HOMEWORKING IN THE UK:
BEFORE AND DURING THE 2020
LOCKDOWN

Alan Felstead and Darja Reuschke
August 2020

Please cite as: Felstead, A and Reuschke, D (2020) ‘Homeworking in the UK: before andduring the 2020 lockdown’, WISERD Report, Cardiff: Wales Institute of Social and Economic
Research. Available for download from: https://wiserd.ac.uk/publications/homeworking-ukand-during-2020-lockdown

HOMEWORKING IN THE UK:
BEFORE AND DURING THE 2020
LOCKDOWN

Alan Felstead (Cardiff University)
Darja Reuschke (University of Southampton)

Address for Correspondence:
Professor Alan Felstead,
Research Professor,
School of Social Sciences,
Cardiff University,
Glamorgan Building,King Edward VII Avenue,
Cardiff CF10 3WT.
Tel/fax: +44 (0) 29 2087 9050;
Email: alanfelstead@cf.ac.uk

Dr Darja Reuschke,
Associate Professor
School of Geography andEnvironment Science,
University of Southampton
University Road
Southampton SO17 1BJ
Tel/fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2866
Email: D.Reuschke@soton.ac.uk

August 2020

Acknowledgements
This Report draws primarily on the Understanding Society: Covid-19 Study, 2020 carried out
by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex. The data were
downloaded via the UK Data Service. Material from the Labour Force Surveys is Crown
Copyright and has been made available by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) through the
UK Data Service and has been used by permission. Neither the Institute for Social andEconomic Research at the University of Essex, ONS nor the UK Data Service bear any
responsibility for the analysis or interpretation of the data reported here. Darja Reuschke’s
time on this Report was funded by the European Research Council (WORKANDHOME ERC
StG-2014-639403)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To prevent the spread of Covid-19 there has been a sudden and dramatic shift in the locationof work. Many workers have converted their bedrooms into offices, their living room tables
into desks and their kitchens into places of work. This trend is happening across the world.
This Report provides new and up-to-date evidence on the scale of the shift of paid work into
the home in the UK, its impact on the mental well-being and productivity of homeworkers, andthe likely prevalence of homeworking after social distancing restrictions are fully lifted.
The main sources of data for the Report are three online surveys carried out towards the end of
April, May and June 2020. Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they used thehome as their place of work immediately before the UK lockdown and at the time of eachsurvey. The June survey also collected data on how their productivity had changed and whether
they would like to continue working at home in a post-Covid-19 world.
In summary, the findings are:
•
•

•
•

•

•
•

Homeworking was on a gradual, but slow, upward trajectory even before the lockdown.
It was relatively rare in 1981 when only 1.5% of those in employment reported working
mainly at home, but by 2019 it had tripled to 4.7%.
However, it rose dramatically and suddenly in lockdown. The proportion reporting thatthey worked exclusively at home rose eight-fold from 5.7% of workers inJanuary/February 2020 to 43.1% in April 2020 and, even though it had fallen by June
2020, it remained high (36.5%).
The surge in homeworking triggered by the lockdown in the UK was experienced moststrongly by the highest paid, the better qualified, the higher skilled and those living in
London and the South East.
The switch to working at home has taken its toll on the mental health of those reportingthat they always or often worked at home during lockdown. However, the negative
effect of the change in work location subsided as workers became more accustomed toworking at home or moved back to traditional places of work as restrictions were
gradually eased.
A common fear among employers is that without physical oversight employees will
shirk and productivity will fall. However, homeworking on the whole in the lockdown
did not appear to have had a significant effect on productivity levels either way. Twofifths (40.9%) of homeworkers reported that they were able to get as much work donein June 2020 as they were six months earlier. Over a quarter (28.9%) said that they got
more done, while 30.2% said that their productivity had fallen.
That said, those who used the home relatively infrequently reported a downward shift
in their productivity, whereas employees who did all of their paid work at home
reported that they got more done per hour than they did before lockdown.
Nine out of ten (88.2%) of employees who worked at home during the lockdown would
like to continue working at home in some capacity with around one in two employees(47.3%) wanting to work at home often or all of the time. Furthermore, employees withlittle previous experience of homeworking had not been put off by the experience ofworking at home – half (50.0%) of new homeworkers would like to work at home often
or always even when Covid-19 restrictions permit a return to ‘normal’ working. Thissuggests that a key characteristic of the new normal will be much higher levels of
homeworking than in the past.
i•

Two-thirds (65.5%) of employees who reported that they were able to produce much
more per hour while working at home in lockdown wanted to work mainly at home in
the future. In comparison, just 6.4% of employees who did not want to work at homein the future said that their productivity was much higher when they worked at home.

In general, then, the results suggest many workers have got used to – and may even haveexperienced the benefits of – working at home after a shaky start. In addition, productivity has
not been adversely affected by the shift towards homeworking. Furthermore, if those whowant to continue working at home in the future are allowed to do so, productivity may beboosted by a sustained increase in the prevalence of homeworking as the strongest performers
are those who are keenest to continue to work at home.

ii

HOMEWORKING IN THE UK:
BEFORE AND DURING THE 2020 LOCKDOWN
Section 1: Introduction
The Covid-19 pandemic has changed the world in many ways. One of the biggest changes iswhere people work. This Report examines the shift of paid work into the home, its impact on
the mental well-being and productivity of homeworkers, and the likely prevalence of
homeworking after social distancing restrictions are fully lifted. This Report provides new and
up-to-date evidence on the changing nature of homeworking in the UK, and some of theconsequences for workers and employers.
As lockdowns have been imposed across the world, policy makers have urged those who can
to work at home. Homeworking has rocketed as a result. For example, official figures suggestthat homeworking has risen in the UK from 5% before the pandemic to around half (45%) at
the beginning of the lockdown and it continues to remain high (ONS, 2020a and 2020b;
Reuschke and Felstead, 2020). Across Europe as a whole 37% of the working population
reported working at home in April 2020 because of the pandemic with homeworking rates close
to 60% in Finland and above 50% in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark(Eurofound, 2020). A similar shift can be observed in the US where almost half (49%) of theworkforce reported that they were working at home in April 2020, with almost three-quarters
doing so because of the pandemic (Bryanjolfsson et al., 2020). In Japan homeworking has also
grown but at a more modest rate – rising from 6% to 17% in the first six months of 2020.
However, Japan has seen much smaller numbers of patients and deaths from Covid-19 and as
a result the lockdown in Japan has been much less stringent than elsewhere (Okubo, 2020).
The shift can also be seen in the actions of employers – many high profile companies haveclosed their offices and have ordered their staff to work at home. These include Google,
Twitter, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and JP Morgan.
A sustained period of social distancing is also likely to have a long-term impact on the natureof working spaces and may limit the extent to which work returns to the office, factory or shop.
Large open-plan offices, for example, were the norm before Covid-19 (Bernstein et al., 2020).
These collective offices required workers to share space and equipment, and forced them tosearch for a new place to perch every day (Felstead et al., 2005). Covid-19 has turned this on
its head with recent UK government advice stating that ‘workstations should be assigned to anindividual and not shared’. Furthermore, if sharing must be done, it should be ‘among thesmallest possible number of people’ with the use of hot desks avoided, if at all possible (HMGovernment, 2020: 19). This means that the return to the changed office will be muted withthe home becoming the main workplace for many previously office-bound workers.
With the help of new data collected by the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, this Report
looks back on homeworking before lockdown restrictions were introduced in UK and during
the three months of lockdown (April, May and June 2020). 1 During these three months the
UK government’s message was to work at home if you can. The government’s guidance was
1

The UK lockdown started on 23 March 2020 when the Prime Minister announced in a television broadcast
measures to mitigate the spread of Covid-19. After seven weeks, restrictions were gradually eased (in England)on 10 May 2020 when some non-essential shops were allowed to re-open. This was extended all non-essential
shops on 15 June 2020. There was a further easing on 4 July 2020 when bars, restaurants and cafés were allowed
to reopen. Restrictions were eased more slowly in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with, for example, thework at home advice remaining in place in Wales in late July 2020 (Welsh Government, 2020).

