthest from the labour market, such as people with learning disabilities—are not being fully included in the provision. Research highlights that large-scale commissioning and prime provider models can unintentionally exclude smaller, specialist organisations, despite their proven effectiveness in delivering personalised, community-based support (Government Outcomes Lab, University of Oxford; [8]. Evidence also shows that supported employment and internships delivered by specialist providers can lead to large employment gains for people with learning disabilities [9] To maximise the impact of government investment, it is vital that commissioning processes are designed to include and support these specialist, grassroots providers, ensuring that those furthest from the labour market are not left behind. We support the Disability Confident scheme, which continues to be admired by international colleagues in the Supported Employment community. We welcome the current reforms aimed at helping employers take practical, meaningful steps to build inclusive workplaces for all disabled people. This includes embedding flexibility across the entire employee lifecycle [10], developing robust and responsive reasonable adjustment processes, and empowering line managers to become genuine advocates for inclusion. BASE has seen excellent examples of employers leading with intent—such as Amazon’s Careers 4 All programme—demonstrating what’s possible when commitment is matched with action. Access to Work has the potential to dramatically improve the disability employment gap, with a trusted service, that when invested in properly, overcomes the barriers faced by disabled people in the workplace. We believe there needs to be stronger links between Access to Work and what is expected from Disability Confident employers, with greater levels of wrap around support available for employers to reduce the need on Access to Work to plug the gap. We do not advocate a reduction in funding but the ability to ensure the funding is targeted at individuals and employers with limited resources. To address the Disability Employment gap, we believe the government needs to consider reform alongside additional spend, utilising tech more effectively and bringing a personalised approach back, through quality account management. Access to Work has the potential to dramatically improve the disability employment gap. When properly invested in, it is a trusted service that can help overcome many of the barriers disabled people face in the workplace¹. However, to maximise its impact, there needs to be a stronger connection between Access to Work, and the expectations placed on Disability Confident employers, with greater levels of wraparound support available for employers. This would reduce the reliance on |
Access to Work as a “gap filler” and instead embed inclusive practice across the workforce.
We do not advocate a reduction in Access to Work funding; rather, we recommend ensuring that funding is targeted towards individuals and employers with limited resources, where it can have the greatest impact. Reform should focus on improving the efficiency and responsiveness of the scheme, making better use of technology, and reintroducing a personalised approach through quality account management. This would help ensure that both disabled employees and employers receive the support they need, and that Access to Work continues to play a central role in closing the disability employment gap. [11]
To uphold the international evidence base for Supported Employment, we need a consistent and intentional approach to language. Terms like “job coaching” must not be conflated with “employability coaching,” as they reflect fundamentally different models. This is not just semantics—it’s about ensuring fidelity to the values and practices of Supported Employment. There is no such thing as a “light-touch” version of model fidelity; clarity in language is essential to embed the right approach. The British Association of Supported Employment
What barriers prevent disabled people who want to work or to work more from doing so? How do these vary for different disabilities? How do these vary across the country?
Disabled people face multiple, intersecting barriers to employment, beginning with low expectations in education and continuing through recruitment, workplace culture, and progression. The thematic review by the Centre for Disability Studies and Disability Rights UK highlights that disabled people are more than twice as likely to be unemployed and three times more likely to be economically inactive than nondisabled people. These disparities are shaped by systemic discrimination, inaccessible recruitment practices, and a lack of tailored support across the employment lifecycle (GOV.UK Review).
While government investment in programmes like DfE’s Internships Work is welcome, significant gaps remain in the pathways available to disabled people. The programme has shown promise in increasing access to supported internships, but challenges persist in sustaining employment outcomes and ensuring quality provision across all regions (DfE Interim Evaluation; NDTi Programme Overview). International evidence consistently supports holistic Supported Employment models, with trained job coaches at the heart of delivery. These models improve employment outcomes, confidence, and retention, especially for those furthest from the labour market (Pathways to Work Evidence Snapshot).
However, outside of Internships Work, there has been limited investment in job coaching across the wider Supported Employment landscape. Many specialist services rely solely on Access to Work funding, which can be restrictive and inconsistent. This undermines the sustainability of support for both employees and employers.
