| answer text |
<p>The 52-week In-Work Progression Trial Impact Analysis was published on 12<sup>th</sup>
September 2018 on GOV.UK. In the trial, the Frequent support group had Work Coach
appointments every fortnight, while the Minimal support group only ever had two appointments
in total.</p><p> </p><p><strong>i) Gender</strong></p><p> </p><p>The 52-week point-in-time
progression measure for males was an additional £4.21 per week for the Frequent support
group relative to the Minimal support group. For females, the point-in-time progression
measure was an additional £5.99 per week for the Frequent support group relative to
the Minimal support group. These progression estimates were calculated from samples
and the difference of £1.78 is not statistically significant. The conclusion is that
there does not appear to be evidence of a difference in progression between genders.</p><p><strong>
</strong></p><p>The 78-week point-in-time progression measure for males was an additional
£1.34 per week for the Frequent support group relative to the Minimal support group.
For females, the point-in-time progression measure was an additional £6.14 per week
for the Frequent support group relative to the Minimal support group. Again, these
estimates are based on samples and the difference of £4.80 is not statistically significant.
The conclusion is that there does not appear to be evidence of a difference in progression
between genders.</p><p> </p><p><strong>ii) Ethnicity</strong></p><p> </p><p>The Department
holds some data about ethnicity. Of the self-reported ethnic backgrounds, 82% of trial
participants were of a White background; 6% of participants were of a Black/African/Caribbean
background; 5% were of an Asian background and 7% were made up of other ethnic backgrounds.</p><p>
</p><p>The Department has not calculated ethnicity sub-group progression measures.
The small sample sizes in all other ethnicity groups, with the exception of the White
background group, means that any comparisons of progression would not lead to statistically
robust conclusions.</p>
|
|