1

updated several times during lockdown, but it consistently encouraged ‘people who can workfrom home should continue to do so … [and consider] whether it is viable for them to continue
working from home’ (HM Government, 2020: 11). However, on 1 August 2020, the UK
government changed its messaging. Since then employers have been encouraged to ‘consult
with their employees to determine who … can come into the workplace safely taking accountof a person’s journey, caring responsibilities, protected characteristics, and other individual
circumstances (HM Government, 2020: 12). The UK government, like many others aroundthe world, has therefore unwittingly engineered the largest homeworking experiment in history.
This dramatic and sudden shift in the location of work raises several important researchquestions with important policy and practical implications. These include:•••

In what ways, if any, are those working at home during lockdown different from thoseworking at home before lockdown?
What impact has homeworking had on the mental well-being and productivity of thoseworking at home?
Will homeworking become part of the new normal after social distancing restrictions
are fully relaxed and the Covid-19 crisis has past?

The aim of this Report is to answer these questions using data taken from the Understanding
Society Covid-19 Study. To do so, the Report is divided into nine sections. Section 2 outlines
the source of the data used in this Report and the methods used. Seven sections then follow
which outline the findings of the analysis. Section 3 outlines the characteristics of those who
did all, much, some or none of their paid work at home before the lockdown. Section 4 looks
at how these characteristics changed during the lockdown months of April, May and June,
while Section 5 examines the characteristics of workers according to their experience of
homeworking immediately prior to lockdown. Section 6 examines the association that theintensity of homeworking and its relative newness (or otherwise) has with levels of mental
well-being. Section 7 makes the same assessment for self-reported productivity change.
Section 8 considers the appetite workers have to carry out their work at home in the future associal distancing restrictions are fully relaxed. This is considered alongside evidence on thepossible consequences enhanced homeworking might have for productivity and hence
employers’ willingness to permit higher levels of homeworking than in the past. The findings
in each of the sections are succinctly presented with the use of figures. All of the detailed datatables can be found in the Appendix with interested readers directed to tables of particular
relevance. Section 9 concludes the Report with a short summary.
Section 2: Data and Methods
The findings presented in this Report are based on the UK Household Longitudinal Study(UKHLS, also known as Understanding Society). The UKHLS started in 2009/10 when 40,000
households were first interviewed. All members of the same household, provided they are 16
and over, are re-interviewed on an annual basis. All of those who were interviewed in at least
one of the last two waves of the UKHLS (2017-18 or 2018-19) and were aged 16 years andolder in April 2020 were invited to take part in the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study.
This study was developed in order to provide a better understanding of the social and economic
impact of the coronavirus outbreak in the UK (Institute for Social and Economic Research,2020).

2

The Understanding Society Covid-19 Study is carried out regularly and will eventually consistof six surveys – April, May, June, July, September and November 2020. In this Report, we
use the first three surveys. These months coincide with the period of lockdown in the UK andthe months when homeworking was officially promoted by the UK government. Interviewees
were invited to take part in an online survey with a telephone option given to those participatingin the May survey. The survey was live for seven days towards the end of each month andtook an average of 20 minutes to complete. Response rates were 38.7%, 39.7% and 43.5%
respectively (Institute for Social and Economic Research, 2020).
Crucially for this Report, the respondents to the Covid-19 survey were asked: ‘During the last
four weeks how often did you work at home?’ They were asked to choose one of the following
response options: ‘always’, ‘often’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘never’. Respondents were also asked:‘During January and February how often did you work at home?’ They were given the same
responses from which to choose. These baseline data were collected from each new
respondent. 2
Following the launch of the first survey researchers were invited to suggest additional questions
to be included in subsequent surveys. The authors of this Report successfully argued the casefor the collection of data on the productivity effects of homeworking and whether theexperience of working at home had diminished or enhanced workers’ appetite forhomeworking in the future. Draft questions were submitted and, after amendments, they wereadded to the June version of the survey. Respondents who reported working at homesometimes, often or always in the previous four weeks were asked: ‘Please think about how
much work you get done per hour these days. How does that compare to how much you would
have got done per hour back in January/February 2020 [and if they did not work at home inJanuary/February 2020 a memory-jogger was added] when, according to what you havepreviously told us, you were not working from home?’ The data collected allow a ‘then andnow’ productivity comparison to be made. The response scales were: ‘I get much more done’;‘I get a little more done’; ‘I get about the same done’; ‘I get a little less done’; and ‘I get muchless done’. To gauge workers’ appetite for homeworking in the future respondents whoreported working at home in the June version of the survey were asked: ‘Once social distancing
measures are relaxed and workplaces go back to normal, how often would you like to workfrom home?’ The response options were: ‘Always’, ‘often’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘never’.
A cross-sectional weight was derived for each survey and included in the datasets used for thisReport. 3 This adjusts for unequal selection probabilities and differential non-response. Thesecross-sectional weights are used throughout the Report. All of the tables focus on those whoreported that they were working for at least one hour in the previous week before interview.
We therefore exclude most of those who were furloughed, but some of those who said that they
were furloughed also reported that they were doing at least one hour of paid work. It has beenreported that even though furloughed workers were not allowed to work until July 2020, somecontinued to work for their employers (The Guardian, 9 August 2020). While the number of(unweighted) observations change from tabulation to tabulation, the data on current work
location is provided by 7,130 workers in April 2020, 6,587 workers in May 2020 and 6,579
workers in June 2020. Findings presented in Sections 3-6 refer to all workers with valid
2

Other baseline data referring to January/February 2020 were collected by the survey. These include: employment
status; hours of work; net earnings; caring responsibilities; health conditions; and use of NHS services.
3
The dataset was accessed via the UK Data Service (see University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic
Research (2020) Understanding Society: Covid-19 Study, 2020 [data collection] 3rd Edition, Colchester: UK
Data Service, https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/studies/study?id=8644).

3responses, including employees and the self-employed. Sections 7-8 present results for
employees and the self-employed separately.
We analyse the results in two ways. First, we cross-tabulate the data as appropriate. So, forexample, to examine the characteristics of homeworkers we cross-tabulate measures ofhomeworking against a number of socio-economic indicators. In order to examine theassociation between mental health and homeworking, we cross-tabulate the same measures ofhomeworking against a series of mental health indicators. Secondly, we carry out a number ofregressions (ordered and OLS) which test the strength of the bivariate results by holding
constant a number of potential cofounding variables. This is designed to test the robustness ofthe descriptive cross-tabulations, thereby highlighting the statistically significant results.
Section 3: Homeworking Before Lockdown
Before the lockdown, anecdotal evidence, even personal experience, suggested that paid
employment was no longer confined to designated hours carried out in a specified place. Thisapplied especially to managers, professionals and other white-collar workers. Greater
technological connectivity facilitated this process by enabling work to be carried out whereverworkers happen to be and whatever the time (Messenger and Gschwind, 2016).
The raw statistics support this narrative. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
4.2 million people spent at least half of their working time carrying out work at, from or in thesame grounds and buildings as their home in 2014. This represented 13.9% of those employedin the UK and – at the time – was ‘the highest rate since comparable records began in 1998’(ONS, 2014: 1). Research carried out by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) suggested that the
number of employees who said they usually work from home had increased by a fifth between
2005 and 2015 (TUC, 2016). While the size of the spatial shift varies according to the data
sources used and/or the definitional protocols applied, the descriptive evidence suggests that
more work is being done away from the conventional workplace. Analysis of the decennial
Census of Population, for example, suggests that the proportion of people working mainly ator from home increased from 9.2% in 2001 to 10.3% in 2011 (Gower, 2013). More recently,
ONS reported that of the 32.6 million in employment in 2019 an estimated 1.7 million people
were mainly working at home (Watson, 2020).
The direction of change is similar elsewhere, although definitions vary. In the US, for example,
the share of workers doing some or all of their work at home grew from 19.6% in 2003 to
24.1% in 2015 (BLS, 2016). In Sweden, too, the prevalence of working partly at home has
increased from 5.9% in 1999 to 19.7% in 2012 (Vilhelmson and Thulin, 2016). The same
applies across Europe as a whole. According to data collected by Eurofound in 2010 around a
fifth of workers across Europe said that they mainly worked at home, on clients’ premises, onsites outside the factory or office, and/or in cars or other vehicles. In 2015 around three out often said they worked in such places on a daily basis.
That said, the shift over the longer term has been gradual rather than dramatic (see Figure 1).
In the year immediately before the lockdown, one in twenty (4.7%) of those employed worked
mainly at home, double the proportion reporting that they worked mainly at home in 2003 andtriple the proportion in 1981 (1.5%).

4

Figure 1: Working Mainly at Home, 1981-2019% of 16+ in employment and working
mainly at home

5

4

3

2

1

2019

2017

2015

2013

2011

2009

2007

2005

2003

2001

1999

1997

1995

1993

1991

1989

1987

1985

1983

1981

0

Source: own calculations from the spring Labour Force Survey for the years 1981 and 1992-2019.