Inclusive Apprenticeships and Sector Reform Apprenticeships are a vital route into employment and progression. Yet, despite government efforts, there remains a lack of understanding and infrastructure within the apprenticeship system to support disabled people effectively. The guide Into Apprenticeships outlines the barriers and opportunities for disabled learners, emphasising the need for accessible training, reasonable adjustments, and inclusive recruitment (Disability Rights UK Guide). BASE is investing in a network of inclusive apprenticeship provision to improve access and progression routes for disabled people. A national apprenticeship framework for job coaching could further professionalise the sector and support employers to embed inclusive practices into their workforce planning. Recruitment and Workplace Inclusion Recruitment processes remain a significant barrier. Disabled candidates often face inaccessible application systems, biased assessments, and a lack of reasonable adjustments. Scope’s Inclusive Recruitment Toolkit outlines practical steps employers can take, including guaranteed interview schemes, working interviews, and job carving (Scope Toolkit). Supported Employment has successfully helped employers embed inclusive practices, such as job shaping and flex-plus approaches, which allow roles to be tailored to individual strengths. Front-line managers are critical to success, and there is growing interest in job coaching training for employers to build confidence and competence Challenging Myths and Shifting the Narrative People with learning disabilities, autism, and those who are blind remain among the most excluded groups from the workforce. Mencap’s research shows that while many want to work, myths and stigma continue to undermine employer confidence (Mencap Fact Sheet). Negative narratives—such as portraying disabled people as “lazy” or “benefit scroungers”—must be actively challenged. The TUC’s report on workplace discrimination reveals that nearly half of disabled workers have experienced bullying or harassment, with significant impacts on mental health and job retention (TUC Report). To address this, the government must work in partnership with Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) to ensure that policy decisions reflect the reality of disabled people’s lives and promote the message that there is a huge untapped workforce. |
Embedding the Social Model of Disability
We believe the social model of disability must underpin all government policy related to employment—from education transitions to Disability Confident. This model recognises that people are disabled by societal barriers, not by their impairments, and provides a framework for inclusive, rights-based approaches to employment.
What kinds of support are most effective at supporting people with different disabilities?
Disabled people face diverse barriers to employment, and support must reflect this diversity. International evidence consistently shows that Supported Employment, when delivered with fidelity, is one of the most effective models for helping people with different disabilities into work. It combines personalised, strengths-based support with trained job coaches and wraparound services.
Two key fidelity-based models demonstrate this:
• | Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is highly effective for people with mental health conditions, musculoskeletal issues, and substance use challenges. It integrates employment support within health services and focuses on rapid job placement with ongoing support (NIHR IPS Evidence). |
• | Supported Employment Quality Framework (SEQF) is particularly effective for people with learning disabilities and/or autism. It is rooted in communitybased support and long-term job coaching, enabling individuals to thrive in inclusive workplaces (BASE SEQF Overview). |
It is encouraging to see the government investing in the Connect to
Work programme, which applies both IPS and SEQF fidelity scales. This approach ensures that those most excluded from the workforce can access high-ambition, person-centred support tailored to their needs.
Importantly, support must also recognise intersectionality—disabled people may face compounded barriers due to race, gender, socio-economic status, or other factors. A one-size-fits-all approach is insufficient; effective support must be flexible, personalised, and rooted in evidence.
How successful has Access to Work been at supporting disabled people into work? How can it be improved?
Access to Work is a grant-based programme that, when functioning well, plays a vital role in removing barriers for disabled people entering and staying in employment. It is widely recognised as a model to be proud of. However, the scheme was not designed for the current level of demand and cannot be considered in isolation; it must be integrated with wider government policy to effectively reduce the disability employment gap.
To maximise its impact, Access to Work requires further investment and better alignment with other government initiatives. Employer should have access to more comprehensive wraparound support, reducing over-reliance on Access to Work as a “gap filler.” Policy and operational delivery must be consistent, with a focus on the social model of disability and value for money, rather than simply fitting within a financial envelope.
There are opportunities to improve efficiency by leveraging technology for those who know what support they need, supported by clear guidance and an account management approach. This would reduce delays, correspondence, and errors. Dispute resolution and payment processes should be streamlined, with automated systems to prevent cashflow issues for individuals and organisations.
