In June 2026, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) published a damning report on the DWP’s administration of the Access to Work scheme. The findings are stark: a backlog of 66,000 cases, average processing times of 106 working days against a 25-day target, and an application process so inaccessible that some disabled people cannot navigate it without the very support they are applying for. For blind and partially sighted people, the consequences are not abstract — they are jobs lost, offers withdrawn, and independence undermined.
What the PAC Report Actually Found
Access to Work is a demand-led grant scheme designed to fund support that goes beyond what employers are legally required to provide under the Equality Act 2010. That includes specialist equipment, support workers, BSL interpreters, adapted travel, and assistive technology. It is, in principle, one of the most practical and meaningful tools available to disabled people entering or sustaining employment.
In practice, the PAC found the scheme to be in serious administrative difficulty. Key findings include:
- The applications backlog grew from 21,700 in March 2022 to approximately 66,000 in March 2026.
- The DWP’s target is to process applications in 25 working days. The current average is 106 working days — with some applicants told to expect up to 37 weeks.
- The DWP expects it will take at least 18 months to two years to clear the backlog, even with 480 additional case managers being recruited.
- In 40% of a sample of 200 cases reviewed in 2025, support funded by the scheme should have been provided by the employer, the employee, or the NHS.
- The scheme relies on three separate IT systems requiring manual data transfer between them — hampering both productivity and consistency.
Why This Matters Specifically for Blind and Partially Sighted People
The PAC report includes written evidence from the Royal National Institute of Blind People and from an organisation supporting blind and partially sighted people, which reported that assessors recommended unsuitable equipment and estimated costs that did not reflect real market prices. One submission described Access to Work assessors directing blind and partially sighted claimants to digital platforms incompatible with screen readers — and insisting they use the GOV.UK app.
This is not an edge case. It is a systemic failure of assessor knowledge. When the people responsible for determining what support a blind or partially sighted person needs do not understand assistive technology, the result is either inadequate awards, unsuitable recommendations, or both.
The application process itself creates further barriers. The PAC’s report notes that the process “often requires the kind of administrative capacity that some disabled customers are applying for support to access.” For someone who is blind or partially sighted, managing complex forms, long email chains, repeated evidence requests, and unclear deadlines — without the accessible tools that Access to Work is supposed to fund — is not just frustrating. It is a structural exclusion.
The Inaccessible Process Problem
One submission to the PAC inquiry described a profoundly Deaf worker being repeatedly telephoned by Access to Work to discuss their application for a BSL interpreter — despite informing the DWP multiple times that they could not use the phone. They were reportedly admonished for not answering calls.
The parallel for blind and partially sighted applicants is direct. Being directed to inaccessible digital platforms, being expected to read forms aloud over the phone, or being required to complete tasks that presuppose visual capacity — these are not administrative oversights. They reflect a scheme that was not designed with disabled users at the centre.
Access to Work should be a launchpad, not a labyrinth. When the system that is supposed to remove barriers becomes a barrier itself, we are not just failing individuals — we are failing to change anything. Blind and partially sighted people are more than capable of doing the job. What they need is a process that treats them as such.
— Seema Flower, Founder and Managing Director, Blind Ambition
Inconsistent Decision-Making Has Real Consequences
The PAC report describes a picture of “arbitrary and unreliable” decision-making, with support reduced or removed without clear rationale, change in need, or warning. The DWP acknowledged it had prioritised throughput — processing cases quickly — at the expense of consistent decision-making.
For someone who relies on a support worker, a screen reader subscription, or adapted transport to get to work, having support reduced without explanation is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. It directly threatens employment. And when the renewal process is delayed, existing recipients face gaps in support they depend on to do their jobs.
The PAC recommends that the DWP set out what more it plans to do to support case managers, including improving guidance for assessing a wide variety of health conditions. That guidance must explicitly include the needs of blind and partially sighted people — a cohort whose requirements are often poorly understood by assessors who lack specialist knowledge of assistive technology.
What This Means from a Behaviour-Change Perspective
At Blind Ambition, we work with organisations to move beyond awareness and build embedded practices that actually change outcomes for blind and partially sighted people. The Access to Work crisis is, in part, a behaviour-change failure at institutional scale.
DWP case managers are making decisions about the lives of disabled people without adequate training, without reliable guidance, and without the operational tools to do their jobs consistently. That is not a staffing number problem. Recruiting 480 additional case managers will not, on its own, resolve inconsistent decision-making, inaccessible processes, or assessors who do not understand the difference between a standard ergonomic keyboard and a head-controlled mouse.
The PAC is right to call for the DWP to engage directly with users of the scheme and publish a roadmap for change. But that roadmap needs to go beyond processing targets. It needs to address:
- Assessor training that includes substantive knowledge of assistive technology and the practical working lives of blind and partially sighted people.
- Application processes that are accessible by design — not as an afterthought.
- Communication standards that do not assume claimants can use phone calls, dense letters, or inaccessible digital platforms.
- Renewal processes that do not restart the clock for people with permanent, stable needs.
What Employers Need to Understand
The PAC report found that in 40% of cases reviewed, support funded by the scheme should have been provided by the employer under their Equality Act obligations. Large employers in particular were cited as failing to meet their legal duty to make reasonable adjustments — and using Access to Work to fill that gap.
This matters for behaviour change training. When employers do not understand where their reasonable adjustments duty ends and Access to Work begins, they are not only potentially breaching the Equality Act — they are contributing to demand that overwhelms the scheme and delays support for people who genuinely need it.
Our Introduce – Ask – Describe – Support framework gives teams a practical structure for identifying what adjustments a colleague needs, how to ask without assumption, and how to connect people to the right support at the right time. That includes understanding Access to Work as a resource — and knowing when it is and is not the employer’s responsibility to fund.
The Takeaway
The PAC’s report on Access to Work is not a niche policy document. It describes a scheme that is actively causing the hardship it was designed to prevent — and for blind and partially sighted people, the stakes are particularly high. The path forward requires more than additional headcount. It requires a fundamental rethink of how the scheme is designed, communicated, and delivered, with disabled people — and their practical, operational realities — at the centre.
The DWP has committed to clearing the backlog by September 2027. That is a target. Meaningful change will require the behaviour, the culture, and the embedded practices to match it.
About Blind Ambition
Blind Ambition is a behaviour-change consultancy led by Seema Flower, who is registered blind. Our training goes beyond awareness to build the confidence, skills and embedded practices that create lasting change for blind and partially sighted people. To book a training session: contact@blindambition.co.uk | blindambition.co.uk