In January/February 2020 – well before the lockdown was announced on 23 March 2020 –
5.7% of the employed population were exclusively working at home according to theUnderstanding Society Covid-19 Study. This proportion is one percentage point higher thanthe 2019 Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimate, but the questions and response scales are notdirectly comparable. Most notably, it offers a number of ways in which the home may be usedsuch as a base from which to work with tasks carried out outside of the home. The LFS also
focuses on the main place of work and so, unlike the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study,
it does not offer options such as sometimes, often and always. The Covid-19 Study, therefore,
provides more nuanced estimates. These suggest that 6.1% of workers often worked at homein January/February 2020, but three times as many sometimes did so (17.7%). Around sevenout of ten (70.6%) reported that they did no work at home which suggests that they were either
doing work at an employer’s/client’s premises and/or doing work elsewhere (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Use of the Home as a Workplace, January/February 2020
5.7
6.1

17.7

70.6

No use of the home

Sometimes use of the home

Often use of the home

Always working at home

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3, see Table A1.

5

Research carried out before the lockdown suggested that homeworking was more prevalent
among higher skilled and professional occupations, those with higher qualifications and amongolder workers, especially those working beyond the State Pension age (e.g., CIPD, 2020b;
ONS, 2019; Felstead et al., 2002). More recent analysis has used these historic findings toestimate how feasible it is for different types of work to be carried out at home should social
distancing restrictions remain in force for a lengthy period. This type of analysis suggests thataround two-fifths of jobs in the US (37%), UK (43%) and Wales (40%) could be carried out at
home without substantial economic disruption (Dingel and Neiman, 2020; Adams-Prassl et al.,2020b; Rodríguez, 2020). However, rather than predicting the type of workers, occupations,industries and geographical areas where homeworking is likely to be most prevalent, thisReport is based on real-time homeworking data collected during the lockdown itself. Similar
one-off studies have also been undertaken in the US (Bryanjolfsson et al., 2020), theNetherlands (Rubin et al., 2020) and in the UK (Adams-Prassl et al., 2020a). The
Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, however, is a monthly survey of 6,000-7,000 workers
carried out as part of a long-running longitudinal survey.
Like previous studies, the Covid-19 survey suggests that immediately before the lockdown
younger people were less likely than older age groups to be doing work at home. On the other
hand, older workers were more likely to be always using their home as their place of work witharound one in ten (9.3%) of those 60-75 years old reporting that they did all of their work athome compared to 2.7% of those aged 16-29 (Table A1).
There was also a strong association between qualifications and the location of work. Before
the lockdown, almost nine out of ten workers (89%) who had no qualifications and just overhalf (51%) of graduates reported doing no work at home. On the other hand, sometime
homeworking was reported by 30% of graduates compared to just 5% of those with noqualifications (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: No Use Made of the Home as a Workplace by Highest Qualification,
January/February 2020
% making no use of home as workplace

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
DegreeVocational
degreeA-level

GCSE

Other

No
qualifications

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3, see Table A1.

A similar pattern existed between occupation and work location. Just over half (50.8%) of
managers reported doing no work at home compared to more than nine out of ten (91.2%) who
worked in elementary occupations such as office cleaners, freight handlers, garden labourers,
6and kitchen assistants (Table A1). Average pay levels also varied according to the location ofwork with those working sometimes or often at home reporting the highest levels of annual
take home pay (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Net Annual Pay by Use of Home as a Workplace, January/February 2020
£35,000

Net Annual Pay£30,000£25,000£20,000£15,000£10,000£5,000£0
No use of thehomeSometimes use Often use of the Always workingof the homehome
at home

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3, see Table A1.

Before the lockdown, the use of the home as a place of work was common among the selfemployed, but it was relatively rare among employees. For example, a quarter (23.9%) of theself-employed reported working all of the time at home compared to just 3.0% of employees.
The self-employed were also disproportionately represented among often and sometimes
working at home groups.
The location of work also varied by industry with over three-quarters of workers inmanufacturing (79.4%), construction (73.4%), and hotels and restaurants (85.9%) being
required to work exclusively on employers’/clients’ premises. This compares to around halfof those working in banking and finance (55.4%), and other services (58.1%).
Geographically, too, there was variation with workers in London and the South East making
more use of the home as a workplace – proportionately more of them reported working at homesometimes, often or always (Table A1). Hence, around two-thirds of workers in these regions
reported that none of their work was carried out at home compared to three-quarters of those
who worked in the North, the Midlands and the devolved administrations of Wales, Scotland
and Northern Ireland (see Figure 5).

7

% making no use of home as workplace

Figure 5: No Use Made of the Home as a Workplace by Region/Nation,
January/February 2020
80
75
70
65
60
55
50

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3, see Table A1.

Section 4: Homeworking During Lockdown
Lockdown restrictions and the UK government’s promotion of working at home as part of the‘stay home’ message saw a dramatic upsurge in homeworking – an eight-fold rise according toour early analysis (Reunschke and Felstead, 2020). This Report confirms the scale of the shiftof work into the home with 5.7% of workers reporting that they always did their work at home
immediately before the lockdown came into force. 4 This proportion rose dramatically to 43.1%
in April 2020, fell back slightly in May 2020 to 40.8% and fell again in June 2020 to 36.5%.
Figure 6: Changing Use of the Home as a Workplace, Before and During Lockdown% of 16+ employed

50
40
30
20
10
0
January/February
2020

April 2020

AlwaysOften

May 2020

June 2020

Sometimes

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3, see Tables A1, A2a,
A2b and A2c.

4

Reuschke and Felstead’s (2020) earlier analysis of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study focused on those
aged 16-69 in order to be comparable to ONS estimates. It also excluded those reporting themselves as furloughedeven though they also reported working at least one hour in the previous week.

8This growth in homeworking varied little by gender, age and household composition such asliving with a spouse or children (Tables A1, A2a, A2b and A2c). However, the shift towards
homeworking was particularly pronounced among those with higher qualifications. For
example, the proportion of graduates reporting that they worked exclusively at home rose from
8.0% before lockdown to 62.4% in the first month of lockdown from where it dropped by three
percentage points in May 2020 and by a further three points in June 2020 (see Figure 7). On
the other hand, the growth in homeworking among those with no qualifications was more
muted and started from a relatively low base. In fact, around nine out ten of those with noqualifications reported that they did no work at home before the lockdown and this proportion
barely changed throughout the lockdown period. For this group of workers, the factory or
office continued to be the main place of work regardless of the lockdown.
Figure 7: Exclusive Use of the Home as a Workplace, Before and During Lockdown byHighest Qualification% always working at home

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
DegreeVocational
degreeJanuary/February 2020

A-levelApril 2020

GCSE

Other

May 2020

No
qualification

June 2020

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3, see Tables A1, A2a,
A2b and A2c.

The use of the home as the only place where people worked grew across all occupational groups
during lockdown (see Figure 8). That said, homeworking grew particularly rapidly amongcertain occupational groups. For example, in the first two months of lockdown a majority of
those working as managers, professionals, associate professionals (e.g., computer assistants,
buyers and estate agents), and administrative and secretarial staff (e.g., personal assistants,
office clerks and bookkeepers) reported that they did all of their work at home. However,workers operating in lower skilled occupations continued to exclusively use the factory or
office as their workplace both before and during the lockdown. For example, over threequarters of those in operative positions and elementary occupations (e.g., machine operators,
assemblers and labourers) reported that none of their work was carried out at home throughout
this period. Annual take home pay reflects these patterns with those working all of the time athome reporting the highest levels of pay (Tables A1, A2a, A2b and A2c).

9% always working at home

Figure 8: Exclusive Use of the Home as a Workplace, Before and During Lockdown by
Occupation
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

January/February 2020

April 2020

May 2020

June 2020

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3, see Tables A1, A2a,
A2b and A2c.

Before lockdown, homeworking was more prevalent among the self-employed than among
employees. However, the gap between the two groups shrank dramatically as lockdown
restrictions were imposed. For example, the gap in the prevalence of exclusive homeworking
had shrunk from 21 percentage points before the lockdown to 7-8 points in the two months ofthe lockdown before rising slight to 11 percentage points in June 2020.
Figure 9: Exclusive Use of the Home as a Workplace, Before and During Lockdown by
Employment Status% always working at home

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
January/February
2020

April 2020
Employee

May 2020

June 2020

Self-employed

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3, see Tables A1, A2a,
A2b and A2c.

