The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Restart Scheme, a government initiative designed to help long-term unemployed Universal Credit claimants return to work, is drawing comparisons to its controversial predecessor, the Work Programme. While pitched as a supportive pathway back into employment, lingering concerns persist: are "SMART Action Plans" tools for empowerment—or quiet gateways to sanctions?
Launched across England and Wales to tackle post-pandemic unemployment, the Restart Scheme offers up to 12 months of personalised, intensive support. This includes one-to-one coaching, skills assessments, CV workshops, interview preparation and help addressing barriers such as health issues or childcare responsibilities. From July 2024, participation is mandatory for Universal Credit claimants unemployed for six months or more.
Take Liam, a 45-year-old former carpenter from Bradford. After a prolonged illness and the closure of his small business, he found himself referred to Restart. His first meeting with a Restart advisor included drawing up a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) Action Plan. It laid out steps like updating his CV, attending digital skills sessions and preparing for mock interviews. Fortnightly check-ins followed, alongside monthly face-to-face reviews.
“It sounded helpful at first”, Liam says. “But by the second month, the list of tasks was growing faster than I could keep up with. I had a hospital appointment one morning and missed a session—they warned me that could count against me”.
This sense of pressure isn't unique to Liam. Critics of the scheme argue that the DWP’s continued focus on “conditionality”—where benefit payments are tied to fulfilling obligations—combined with the “Payment by Results” (PbR) model used to pay providers, risks recreating the very pitfalls that undermined earlier back-to-work schemes.
Concerns include:
Unrealistic Targets: Advisors, under pressure to meet contractual outcomes, may assign more tasks than a claimant can reasonably manage—especially if they face complex challenges like poor health or unstable housing.
Inflexibility: Unexpected life events, such as illness or caring responsibilities, aren't always met with understanding. Some claimants report being sanctioned despite having what they believe is a valid excuse.
Sanction Pressure: Although the DWP denies having any sanction targets, advocacy groups and some claimants remain unconvinced. They argue that the system's design still incentivises moving people off caseloads—whether by securing jobs or triggering sanctions.
These issues echo long-standing criticisms of the Work Programme. The DWP insists sanctions are a last resort, applied only when a claimant fails to meet a requirement without “good reason”. Officials also maintain that providers are focused on individualised support and do not face targets for referrals.
Yet despite changes in branding and structure, many feel the underlying dynamics haven’t shifted. The conditionality model, combined with financial incentives for performance, creates a power imbalance that can leave claimants anxious and vulnerable.
Restart may well offer a valuable route back into employment for many—but for others, especially those already struggling, it risks becoming another bureaucratic obstacle. Until concerns around transparency, flexibility and claimant protections are meaningfully addressed, schemes like Restart may continue to alienate the very people they aim to support.