Access to Work should also be better integrated with other government schemes, ensuring that if it is not the right mechanism for a particular barrier, alternative funding streams are available. Some support currently funded by Access to Work, such as career or ADHD coaching, could be addressed within broader skills conversations and funding.
Finally, the process must be more flexible and responsive, allowing individuals to easily adjust their support as needs change. There should also be a transparent evidence base for support worker rates, ensuring full cost recovery for organisations delivering support.
How successful has the Disability Confident scheme been at improving employer practices?
The Disability Confident scheme is widely recognised and valued for raising awareness, but its impact on actual employment outcomes is limited. Research shows that even Level 3 “Leader” employers are no more likely to employ disabled people than non-members. [12]
The governments approach has appeared to focus on quantity over quality and we would strongly recommend building a scheme that drives quality outcomes, using the key matrix to success.
Employers consistently report three key barriers:
1. Navigating reasonable adjustment processes
2. Lack of line manager training
3. Uncertainty about how to embed inclusion across the employee lifecycle
Employers want to do the right thing but often lack the confidence, clarity, and support to act. Many also find that Occupational Health services reinforce a medical model, rather than enabling inclusive, strengths-based approaches.
The scheme needs to be more ambitious and outcome-focused, with:
• | Clearer expectations for progression—especially at Leader level |
• | Stronger validation by trusted values-led partners |
• | Practical, wraparound support to embed inclusion across the organisation |
BASE’s Disability Confident in Action Business Summit has attracted international interest from organisations seeking to build schemes grounded in the Supported Employment model. Employers tell us they want to be held to account but also supported as a “critical friend.” [13]
The scheme also needs to work better for SMEs, which often lack the resources of larger employers but have the agility to implement inclusive practices quickly. There’s a missed opportunity to connect larger Disability Confident employers with SMEs to share learning and resources.
Finally, there is potential to align Disability Confident with evidence-based programmes like Connect to Work, creating regional ecosystems of support that help employers move from awareness to action. With organisations such as BASE being able to support national employers to utilise these regional echo systems in a way that works for them.
To close the disability employment gap, future policy must move beyond rhetoric and invest in evidence-based, person-centred approaches that support both supply and demand sides of the labour market.
How well is connect to work working, does it work better in some circumstances and for some disabilities?
It is too early in the program to identify if it is working but it is hugely exciting and drawing great interest internally that a government is following an evidenced based approach to addressing the disability employment gap. If commissioned in the right way, with the right values, moving away from an any job approach, has increasing evidence to work.
Both SEQF and IPS model fidelities have an evidence base around working for groups of disabled and neurodivergent people and there are examples of SEQF services working across intersectional groups of disabled people and those from disadvantaged groups such as care leaders.
The DWP have commissioned model fidelity reviews to underpin the Connect to Work program, providing greater confidence that providers can’t deliver the program in name only but must follow model fidelity.
The model also has a set of values that underpins everything, so it is more than what you do, but how you do it, that leads to long term careers for disabled people.
The commissioning model has meant that some grass routes specialist organisations, with huge amounts of experience in supporting people, particularly those with a learning disability and autism have been squeezed out. We would highly recommend the government considers how to better lean into this important part of the sector to ensure those people too often most excluded from the labour market also can work. We know that people with a learning disability who access a paid job, live on average 15 years longer than those who don’t work, it is imperative that this group of people are not left out of any progress in addressing the gap.
It is also important that there is a clear and consistent use of language around the evidence base for supported employment and it would be helpful to see greater levels of visibility of the Connect to Work program and the huge potential it has in helping to get Britain working again.
It is important that Connect to Work is not seen as the only intervention to address the systemic barriers and must be viewed as a part of a joined-up system approach, including workforce skills development for the sector, employer focused support, transitions into employment and a functioning access to work system.
Supported Employment has models that work across age groups and are proven to be highly effective from transitions into adulthood.
There is a hugely exciting opportunity for the government to redefine how disabled people engage with work, how employers understand the opportunity and how the providers deliver the evidenced based models and organisations such as BASE are hugely passionate alongside other partners in bringing this opportunity to life.
What should the government prioritise with its additional support for disabled people arising from the Pathways to Work Green Paper?
