Department for Work and Pensions-commissioned research on sites where its services are "co-located" alongside other public-sector bodies has shone a light on teething problems and other grievances experienced by staff.
Around one-in-10 jobcentres are now in co-located sites, where DWP officials often rub shoulders with local government, health services, the police and Citizens Advice.
For more than a decade the One Public Estate programme, which is a joint initiative between the Cabinet Office and the Local Government Association, has encouraged joint working between central and local government to make the best use of land and property.
The growth in DWP's co-located sites has come against the backdrop of its huge estates reorganisation programme resulting from the end of its PFI contract with Telereal Trillium.
DWP's just-published research looked at six of some 70 sites where it has co-located services. While the report acknowledges that officials were generally positive about the benefits of sharing a site with relevant other services – such as housing – it found many officials who said that the reality was worse than being based at a DWP-managed site.
The report says many staff felt the decision to co-locate was "based on financial savings and not the implications for service integration or co-delivery", with joined-up services seen as an "additional benefit" if they materialised.
"DWP staff across the board felt the space they occupied was not conducive to effective working and there were implications for the feasibility of expanding jobcentre staff in the future," the report says.
"Staff areas including canteens, staff rooms and wellbeing and first aid spaces were considered limited or unsuitable across all sites."
The report cites one example of DWP staff at a co-located site choosing to take their desk chairs out to the centre's car park so that they could have lunch together "without complaint" from staff of the centre's other services.
Staff also reported that co-located jobcentres didn't have enough private space to allow for sensitive conversations with service users. The study cited examples of officials using "workarounds" such as playing white noise to try and prevent overhearing or going offsite to talk in confidence.
A major benefit of locating DWP, NHS and local government officials in the same building is convenience for customers and the ability to connect with the services they need. While the report contains anecdotal evidence of success stories, it also records officials' problems when some on-site services – particularly the police – are effectively off limits to the public.
Some staff and customers reported frustration that police at co-located sites were "not accessible" because they were using the building as a back-office base. The report said the situation left some customers confused when they expected to be able to talk to a police officer.
Other DWP staff said a police presence at a co-located site could have negative implications in areas with high crime rates and gang problems, discouraging some customers from attending.
Contractual issues related to co-located office space were also described as problematic for staff, for both personal and professional reasons.
DWP staff reported being either unable to use a site's parking space – or being charged to use it, leaving them feeling unfairly treated in comparison with colleagues from other organisations.
Staff also reported difficulties accessing buildings during normal DWP hours – particularly Saturday mornings – when those hours were different to that of the host organisation. The report said that a lack of control over their building's entrance times meant staff sometimes resorted to letting service users exit through unauthorised routes, such as fire exits, when the host organisation had locked main doors.
Additionally, the inability to control décor in buildings where DWP is not the owner or leaseholder left jobcentre staff unable to display customer information or signage to services in some buildings.
Despite the buildings' suitability issues, the report found that DWP staff considered their co-located offices to be more modern than the standalone jobcentres they previously worked in, with an environment that is "more inviting, brighter and cleaner".
An exception was staff who were at co-location sites described as "more rural". They said those offices were more worn, and had furnishings in a bad state of repair that were "not appealing to customers".
The report concludes that the success of co-location has been reliant on staff goodwill and morale – mobilised to combat shortcomings.
"Negative views around co-location tended to be due to a lack of communication across services, and staff and customers felt additional benefits could be realised with increased communication," it said.
"There was a perception that co-location had been poorly planned, and additional benefits could be had from more thorough planning prior to co-locating.
"Co-location is therefore not a simple solution: it requires detailed planning and relevant services to ensure that the differing current and future needs of participating organisations are reflected."