Certain industries and regions also saw dramatic rises in the prevalence of homeworking. For
example, during lockdown approaching two-thirds of those working in banking and finance,10

over half of those based in London and two-fifths of those based in the South East reported thatthey did all of their work at home – these proportions were up from 8-6% before the lockdown(see Figure 10). Other geographical areas and industries also saw homeworking rise, but therise varied. For example, the rise was a little more modest in the case of Wales and significantly
more modest in the case of the distribution, hotels and restaurant industry where two-thirds tothree-quarters of workers reported that they did not do any work at home during lockdown(Tables A1, A2a, A2b and A2c).

% always working at home

Figure 10: Exclusive Use of the Home as a Workplace, Before and During Lockdown by
Selected Region/Nation and Industry
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
LondonSouth East

Wales

Banking &finance

Region/nation
January/February 2020

Distribution,
hotels &restaurants

Industry

April 2020

May 2020

June 2020

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3, see Tables A1, A2a,
A2b and A2c.

Multivariate analysis suggests that many of the characteristics of workers and their work whichwere associated with increased use of the home (from no use at all, sometimes use, often use
and always use) before the lockdown were also associated with the varying use of the home asa workplace during lockdown (see Table A3). However, some associations strengthened, whileothers weakened. In particular, degree holders were even more likely during lockdown to beworking at home to some extent than before Covid-19 restrictions were introduced. On theother hand, the association between self-employment and homeworking weakened as more
employees started to work at home. Nevertheless, the self-employed were significantly more
likely ceteris paribus to be working at home than employees before the lockdown as well as in
the lockdown itself.
The multivariate analysis also reveals some notable shifts. During the lockdown, homeworking
became more prevalent among associate professional, and administrative and secretarial staff
compared to managers. Administrative and secretarial staff (e.g., personal assistants, officeclerks and bookkeepers) are particularly interesting since before the lockdown they weresignificantly less likely to be working at home than managers. However, in the first month oflockdown (but not subsequently) they were significantly more likely to be doing some of theirwork at home. Similarly, after taking into account other factors, working in London was not
associated with homeworking before the lockdown, but during the first two months of the
lockdown those based in London were significantly more likely to work at home. The same isalso true of those working in Scotland. On the other hand, after taking into account otherfactors, the likelihood of homeworking declined significantly in distribution, hotels and11restaurants during lockdown, while homeworking was a significant feature of working inbanking and finance before as well as during lockdown compared with those working in
manufacturing.
Section 5: Homeworking Transitions
The Understanding Society Covid-19 Study asked respondents how, if at all, they used theirhome as their place of work before the lockdown as well as during the lockdown itself.
Respondents were asked whether they used their home as a workplace ‘always’ ‘often’‘sometimes’ or ‘never’. The first two options suggest that most of the respondent’s paid work
was carried out at home, while ‘sometimes’ and ‘never’ suggest that some or none of this work
was done at home. We therefore categorise respondents according to whether they worked
mainly at home or not.
In this section, we used pre-lockdown and lockdown data on whether respondents worked
mainly at home or not in order to construct a two-by-two typology. This locates respondents
into one of four quadrants according to whether or not they mainly worked at home before thelockdown and whether they did so during the lockdown months of April, May and June (seeFigure 11).
Figure 11: Main Place of Work Transition Typology: Before and During Lockdown

Before Lockdown

During Lockdown
Always/Often
Working at Home

Sometimes/NeverWorking at Home

Always/Often
Working at Home

Established home-centred
workers(2)

New factory/office-centred
workers(3)

Sometimes/NeverWorking at Home

New home-centred
workers(1)

Established factory/officecentred workers(4)This allows us to examine the characteristics of four types of worker:
1. those who did no work at home or did so only occasionally before the lockdown,
but reported working exclusively or often at home during the lockdown (we referto these as new home-centred workers);
2. those who were always or often doing paid work at home both before and during
the lockdown (we refer to these as established home-centred workers);
3. those who were always or often doing paid work at home before the lockdown, but
did none or only some of their work at home during the lockdown (we refer to theseas new factory/office-centred workers);
12

4. those who did no work at home or did so only occasionally both before and during
the lockdown (we refer to these as established factory/office-centred workers).
This homeworking transition typology allows us to examine the characteristics of those whose
main location of work changed because of the pandemic and compare their characteristics withthose whose work location did not radically change, hence our labels ‘new’ and ‘established’.
Around a third of workers can be classified as new home-centred workers; that is, while they
did no paid work at home before the lockdown or took work home only occasionally, they
worked mainly at home during the lockdown months. This categorisation also shows thataround a half remained factory/office-centred during the lockdown with a five percentage point
increase in the proportion recorded as factory/office-centred between April and June 2020.
Around one in ten workers had prior experience of doing most of their work at home
immediately before the lockdown and continued to do so throughout the lockdown months; forthem, working at home was not a new experience. However, only a handful of workers went
against the tide by stopping to work at home and returning to traditional places of work (seeFigure 12 and cf. Tables A4a, A4b and A4c).
Figure 12: Main Place of Work Transitions During Lockdown% of 16+ in employment

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
(1) New home-centred (2) Established home- (3) New factory/office(4) Establishedworkers
centred workers
centred workers
factory/office-centred
workers

April 2020

May 2020

June 2020

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3, see Tables A4a, A4b
and A4c.

The transition typology highlights the contrasting socio-economic composition of the twolargest groups – new home-centred workers and established factory/office-centred workers. In
short, the former were higher qualified, better paid, higher skilled and more likely to be locatedin the London and the South East, while the latter were lower qualified, poorer paid, lower
skilled and more likely to be located in the North, the Midlands and the devolved
administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. For example, over half of graduatesand professional workers were new to homeworking in all three months of lockdown. By
contrast, eight out of ten of those with no qualifications were established factory/office-centred
workers and were relatively poorly paid with annual take-home pay £7,000-£8,000 lower than
new home-centred workers. The shift towards homeworking was particularly dramatic in
London where almost half of workers were new to this way of working and where around athird of respondents continued to work in traditional premises – such as offices and factories –which were separate from the home (see Figure 13 and cf. Tables A4a, A4b and A4c).
13

Highest
qualification Occupation

Industry

Region/nation

Figure 13: Main Place of Work Transitions by Selected Characteristics, April 2020

Northern Ireland
LondonBanking & financeDistribution, hotels & restaurants
Elementary
Associate professionals
No qualifications
Degree

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of workers
New home-centred workers

Established factory/office-centred workers

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3, see Tables A4a, A4b
and A4c.

In short, the surge in homeworking triggered by the lockdown in the UK was experienced moststrongly by the highest paid, the better qualified, the higher skilled and those living in London
and the South East.
Section 6: Mental Health Consequences
Before the lockdown, working at home was often promoted as a way of readjusting work-lifebalance and raising job-related well-being (Menezes and Kelliher, 2011; Sardeshmukh et al.,2012; Felstead and Henseke, 2017; Reuschke, 2019). However, the strength of this association
depended on whether working at home was an arrangement requested by employees or an
arrangement thrust upon employees by employers (e.g., Kelliher and Anderson, 2010; Harris,
2003). Furthermore, the positive effects of homeworking were found to level off the more time
people spent working at home (Golden and Veiga, 2005). In this context, the sudden anddramatic movement of work into the home might be expected to have had a damaging effecton mental well-being.
Each wave of the Understanding Society main panel survey and each monthly wave of theUnderstanding Society Covid-19 Study carries identical survey questions which allow us totest this prediction. These questions are based on the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12).
This is a well-established measure of subjective well-being. The advantage for our purposesis that it is a relatively broad measure of people’s mental health status and how it differs fromits usual level. The response scales are comparative, referring to situations that are, forexample, better than usual, same as usual, less than usual or much less than usual. These four
response scales are used for 12 situational questions. The responses given are usually summed
up into the so-called GHQ-12 score which has values from zero (the least distressed or
happiest) to 36 (the most distressed) (Cox et al., 1987). Scores near 36 are rare and would
indicate clinical level of depression. Healthy individuals usually score between 10-13 on thisscale (Gardner and Oswald, 2007: 51). However, it must be remembered that these data capture
mental health in general and not job-related well-being which is focused on the particular affectthat the job has on workers’ well-being (see Warr, 1990; Felstead et al, 2019).
14

The descriptive statistics suggest that the sudden growth of homeworking has taken its toll on
the mental health of those who worked at home in the three months of lockdown, especiallyamong those who always or often worked at home (Tables A5a, A5b and A5c). For example,
over 30% of those working always or often at home in June 2020 – the third month of lockdown
in the UK – reported that they were able to concentrate less or much less than usual comparedto less than 20% of those who reported that they had not worked at home at all. Similarly,
those who worked mainly at home – always or often – reported greater difficulties in enjoying
normal day-to-day activities and more often felt constantly being under strain and unhappy
with life (see Figure 14).
Figure 14: Intensity of Homeworking by Selected Mental Health Indicators, June 2020
% of 16+ in employment

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Able toconcentrate

Enjoy nomal
activities

Less or much less than usual
Always worked at home

Under strain

Unhappy ordepressed

Rather or much more than usual

Often worked at home

Never worked at home

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3, see Table A4c.