It is encouraging to see government investment in evidence-based models like IPS and SEQF through Connect to Work. However, this must be matched by ensuring disabled people are not living in fear of financial insecurity—no one can plan for the future from a position of fear.
Young disabled people need access to the right support from the earliest stage. Fully funding evidence-based models, such as Supported Internships, is essential to prevent young people from entering long-term unemployment. Alongside this, further investment is needed to build inclusive apprenticeships, with BASE leading work to develop a national network.
Government should focus on investing limited resources effectively, building trust with the organisations that support disabled people into work. There must be a clear separation between welfare and employment support, so people feel safe to try work. For those closest to the labour market, a six-month period of light-touch support—without mandatory Jobcentre attendance—could help them consider their options. Those with more complex barriers, eligible for Connect to Work or local Supported Employment, should be exempt from welfare requirements while engaged in these programmes, trusting expert providers to support their journey. This would free up advisors to focus on those unemployed for longer but not needing intensive support.
The integration of the skills agenda into DWP is a positive step, enabling more joined-up investment in skills across the workforce. Priorities should include:
• The right support for the right person at the right time
• Ensuring young disabled people are included in youth trailblazers and Supported Internships
• Reforming Access to Work based on the social model of disability and employer support
• Tackling stigma and myths around welfare, with campaigns highlighting the untapped potential of disabled people
• Investing in robust employer support, making Disability Confident more rigorous and focused on quality, with a network of approved validators
Finally, a dedicated social inclusion workstream should address wider systemic barriers—such as transport, flexible working, and health and social care support—to ensure disabled people can access and thrive in employment.
How can DWP apply a systems-based approach to safeguarding in the design and delivery of employment support for disabled people?
It is positive to see the government utilising the international evidence base for
Connect to Work and investing into the quality assurance processes that drive up quality, as part of a system approach to safeguarding but this needs to be applied across all programs and services—by embedding safeguarding into the culture, processes, and partnerships of the entire system.
Key elements the government should prioritise:
1. Whole-System Design: Safeguarding should be a core principle from policy design through to frontline delivery. This means clear standards, shared language, and expectations for all providers, commissioners, and employers involved in employment support. 2. Integrated Partnerships: Continue to build strong, multi-agency partnerships in regional areas between employment services, social care, health, education, and safeguarding leads. This ensures risks are identified early and support is coordinated, especially for those with complex needs or who may be at higher risk of exploitation or harm. 3. Workforce Training and Culture: All staff—including job coaches, line managers, and employer partners— should receive regular, high-quality safeguarding training tailored to the needs of disabled people. Safeguarding should be seen as everyone’s responsibility, not just a compliance task. 4. Continuous Learning and Improvement: Use data, case reviews, and lived experience to identify patterns, learn from incidents, and adapt policies and practices. This includes sharing learning across the system and with disabled people themselves. Ensure that quality assurance frameworks have an evidence base and align with each other. 5. Person-Centred and Rights-Based: Safeguarding must respect autonomy, dignity, and choice. Policies should be co-produced with disabled people and Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs), ensuring that support is empowering, not paternalistic. |
References (suggested):
1. Inclusion London & University of Essex, “The Impact of Benefit Sanctions on Disabled People”
2. National Audit Office, “Supporting disabled people to work”
3. Centre for Disability Studies, University of Leeds, “Barriers to Employment for Disabled People”
4. OECD, “Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers”
5. British Association for Supported Employment (BASE), “Supported Employment Evidence Base”
6. Disability News Service, “Disability Confident: No evidence scheme increases disability employment”
7. BASE: Quality in Supported Employment;
Shaw Trust: Commissioning Connect to Work).
8. Learning and Work Institute: Evidence Review; Local Government Association: Mapping national employment and skills provision)
9. NDTi: Employment support for disabled people; BASE: Supported Employment Evidence
10. 39-steps-flex-plus-working-disability-inclusion-report-2025.pdf
11. BASE recommendations for Access to Work and https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/employment
12. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disability-confident-survey-ofparticipating-employers-may-2022/disability-confident-scheme-findings-froma-survey-of-participating-employers
13. Disability Confidence in Action Business Summit 2025
14. BASE evidence document
15. https://learningandwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/WWU-Evidencereview-Employment-support-for-people-with-disabilities-and-healthconditions.pdf
October 2025