Written evidence submitted by Dr Daniel Wheatley, Dr Harriet Clarke, Dr Christian Darko, Dr John Gibney, Dr Benjamin Hopkins and Dr Aikaterini Tavoulari
(AWS0052)
1 Introduction: The AI-EMPOWERED research project
1.1 This evidence submission has been prepared by the AI-EMPOWERED research project team. We are all members of the Work Inclusivity Research Centre (WIRC), led by Dr Daniel Wheatley at Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham.
1.2 The AI-EMPOWERED research project is assessing the implications of AI and automation technologies for the employment opportunities and working experiences of disabled people in the UK. The project received funding from the Edward Gostling Foundation (Charitable Registration No. 1068617).
1.3 AI-EMPOWERED was funded in April 2025. The project is currently live and while several components of data collection are complete, some remain active.
1.4 AI-EMPOWERED has developed a rich evidence base combining a survey of 1,029 employers, a survey of over 1,000 disabled people, approximately 100 interviews with employers, disabled people and relevant stakeholders, and organizational case studies.
1.5 Within the remit of AI-EMPOWERED, we have investigated the current state of employment for disabled people. Access to Work has featured in several key findings: this evidence submission summarises those findings related to Access to Work and presents a series of associated recommendations.
2 Evidence from the AI-EMPOWERED project
2.1 The principles of Access to Work and its role as an enabler of employment
2.1.1 At its core the purpose and principles of the Access to Work scheme are widely considered as a gold standard approach to supporting disabled people in(to) employment.
2.1.2 Responding to gaps in understanding of whether the scheme is beneficial to those in receipt outlined in the National Audit Office report, we have heard from disabled people who have received support through Access to Work that it is essential for them to access and remain in employment:
2.1.3 I knew that if I didn't get Access to Work, I would probably have to give up working, which again would have even greater financial issues. So, getting Access to Work was a huge relief. [Disabled employee]
2.1.4 Access to Work is like a gem, you know that and such a great best practice that we are so proud of from the UK and other countries kind of looking in admire the way that Access to Work works to support disabled people in work. So, it just seems so backwards to dismantle that and to be not providing the support. [Disabled employee]
2.1.5 Whilst paid work is not necessarily good for health and welfare, well supported work can be. Access to Work was actively highlighted by another disabled employee as important for their well-being in the context of their impairment: If Access to Work said I couldn’t have my support worker anymore, I would have to quit work. Now work is a big thing for me, with [disability], I have to keep busy. And without having work or [study] or something in my life I don’t know what I’d do, frankly. [Disabled employee]
2.2 ‘Getting people back to work’: the current disability employment landscape
2.2.1 Experts and disabled people alike expressed concerns around current political and social rhetoric around disability and ‘getting people back to work’ and how this is in direct conflict with perceived intentions to concurrently reduce employment support for disabled people:
2.2.2 There's some really concerning rhetoric around laziness, shirkers, the need for conditionality which doesn't line up with the evidence. I think my view is we're far better off to start with what people are saying amongst [disabled people], which is they want to work given the right support and given the right job. [Academic Expert]
2.2.3 There's like this rhetoric coming from the government continuously at the moment that they want to get disabled people into work, that we're scroungers and benefit takers, and we're just a cost on the economy. They're getting disabled people into work. They've kind of shot themselves in the foot because now they're trying to diminish the whole Access to Work scheme and Access to Work will pay not just for support workers, they also fund assistive technologies and equipment. [Disabled employee]
2.2.4 Additional concern was raised about potential responses of employers, including risk of reduced employment opportunities for disabled people, should a greater responsibility fall on employers if requirements for reasonable adjustments are revised:
2.2.5 The government's proposals are to kind of do away with Access to Work and make it the responsibility of employers. But for someone like me, who needs a support worker, there's no way my [employer] is going to employ a support worker for me. [Disabled employee]
2.2.6 An employee with lived experience of disability summed up the current state of Access to Work: I would love any way that they could make it more accessible and a shorter process in order to get support. Unfortunately, politically it seems to be going the other way. [Disabled employee]
2.3 Employer perspectives on Government employment support and Access to Work
2.3.1 In our employer survey, approximately 4-in-10 (39%) reported direct provision of support for disabled people including assistive technologies, while a further 31% of employers reported providing assistance to employees in gaining external sources of support including assistive technologies which includes support in applications through government programmes/schemes.