Similarly, new home-centred workers reported finding it more difficult to concentrate, enjoy
normal daily activities than other categories of worker. They also more frequently felt
constantly under strain and unhappy (see Figure 15). Furthermore, out of the 12 indicators ofmental health new home-centred workers reported poorer mental health than establishedfactory/office-centred workers on all counts in all three months of the lockdown (see columns
1 and 4 in Tables A6a, A6b and A6c).

15

Figure 15: Main Place of Work Transitions by Selected Mental Health Indicators,
June 2020% of 16+ in employment

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Able toconcentrate

Enjoy nomal
activities

Less or much less than usual
New home-centred workers

Under strain

Unhappy ordepressed

Rather or much more than usual

Established factory/office-centred workers

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3, see Table A5c.

Summarising all 12 indicators into a signal score allows us to examine the impact that
homeworking had on general levels mental health during lockdown by examining the change
in individual responses given to the latest annual survey data (2017-2018) and in each monthof the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study. The analysis shows that, on average, those who
were exclusively working at home during the three months of lockdown had significantly lower
levels of mental health overall than those who did not work at home at all. However, thefindings also show that the mental health of those who exclusively worked at home fell more
steeply than those who only worked sometimes at home or not at all in the first month oflockdown. But by the third month the fall was not as steep and not statistically significant fromother workers. This pattern is repeated if we examine the mental health fortunes of new homecentred workers in comparison to those who remained working in traditional factories andoffices during lockdown. This suggests the negative effect of the change in work location
subsided as workers became more accustomed to working at home or those whose mental
health was most adversely affected stopped working at home (last two rows of Tables A5aA6c).
The regression analysis also suggests that, in the early part of lockdown, those who worked
exclusively at home experienced a significantly sharper fall in mental well-being than those
who never worked at home. However, this negative effect weakened as the lockdown
continued (Tables A7a and A7b – note the weakening of the negative coefficients over time).
This confirms the pattern found in the bivariate comparisons as well as highlighting other issues
such as the negative effect the lockdown had, particularly in the early months, on women andthe young (Banks and Xu, 2020).
Section 7: Productivity Consequences
Before the Covid-19 pandemic hit, one of the biggest economic questions was why productivity
in the UK had failed to bounce-back after the 2007-2008 recession. Higher productivity makes
employers more competitive, provides the foundation for wage increases and increases thegovernment’s tax revenues, so everyone stands to benefit. Lower than expected productivity
16

puts all of this in reverse. This unprecedented and unexplained failure to bounce-back has
become known as the ‘productivity puzzle’ and is particular to the UK (Haldane, 2017).
An obvious question, therefore, is: has the sudden and dramatic increase in homeworking madematters better or worse? Pre-Covid-19 research suggests that homeworking productivity
boosts rather than reduces productivity. One of the most rigorous studies was a randomised
control trial of a call centre carried out by Bloom et al., (2015). The call centre employedalmost 1,000 operators, half of whom agreed to take part in the trial. Of these, 249 were deemed
qualified to work at home by virtue of having at least six months’ tenure, broadband access anda private room at home in which they could work. Those qualified to take part were, then,divided randomly into a treatment group and a control group. The experiment lasted ninemonths and produced striking results. The working at home group outperformed office boundworkers by 13%. This came about by increasing the hours spent logged onto the system(extensive work effort) and by increasing the number of calls taken per minute (intensive work
effort). This was explained by two main factors given by workers in follow-up interviews andfocus groups: the greater convenience of being at home (e.g., the ease of making a tea or coffee,
or using the toilet); and the relative quietness of the home environment. Levels of job
satisfaction also rose, while job turnover fell.
We know far less about the effect that the widespread growth of enforced, as opposed tovoluntary, homeworking has had on productivity levels during the lockdown. The evidence
we have is piecemeal, not always focused on the UK and sometimes contradictory. For
example, an online survey of workers in the Netherlands suggests that respondents were‘slightly less productive’ working at home during lockdown than they were before restrictions
were introduced (Rubin, 2020: 2). However, a Canadian study of workers suggests the reverse
with a third of respondents reporting that their productivity had increased since having to workat home (Saba et al., 2020). The evidence for the UK paints a more agnostic picture with arecent CIPD survey suggesting that over a third of employers did not believe that homeworking
has had any effect on productivity with equal proportions of employers reporting an increaseas opposed to a decrease in productivity (CIPD, 2020a). The aim of this section of the Reportis to offer robust evidence on this important policy issue.
A common fear among employers is that without physical oversight employees will shirk andproductivity will fall. To examine this proposition, the June 2020 wave of the Covid-19 Study
asked those who were working at home how their productivity had changed. Two-fifths(40.9%) reported that they were able to get as much work done in June 2020 as they were six
months earlier. Over a quarter (28.9%) said that they got more done, while 30.2% said that
their productivity had fallen (see Figure 16). On the whole, then, homeworking in the
lockdown did not appear to have had a significant effect on productivity levels.

17

Figure 16: Productivity Effects of Homeworking in Lockdown, Employees, June 2020

% of homeworking employees

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Much moredone

A little moredone

Same done

A little lessdone

Much lessdone

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3, see Table A8b.

However, the impact on productivity varies according to the frequency that employees used
the home as their place of work. Those using the home sometimes or often reported adownward shift in their productivity, whereas employees who did all of their paid work at home
reported an increase in productivity (see Figure 2).
Figure 17: Productivity Effects by Intensity of Homeworking, Employees, June 202018
16

% homeworking employees

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Sometimes working
at home

Often working at
home

I get much more done

Always working at
home

I get much less done

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3, see Table A8b.

As a summary measure we create a productivity change index by allocating scores of +2, +1,
0, -1 and -2 to the responses. Overall, this suggests that productivity has largely been
unaffected by the increased prevalence of homeworking either upwards or downwards, but that
it varies according to the intensity of homeworking. Those who do all their work at home
report themselves to be significantly more productive in lockdown (see Figure 18 and cf.
bottom row, Table A8b).

18

Figure 18: Productivity Change by Intensity of Homeworking, Employees, June 2020
0.2

Productivity change index

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
All homeworkers

Sometimes

Often

Always

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3, see Table A8b.

The Understanding Society Covid-19 Survey also asked those who reported a fall in
productivity while working at home to identify the main reason for the fall. Three out of ten
employees (28.6%) said that they had less work to do and around a similar proportion (26.8%)
said that they had to provide care/home schooling and a fifth (20.1%) identified other reasons.
These included a lack of motivation/focus/concentration, limited access to workplaceresources, less frequent interaction with colleagues, and changes to how work was carried out
because of Covid-19 (Table A9b).
Taking the productivity change index as the outcome variable, our multivariate regression
analysis also suggest that those who worked exclusively at home in June 2020 were most likely
to report themselves as more productive rather than less. However, those who reported higher
domestic commitments – such as doing housework and carrying out home schooling – reported
that their productivity was lower. On the other hand, those who worked longer hours reported
that they also did more work per hour (Tables A10a and A10b).
Section 8: Homeworking in the New Normal
The Understanding Society Covid-19 Study also allows us to address another importantquestion: will workers return to their traditional places of work once the Covid-19 crisis has
past? The June 2020 survey asked respondents: ‘Once social distancing measures are relaxed
and workplaces go back to normal, how often would you like to work from home?’ The results
suggest that nine out of ten (88.2%) of employees who worked at home during the lockdown
would like to continue working at home in some capacity with around one in two employees(47.3%) wanting to work at home often or all of the time (see Figure 19). Furthermore,
employees with little previous experience of homeworking had not been put off by theexperience of working at home – half (50.0%) of new homeworkers would like to work at homeoften or always even when Covid-19 restrictions permit a return to ‘normal’ working. Thissuggests that a key characteristic of the new normal will be much higher levels of homeworking
than in the past assuming that employers allow their employees to do so (Table A11b).

