A proposal by Bala Danmeri · workbridge.noorintelligence.tech
A proposal for shared responsibility in employment support
Where people are expected to take steps towards employment, the employment service should make clear commitments to help — and account for delivering them. This page sets out what the prototype explores and how it could be tested responsibly.
The problem this explores
Claimant commitments set out what people must do to look for work. There is rarely an equivalent, visible record of what the service will do in return — the introductions, assessments, training and interview preparation that make those steps achievable.
Meanwhile, many people have capabilities that formal records miss: skills built through caring, volunteering, community roles and self-directed projects. Advisers have limited time to discover these, and employers rarely see them. Practical barriers — school hours, travel, accessible working arrangements — can turn an apparently “suitable” vacancy into one that cannot work.
The proposed service
- A capability profile that records skills with their evidence: self-reported, supported by a portfolio example, or awaiting assessment. Try it
- Explainable matching that checks practical compatibility first, then skills and preferences, and explains every result in plain language. Missing information prompts a question rather than a rejection. See the rules
- A shared support plan in which both the jobseeker and the service make commitments, each with an owner, due date, status, progress note, evidence and next step. Overdue service commitments are shown as clearly as a claimant’s. Unsuitable commitments can be revised with an explanation. See the plan
- Practical tools for advisers to review evidence, suggest vacancies, record introductions, arrange interviews and link training to real opportunities. Open the adviser view
- An employer view that asks for genuine requirements and stated flexibility, and shows anonymised candidates by evidence, with profiles opened only by the candidate’s permission. Open the employer view
How it complements employment advisers
WorkBridge does not replace professional judgement. It reduces repeated administration — re-asking the same questions, searching vacancies by hand, chasing paper evidence — so that advisers spend more time on conversations, introductions and support. Every match is a prompt for a human decision. Matching does not determine benefit entitlement or sanctions.
A small, consenting pilot
The proposal is a limited pilot with consenting participants and participating employers, run alongside existing services rather than replacing them. Its size and duration are options to agree, not an approved programme:
| Option | Scope | Participants | Employers | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A — Discovery | One office, one adviser team | 30–50 volunteers | 8–12 local employers | 3 months |
| B — Small pilot | One or two offices | 100–200 volunteers | 20–30 employers | 6–9 months |
| C — Comparative pilot | Two to three areas with comparison sites | To be set with analysts | To be agreed | 12 months, with 12-month follow-up |
Participation would be voluntary, with no effect on benefit entitlement or conditionality for those who decline or withdraw.
What the pilot could test
- Does matching generate more relevant introductions?
- Does it reduce repeated administrative work?
- Do claimants better understand the support available?
- Are service commitments delivered?
- Do employers find candidate referrals useful?
- Does it improve access for people facing practical barriers?
What must be established before real deployment
- A lawful basis, data-protection impact assessment, consent model and retention limits for any personal data.
- Secure, authenticated access for claimants, advisers and employers; no use of the prototype’s browser storage.
- Approved vacancy sources and an employer-participation agreement covering genuine requirements and non-discrimination.
- Independent skills-assessment arrangements, kept distinct from self-reported and portfolio evidence.
- Accessibility testing with disabled users and assisted-digital routes for people who do not use online services.
- Clear separation from conditionality: matching must not trigger or inform sanctions.
How success could be measured
Relevant employer introductions; interviews arranged; service and claimant commitments delivered on time; candidate-reported suitability; training linked to real vacancies; job starts; and employment sustained at agreed follow-up points. Leaving benefits would not be counted as equivalent to finding work. See the outcomes view
Real evaluation would require agreed definitions, appropriate safeguards and evidence. This prototype makes no claims about savings, employment uplift or national impact.
Accessibility, privacy, fairness and human oversight
- Accessibility: designed to WCAG 2.2 AA principles, keyboard-operable, readable on mobile and with reduced motion respected. Workplace adjustments are recorded without asking for diagnoses.
- Privacy: only the information needed to match and support. No National Insurance numbers, bank details, benefit records, identity documents or medical diagnoses.
- Fairness: matching uses only structured job-related data. It never uses age, ethnicity, religion, sex or gender, benefit status or health information. Equality monitoring, if any, would be held separately.
- Human oversight: every match is explained and every decision is made by a person. Jobseekers can request a review of any commitment.
Founder statement
“I am a Universal Credit claimant with practical digital skills. I would welcome the opportunity to help build public-service infrastructure that recognises people’s capabilities and connects them with suitable work.”
Independent demonstration by Bala Danmeri. Not affiliated with or endorsed by DWP or the UK Government. All vacancies, employer identities and service outcomes shown are illustrative.