2.3.2 Large organizations (those employing over 250 people) are more likely to provide employees with support in navigating external applications for practical support: almost 4-in-10 (37%) large organizations reported providing support, compared with 12% of micro organizations (up to 10 employees), and 22% of small (up to 50 employees) and medium organizations (up to 250 employees). This suggests greater support is needed in SMEs at both ends of the employment relationship – employees and employers – with navigating government support. Gaps in awareness were noted:
2.3.3 I've had it a lot recently where organizations didn't know that they could apply to Access to Work for people that they employ to then put these adoptions in place because a lot of the time they're going, oh, we don't have the money to do it and all this sort of stuff. [Employer with lived experience of disability]
2.3.4 Employers spoke of issues around the timeliness of application processes and variability in the quality of services. Some employers provided support to employees in an attempt to smooth out the process and ‘plug the gap’: I know there are horrendous delays with Access to Work at the moment and what we have been doing in some instances is we have used the reasonable adjustments budget to plug the gap. Because, we’ll not have someone waiting 18 weeks to get a response [Employer]
2.3.5 More encouragingly, only 8% of employers reported accessing government support as a specific barrier to employing disabled people. However, this is more pronounced in SMEs where approximately 10% reported difficulties in accessing government support as a barrier to employing disabled people.
2.3.6 A large voluntary and community sector disability organization highlighted that organizational members who employ disabled people were reporting concerns in relation to Access to Work, highlighting that in organizations where there may be commitment to ensuring inclusive work practices access issues were a concern:
2.3.7 What we are hearing from our members is that a lot of our members employ [disabled people]. You’d hope they would, wouldn’t you? And that working with Access to Work just got worse. So you know, it’s got harder, more people are losing money, there’s longer gaps in claims, you know like getting claims processed, all sorts of horror stories that the whole thing has just become much harder and that people are having their Access to Work cut, which is threatening their ability to keep their job. [Employer]
2.4 Awareness of Access to Work and suitability of support options
2.4.1 For many disabled people, including those that have recently become disabled, gaps were commonly reported in awareness of the Access to Work scheme, processes and of new assistive technologies.
2.4.2 Across our survey of disabled people, 20% reported a lack of awareness of how to apply as a reason they were not currently using Access to Work, while 42% reported that they did not know what the scheme could provide them.
2.4.3 A disabled employee summed up their perspective on the scheme: The secret fund that the government has, which nobody seems to know about, the Access to Work Fund. Everybody I say it to, says, oh, really? And they're shocked. And I think, why, why doesn't anybody know that this exists? [Disabled employee]
2.4.4 Some users reported being directed toward to a narrow set of support options, which may not be those best positioned to support their employment, while there were also noted gaps among assessors in knowledge around the latest assistive technologies.
2.4.5 Our evidence also unearthed conflicts with employer systems and knowledge that can diminish effectiveness and limit feasibility of certain support mechanisms. As a disabled employee reflected:
2.4.6 It's great having the equipment, but if an employer doesn't understand the difficulty that somebody's having and why they need that equipment, then it's going to be no good. So, you know, it's not just about the technology, it's also about knowledge. [Disabled employee]
2.4.7 These findings emphasise the need for greater coordination between DWP, disabled people and employers to support improved knowledge and suitability of the capabilities and compatibilities of different systems, tools and software.
2.5 Process design and implementation
2.5.1 Disabled people reported contrasting experiences in line with the noted differences in quality of user experience outlined by some of our employer participants.
2.5.2 Positive experiences involved adoption of a supportive person-based approach by assessors with clear provision of information and guidance that reassured service users. Some disabled people went further to cite the empowering nature of assessments where they were handled with appropriate care by experienced assessors.
2.5.3 I guess it was more a sense of there was a bit of reassurance in like, oh, we have this assessor who thinks I need all these tools and stuff to help me. [Employer with lived experience of disability]
2.5.4 But other disabled people argued that the process was designed without fully considering the diversity of needs of disabled people which led to practical barriers in obtaining support and even remaining in work:
2.5.5 It is a kind of practical barrier to remaining in work for some people, the fact that these systems are positioned, not with intention but just the practical reality, that they're not really being developed and rolled out considering people's individual situations. So, it's so difficult for you to claim the money back that it creates a real barrier. [Disabled employee]
2.5.6 Continuity issues linked to assessor staffing challenges (sickness absence and exit) were cited as presenting particular difficulties in navigating through the application and assessment process, but also impacting on the timeliness of the scheme:
2.5.7 On the access to work side, I was allocated, I think, six caseworkers of which I only ever actually got to communicate with four, and three of them did assessments and then either left or went off sick, you know, therefore, didn't complete it. And the next person would pick it up and go, I can't make head nor tail of this. I'm going to have to start again from the beginning. And then I'd get three months down the road and they're about to write their final report and they go off sick. So, I had a nightmare trying to get access to what I needed. [Employer with lived experience of disability]
2.6 Timeliness of application processes
2.6.1 The impacts of timescales involved in assessments affected the working lives of disabled people in three ways:
2.6.2 Lengthy process timescales of up to one year were reported by participants, although it should be noted that our survey data indicates variable experiences. 30% of those currently in receipt of Access to Work reported application processes of 1-3 months, but similar proportions (28%) reported timescales of 10 or more months.