19

Figure 19: Working at Home Preferences, June 2020
13.2

11.8

34.1

40.9

Never working at home

Sometimes working at home

Often working at home

Always working at home

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3, see Table A11b.

Putting data on future homeworking preferences together with self-assessed evaluations of theeffect of homeworking on productivity suggests that the upsurge in interest in homeworking is
unlikely to be detrimental to productivity. Two-thirds (65.5%) of employees who reported thatthey were able to produce much more per hour while working at home in lockdown wanted towork mainly at home in the future. In comparison, just 6.4% of employees who did not want
to work at home in the future said that their productivity was much higher when they worked
at home (Table A11b). This ‘selection effect’ is likely to be advantageous to employers keen
to bounce-back strongly from the impact of Covid-19.
On this basis, allowing employees to work at home, if they want to, may increase not reduce
productivity, hence supporting the business case for the continuation of homeworking.
However, this will not address some of the other economic consequences of the rise in
homeworking, such as the hollowing out of city centres which are reliant on office workers
spending money in local shops, cafés, restaurants and bars. This new evidence suggests that a
massive return to pre-Covid-19 patterns of working is unlikely to happen. Many employees
have got used to – and may even have experienced the benefits of – working at home after ashaky start. In addition, productivity has not been adversely affected by the shift towards
homeworking. Furthermore, if those who want to continue working at home in the future areallowed to do so, productivity may be boosted by a sustained increase in the prevalence of
homeworking.
Section 9: Summary and Conclusion
The aim of this Report is to provide a full account of the changing nature of homeworking and
its impact on workers during the first three months of lockdown in the UK using new data
available from the first three surveys of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study.
Findings presented in this Report show how steeply homeworking rose during the lockdown.
Rising from 5.7% of workers doing all of their work at home in January/February 2020 to
43.1% in April 2020, and only falling to 36.5% in June 2020 when some workers returned totheir former places of work.
20

The surge in homeworking was greatest among the highest paid, the better qualified and thehigher skilled. The questions that arise from our findings are: who is continuing to work athome and who is returning back to their work locations. The answers have consequences for
future workplace policies and city planning. This Report has hinted at the answers, but our
future research will use the longitudinal strength of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study
to provide more robust answers.
The Report shows that homeworking varies regionally and is most prevalent among thoseliving in London and the South East. Significantly, this may indicate spatial variations ineconomic resilience to the recessionary forces unleased by the pandemic. The levelling up
policy agenda will need to bear this in mind when future policies are developed. These need
to be aimed at strengthening the resilience of local economies to future economic shocks.
Overall, mental health deteriorated across the population during lockdown. However, the fallin mental health at the beginning of the lockdown was more pronounced amongst those whoalways, often or sometimes worked at home compared to those who never worked at home.
Similarly, new home-centred workers reported a greater fall in mental health than establishedhome-centred workers at the start of lockdown, but this difference wore off as the months went
by. This could mean that after a shaky start new homeworkers got accustomed to their new
situation or those who had a negative experience of homeworking returned to their former
places of work more quickly.
Before Covid-19 some employers were rather reluctant to implement homeworking as aflexible working arrangement or even banned homeworking completely in the case of Yahoo!
and Hewlett-Packard in the years before pandemic (Felstead and Henseke, 2017). However,this Report shows that homeworking in lockdown did not appear to have had a significant effecton the productivity levels of employees. Quite the opposite, employees who did all of their
paid work at home reported that they got more done per hour than they did before lockdown.
Furthermore, almost nine out of ten employees who worked at home during lockdown said thatthey would like to continue working at home in some capacity. Some banks, insurancecompanies and insurers – such as Lloyds, Virgin Money, Aviva and Standard Life Aberdeen –have recognised the benefits of allowing their staff to work at home and are setting out plans
for staff to work at home more regularly when lockdown restrictions are fully eased (Financial
Times, 24 August 2020). On the basis of evidence presented in this Report, we urge more
employers to follow their lead by developing policies which enable working at home tocontinue in the post Covid-19 world.
In addition, the Report has implications for city planning. At the height of the lockdown, its
impact was frequently illustrated with photographs of deserted city centres and empty highstreets with bars, restaurants and shops boarded up. But as lockdown restrictions have been
eased, the UK government has devised policies aimed at reviving the hospitality and retailsectors, and the city centres in which many of these businesses are located. For example, the‘eat out to help out’ scheme subsidises consumption in restaurants and cafés with the aim ofincreasing consumer spending, raising city centre footfall and maintaining the current fabric of
the city.
However, increased levels of homeworking could contribute to a greener and more sustainable
future. In this alternative world, cities which are not built around fast roads connecting
workplaces to residences, but are focused much more on integrating working spaces into thehome, and promoting green and lively neighbourhoods. Now may, therefore, be the time to21

radically rethink the design of mono-functional city centres and turn them into multi-use places
that accommodate low-pollutant manufacturing, green spaces and leisure facilities. Increased
levels of homeworking may help to usher in this alternative future.

22References
Adams-Prassl, A, Boneva, T, Golin, M and Rauh, C (2020a) ‘Inequality in the impact of thecoronavirus shock: new survey evidence for the UK’, Cambridge Working Papers in
Economics, no 2023, Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Adams-Prassl, A, Boneva, T, Golin, M and Rauh, C (2020b) ‘Work tasks that can be done fromhome: evidence of the variation within and across occupations and industries’, Cambridge
Working Papers in Economics, no 2040, Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Banks, J and Xu, X (2020) ‘The mental health effects of the first two months of lockdown andsocial distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK’, Institute for Fiscal Studies
Working Paper W20/16, London: Institute of Fiscal Studies.
Bartik, A W, Cullen, Z B, Glaeser, E L, Luca, M and Stanton, C T (2020) ‘What jobs are being
done at home during the Covid-19 crisis? Evidence from firm-level surveys’, NBER
Working Paper Series, Working Paper 27422, Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau
of Economic Research.
Berstein E, Blunden, H, Brodsky, A, Wonbin, W and Waber, B (2020) ‘The implications ofworking
without
theoffice’,HarvardBusiness
Review,
15
July,
https://hbr.org/2020/07/the-implications-of-working-without-an-office(accessed
14
August 2020).
Bryanjolfsson, E, Horton, J, Ozimek, A, Rock, D, Sharma, G and TuYe, H-Y (2020) ‘Covid19 and remote work: an early look at US data’, NBER Working Paper Series, Working
Paper 27344, Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bloom, N, Liang, J and Roberts, J and Ying, Z J (2015), ‘Does working from home work?
Evidence from a Chinese experiment’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1): 165-218.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016) American Time Use Survey – 2015 Results, News Release,
24 June 2016, www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf (accessed 14 August 2020).
CIPD (2020a) ‘Home working is set to more than double compared to pre-pandemic levels
once crisis is over’, CIPD Press Release, https://www.cipd.co.uk/about/media/press/homeworking-increases (accessed 17 August 2020).
CIPD (2020b) Working from Home: What’s Driving the Rise in Remote Working? London:
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Cox, B D, Blaxter, M and Buckle, A J L (1987) The Health and Lifestyle Survey, London:
Health Promotion Research Trust.
Dingel, J I and Neiman, B (2020) ‘How many jobs can be done at home?’, NBER Working
Paper Series, Working Paper 26948, Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Eurofound (2020) Living, Working and COVID-19 First Findings – April 2020, Dublin:
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
Felstead, A and Henseke, G (2017) ‘Assessing the growth of remote working and its
consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance’, New Technology, Work andEmployment, 32(3): 195-212.
Felstead, A, Jewson, N and Walters, S (2005) Changing Places of Work, Basingstoke and New
York: Palgrave.
Felstead, A, Jewson, N, Phizacklea, A and Walters, S (2002) ‘The option to work at home:
another privilege for the favoured few?’, New Technology, Work and Employment, 17(3):188-207.
Felstead, A, Gallie, D, Green, F and Henseke, G (2019) ‘Conceiving, designing and trailing ashort form measure of job quality: a proof-of-concept study’, Industrial Relations Journal,
50(1): 2-19.

23

Financial Times (2020) ‘City employers plan for lasting switch to remote working after
lockdown changes’, by Walker, O, Megaw, N, Hammond, G and Mooney, S, 24 August.
Gardner, J and Oswald, A (2005) ‘Money and mental wellbeing: A longitudinal study of
medium-sized lottery wins’, Journal of Health Economics, 26(1): 49-60.
Golden, T D and Veiga, J F (2005) ‘The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction:
resolving inconsistent findings’, Journal of Management, 31(2): 301-318.
Gower, T L (2013) 2011 Census Analysis – Method of Travel to Work in England Wales Report,
Newport: Office for National Statistics.
Haldane, A G (2017) ‘Productivity puzzles’, speech given at the LSE, 20 March 2017.
Harris, L (2003) ‘Home-based teleworking and the employment relationship’, Personnel
Review, 32(4): 422-437.
HM Government (2020) Working Safely During COVID-19 in Offices and Contact Centres,
London: HM Government.
Institute for Social and Economic Research (2020) Understanding Society COVID-19 User
Guide. Version 3.0, July 2020, Colchester: University of Essex.
Kelliher, C and Anderson, D (2011) ‘Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and theintensification of work’, Human Relations, 63(1): 83-106.
Macmillan Okubo, T (2020) ‘Spread of COVID-19 and telework: evidence from Japan’, COVID
Economics: Vetted and Real Time Papers, 32, 26 June: 1-25.
Menezes, L M and Kelliher, C (2011) ‘Flexible working and performance: a systematic reviewof the evidence for the business case’, International Journal of Management Reviews,
13(4): 452-474.
Messenger, J and Gschwind, L (2016) ‘Three generations of telework: new ICT and the(r)evolution from home office to virtual office’, New Technology, Work and Employment,
31(3): 195-208.
ONS (2014) Characteristics of Homeworkers, 2014, Newport: Office for National Statistics.
ONS (2020a) Coronavirus and the Social Impacts on Great Britain: 23 April 2020, Newport:
Office for National Statistics.
ONS (2020b) Coronavirus and the Social Impacts on Great Britain: 26 June 2020, Newport:
Office for National Statistics.
Reuschke, D (2019) ‘The subjective well-being of homeworkers across life domains’,
Environment and Planning A, 51(6), 1326-1349.
Reuschke, D and Felstead, A (2020) ‘The effect of the Great Lockdown on homeworking intheUnitedKingdom’,
https://wiserd.ac.uk/publications/effect-great-lockdownhomeworking-united-kingdom (accessed 20 July 2020).
Rodríguez, J (2020) Covid-19 and the Welsh Economy: Working from Home, Cardiff: Wales
Fiscal Analysis.
Rubin, O, Nikolaeva, A, Nello-Deakin, S and te Brömmelstroet, M (2020) ‘What can we learn
from the Covid-19 pandemic about how people experience working from home andcommuting?’, Centre for Urban Studies, University of Amsterdam Working Paper,
Amsterdam: Centre for Urban Studies, University of Amsterdam.
Saba, T, Cachat-Rosset, G, Marsan, J, Klarsfeld, A and Carillo, K (2020) COVID-19 Crisis
Triggers Teleworking: A Global Cure or a Short-term Solution, Montréal: Université deMontréal.
Sardeshmukh, S R, Sharma, D and Golden, T D (2012) ‘Impact of telework on exhaustion andjob engagement: a job demands and job resources model’, New Technology, Work andEmployment, 27(3): 193-207.
The Guardian (2020) ‘Two-thirds of UK’s furloughed workers continued job in Covid-19
lockdown’, by Donna Furguson, 9 August, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-

24

news/2020/aug/09/two-thirds-of-uks-furloughed-workers-continued-job-in-covid-19lockdown
TUC(2016)‘Homeworking
up
by
a
fifth
of
the
last
decade’,https://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-issues/home-working-fifth-over-last-decade-tucanalysis-reveals, (accessed 14 August 2020).
Vilhelmson, B and Thulin, E (2016) ‘Who and where the flexible workers? Exploring thecurrent diffusion of telework in Sweden’, New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(1):77-96.
Warr, P (1990) ‘The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health’, Journalof Occupational Psychology, 63: 193-210.
Watson (2020) Coronavirus and Homeworking in the UK Labour Market: 2019, Newport:
Office for National Statistics.
Welsh Government (2020) Covid-19: Five Key Steps to Keep Wales Safe at Work, Cardiff:Welsh Government.

25

Table A1:
The Use of the Home as Workplace Before Lockdown, January/February 2020

Socio-economic
Characteristics

All
Sex
Male
Female
Age
16-29
30-44
45-59
60 and above
Spouse/partner
Lives with spouse/partner
Children in household
Has child 0-4-years-old
Has child 5-15-years-old
Highest qualification2
DegreeVocational degree
A-level or equivalent
GCSE or equivalent
Other qualification
No qualifications
Pay
Net annual earnings
Working hours
30 or more hours a week
16-29 hours a week
1-6 hours a week
Average number of working
hours
Employment status
Employee
Self-employedOccupation2
Managers & directors
Professionals
Associate professionals
Administrative & secretarial
Skill trades
Caring & leisure
Sales

Office/factory
Use of the Home as Workplace
work
Sometimes
Often
Always(no use of home
(2)
(3)
(4)
as workplace)(1)
Row percentages/absolute values1
70.6
17.7
6.1
5.7
69.6
71.6

18.4
16.9

6.7
5.4

5.3
6.1

83.1
67.9
66.6
68.5

11.5
20.2
20.1
14.7

2.8
7.0
6.6
7.6

2.7
4.9
6.7
9.3

80.5

12.5

3.6

3.4

70.4
66.0

18.1
20.3

6.6
7.1

4.9
6.7

51.7
71.6
78.9
84.4
84.3
89.0

29.8
17.0
13.9
7.7
6.1
5.6

10.5
5.8
3.5
3.3
3.3
2.2

8.0
5.6
3.7
4.5
6.3
3.2

£18,692£28,556£28,577£20,084

69.4
75.9
71.4
34.1 hours

19.9
11.5
8.9
36.6 hours

6.1
5.8
6.5
34.9 hours

4.6
6.7
13.5
32.5 hours

75.2
44.8

16.7
20.7

5.1
10.6

3.0
23.9

50.8
51.9
53.4
71.8
86.0
81.8
89.7

29.9
30.7
28.0
16.7
10.0
8.2
6.3

11.7
11.4
11.0
6.5
1.3
3.9
1.4

7.1
6.0
7.6
5.8
2.7
6.2
2.6

26

Operatives
Elementary
Industry2
Agriculture, forestry and fishing(A)
Energy and water (B, D, E)
Manufacturing (C)Construction (F)Distribution, hotels andrestaurants (G, I)
Transport and communication(H, J)
Banking and finance (K, L, M,
N)
Public administration,
education and health (O, P, Q)
Other services (R, S, T, U)
Sector2
Private firm or business
Other type of organisation
Region2
North East
North West
Yorkshire and Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
LondonSouth East
South West
Wales
ScotlandNorthern Ireland

87.4
91.2

7.9
7.1

0.1
0.8

4.1
0.9

71.9

7.7

2.4

18.0

55.1
79.4
73.4
85.9

27.5
13.0
16.9
8.8

11.7
3.7
5.6
2.1

5.7
3.9
4.1
3.2

62.0

20.2

9.3

8.5

55.4

26.8

9.8

7.9

68.8

21.3

5.9

4.1

58.1

18.9

8.9

14.2

75.5
69.1

14.9
23.3

5.8
5.1

3.8
2.5

75.9
75.4
73.5
74.0
77.2
68.6
61.8
64.7
65.5
76.5
74.7
75.0

14.3
13.6
18.5
15.5
12.9
19.8
21.8
21.2
20.4
14.6
15.8
15.1

4.2
5.0
3.9
5.5
5.3
6.2
9.2
7.5
6.5
5.2
4.5
5.3

5.6
6.0
4.0
5.0
4.6
5.4
7.3
6.5
7.7
3.8
5.0
4.6

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey.
These baseline data are taken from waves 1, 2 and 3 (11,453 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20182019 and not from the Covid-19 Survey, hence there may be some inaccuracies.
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3.