2.6.3 Due to timescales encountered, in several cases, interview participants reported using alternative sources of finance including personal savings or family to enable access to employment. But consistent in experiences was the perceived value of the scheme:
2.6.4 There was there was an 8 month period in which I had to self-fund while also getting used to a wheelchair and going through the emotional process of accepting what was happening with my body and the kind of political issues around [my condition]. So, it was a really difficult time. But I am incredibly grateful for Access to Work. [Disabled employee]
2.6.5 Meanwhile others reported having to implement ‘workarounds’ including using free-to-access assistive software due to the current timescales involved in Access to Work.
2.6.6 Employers similarly noted both financial costs incurred in the short run due to delays in receiving funding to support employment of disabled people, and risks around employees potentially leaving before Access to Work had been granted. There was also some concern expressed that the problems being reported with Access to Work could put people off seeking support.
2.6.7 Movements in employment were also highlighted as creating challenges, as requirements for reapplication to Access to Work created gaps in provision with often lengthy timescales to approval, and associated negative user experiences.
2.7 Accessibility and user experience
2.7.1 Disabled participants outlined practical difficulties such as incompatibility with voice to text assistive technologies and complexities of application forms and processes. As an employer referred to the experiences of a staff member with a learning disability: No, there's no way they’d do it. One guy that did work here, his father had to do it for him. [Employer]
2.7.2 Disabled people and third parties providing support with using Access to Work widely reported an underlying perception that the process was being applied with a focus on compliance and rather than support. Users were asked to repeatedly provide proof of need, reporting how this impacted their dignity and created an emotional burden in having to reflect on their disability or aspects of their past experiences:
2.7.3 It’s just, it's tiring. It's like being stressed. It's a, it's a bit like the weathering effect. Every time you have to prove your existence of why you're asking for help and support. It's degrading and it's like the analogy, it's like a rock when the sea comes in and it goes over the rock and it washes… it erodes some of the rock. That's how it feels for me and many other disabled people. [NGO representative with lived experience of disability]
2.7.4 Looking to the future, the development of greater accessibility through digital technologies including AI could be considered as a potential route to mainstreaming Access to Work, as one employer argued: When you're looking at Access to Work or any of these things, it's an overwhelming level of information and what you need is a form of AI that comes in and just answers the question that you are asking. ‘So how do I apply for Access to Work?’ And it doesn't give you the 50 steps, it goes, here's the link, go there. [Employer]
2.7.5 However, concern was expressed that budget restrictions in Access to Work might undermine the principle of tailored support. An employer identified that even if everyday systems were practically accessible, digital skills gaps mean that workers should be expected to use them without support: People don’t know how to use basic programmes or don’t know how to work around organizational systems which are always a nightmare. [Employer with lived experience of disability].
3 Summary and recommendations
3.1 Access to Work is a highly valued and internationally recognised employment support scheme. We find evidence of its importance in supporting disabled people to access and remain in employment. However, the evidence presented indicates that current challenges including low awareness, delays, inconsistency in assessments and accessibility barriers, limit its effectiveness. Addressing these issues is essential for enabling disabled people to secure and sustain meaningful employment and for supporting employers, particularly SMEs. Improvements in provision of assistive technologies will also ensure that the UK labour market is better prepared for rapid developments in AI and automation technologies that will reshape the future of work.
3.2 Key challenges identified
3.3 Recommendations
Drawing on our findings we propose a set of recommendations for Access to Work, targeting enhancements in: (1) awareness, (2) process design, (3) timeliness and (4) service experience, as follows:
a) Increased support for employers, especially SMEs, including through delivery of a communications strategy to increase awareness of - and provision of guidance on - the Access to Work scheme and processes.
b) Targeted support for disabled people (articulated inclusively, as many eligible people may not identify as such) to broaden equitable access, through provision of accessible information and improved signposting of the Access to Work scheme and guidance on process and support options.
c) Enhanced co-ordination of application processes by DWP assessors.
a) Assessor training package to improve consistency in the quality of assessments and information provided to disabled applicants of the variety of options available to them including knowledge of contemporary assistive technologies.
b) Modernisation of processes through AI‑supported triage, case‑routing and case‑tracking including post-case evaluation to reduce delays and monitor value-for-money while retaining human-centred decision‑making.
c) Accessibility enhancements in user-end systems requiring co-design of all digital systems with disabled people who are system users and embedding of accessibility testing as standard practice.
d) Workplace well-being investments to support DWP assessors and supporting roles, to reduce incidence of employee absence and job exit.
February 2026
7