27

Table A2a:The Use of the Home as Workplace During Lockdown, April 2020

Socio-economic
Characteristics

All
Sex
Male
Female
Age
16-29
30-44
45-59
60 and above
Spouse/partner
Lives with spouse/partner
Children in household
Has child 0-4-years-old
Has child 5-15-years-old
Highest qualification2
DegreeVocational degree
A-level or equivalent
GCSE or equivalent
Other qualification
No qualifications
Pay
Net annual earnings
Working hours
30 or more hours a week
16-29 hours a week
1-6 hours a week
Average number of working
hours
Employment status
Employee
Self-employedOccupation1
Managers & directors
Professionals
Associate professionals
Administrative & secretarial
Skill trades
Caring & leisure
Sales

Office/factory
Use of the Home as Workplace
work
Sometimes
Often
Always(no use of home
(2)
(3)
(4)
as workplace)(1)
Row percentages/absolute values1
39.5
9.1
8.3
43.1
41.2
37.8

8.4
9.8

7.6
9.0

42.7
43.7

42.3
35.3
40.2
45.5

7.0
8.7
10.3
8.7

5.9
8.8
8.5
9.7

44.8
47.2
41.0
36.1

38.6

9.5

9.1

44.8

39.3
35.8

8.1
9.8

8.5
9.6

44.0
44.7

16.2
42.9
46.5
69.1
71.0
86.7

10.5
12.9
8.1
5.7
6.7
5.2

10.9
8.1
8.3
6.6
6.6
0.3

62.4
36.2
37.1
21.6
15.7
7.8

£18,234£23,007£23,835£27,115

38.8
46.3
34.7
33.6 hours

7.4
7.4
21.5
29.2 hours

8.0
8.2
10.5
31.9 hours

45.8
38.1
33.4
34.1 hours

41.5
27.4

8.2
13.4

8.1
9.0

42.2
50.2

27.0
17.3
15.3
27.0
68.1
67.1
63.8

10.7
10.2
8.8
7.5
12.2
6.6
5.0

9.3
11.2
8.2
9.1
3.2
9.1
5.6

53.0
61.3
67.7
56.4
16.5
17.2
25.6

28

Operatives
Elementary
Industry1
Agriculture, forestry and fishing(A)
Energy and water (B, D, E)
Manufacturing (C)Construction (F)Distribution, hotels andrestaurants (G, I)
Transport and communication(H, J)
Banking and finance (K, L, M,
N)
Public administration,
education and health (O, P, Q)
Other services (R, S, T, U)
Sector1
Private firm or business
Other type of organisation
Region
North East
North West
Yorkshire and Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
LondonSouth East
South West
Wales
ScotlandNorthern Ireland

78.9
84.6

8.6
4.3

1.1
1.7

11.4
9.4

56.3

11.5

2.3

30.0

16.0
47.9
45.3
66.7

15.4
11.6
10.7
7.3

4.5
5.4
7.1
3.9

64.1
35.1
36.9
22.2

37.4

4.9

5.9

51.7

23.1

7.5

6.8

62.6

35.9

10.8

12.3

41.1

20.7

10.6

12.3

56.5

45.4
32.7

6.8
11.1

5.0
13.2

42.8
43.0

43.6
41.3
50.2
48.9
48.4
36.4
28.1
31.8
37.3
45.9
36.3
49.1

7.7
8.6
6.7
7.9
6.9
10.7
8.0
9.9
11.7
9.3
11.4
10.6

12.4
10.5
6.9
5.8
8.6
10.6
6.5
9.6
7.7
8.1
5.1
7.9

36.3
39.6
36.2
37.3
36.2
42.3
57.5
48.8
43.3
36.8
47.2
33.4

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey(7,130 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20182019 and not from the Covid-19 Survey, hence there may be some inaccuracies.
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 1.

29

Table A2b:
The Use of the Home as Workplace During Lockdown, May 2020

Socio-economic
Characteristics

All
Sex
Male
Female
Age
16-29
30-44
45-59
60 and above
Spouse/partner
Lives with spouse/partner
Children in household
Has child 0-4-years-old
Has child 5-15-years-old
Highest qualification2
DegreeVocational degree
A-level or equivalent
GCSE or equivalent
Other qualification
No qualifications
Pay
Net annual earnings
Working hours
30 or more hours a week
16-29 hours a week
1-6 hours a week
Average number of working
hours
Employment status
Employee
Self-employedOccupation2
Managers & directors
Professionals
Associate professionals
Administrative & secretarial
Skill trades
Caring & leisure
Sales

Office/factory
Use of the Home as Workplace
work
Sometimes
Often
Always(no use of home
(2)
(3)
(4)
as workplace)(1)
Row percentages/absolute values1
40.0
10.3
8.9
40.8
41.5
38.5

10.9
9.7

7.7
10.1

39.9
41.7

44.9
35.3
39.6
46.1

9.0
10.2
10.7
10.2

7.4
10.1
8.7
8.2

38.3
44.4
40.6
35.6

35.6

10.9

9.1

44.4

33.4
34.8

11.5
11.0

9.8
10.2

45.2
44.0

17.7
41.1
45.1
68.4
71.1
79.6

10.5
13.9
11.6
7.1
6.8
9.9

12.7
10.2
7.5
3.1
7.1
2.0

59.1
34.8
35.8
21.5
15.1
8.5

£18,393£22,717£24,202£27,108

40.5
44.8
31.3
34.3 hours

8.2
9.1
23.4
28.3 hours

7.6
10.8
13.4
29.8 hours

43.7
35.3
31.9
34.0 hours

41.9
28.1

9.4
15.9

8.6
9.1

40.0
46.9

25.3
17.5
15.5
27.8
67.6
62.6
66.3

12.4
10.9
8.9
8.2
17.1
10.4
5.7

11.0
12.1
11.6
10.8
5.6
7.6
1.6

51.4
59.5
64.0
53.3
9.7
19.4
26.4

30

Operatives
Elementary
Industry2
Agriculture, forestry and fishing(A)
Energy and water (B, D, E)
Manufacturing (C)Construction (F)Distribution, hotels andrestaurants (G, I)
Transport and communication(H, J)
Banking and finance (K, L, M,
N)
Public administration,
education and health (O, P, Q)
Other services (R, S, T, U)
Sector1
Private firm or business
Other type of organisation
Region
North East
North West
Yorkshire and Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
LondonSouth East
South West
Wales
ScotlandNorthern Ireland

87.5
84.7

3.7
5.9

0.7
1.7

8.1
7.8

54.5

15.0

8.0

22.5

25.0
55.3
48.6
64.8

6.0
9.3
15.9
10.6

5.1
6.9
6.1
4.7

63.9
28.6
29.5
19.9

35.7

6.0

7.9

50.4

26.2

7.3

6.7

59.8

34.7

11.4

13.1

40.7

24.6

14.4

8.5

52.5

47.1
31.8

8.1
11.9

6.2
13.3

38.6
43.0

44.5
39.8
44.8
48.2
48.9
41.1
32.0
30.8
41.7
46.6
32.6
55.0

11.9
7.8
13.8
10.2
9.3
11.9
7.5
12.6
11.1
9.3
8.7
9.6

10.7
9.8
7.8
10.6
7.6
7.0
7.5
10.1
8.6
8.3
11.4
6.5

32.9
42.7
33.6
31.1
34.1
40.0
53.0
46.5
38.7
35.8
47.3
28.8

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey(6,587 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20182019 and not from the Covid-19 Survey, hence there may be some inaccuracies.
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 2.

31

Table A2c:
The Use of the Home as Workplace During Lockdown, June 2020

Socio-economic
Characteristics

All
Sex
Male
Female
Age
16-29
30-44
45-59
60 and above
Spouse/partner
Lives with spouse/partner
Children in household
Has child 0-4-years-old
Has child 5-15-years-old
Highest qualification2
DegreeVocational degree
A-level or equivalent
GCSE or equivalent
Other qualification
No qualifications
Pay
Net annual earnings
Working hours
30 or more hours a week
16-29 hours a week
1-6 hours a week
Average number of working
hours
Employment status
Employee
Self-employedOccupation2
Managers & directors
Professionals
Associate professionals
Administrative & secretarial
Skill trades
Caring & leisure
Sales

Office/factory
Use of the Home as Workplace
work
Sometimes
Often
Always(no use of home
(2)
(3)
(4)
as workplace)(1)
Row percentages/absolute values1
45.3
9.6
8.7
36.5
48.1
42.4

8.0
11.2

8.4
9.0

35.5
37.4

50.7
40.6
45.7
49.0

5.9
10.5
10.6
8.5

6.0
10.8
8.6
7.3

37.4
38.0
35.1
35.3

41.1

9.9

9.9

39.2

38.1
44.4

10.8
11.4

11.5
10.1

39.6
38.1

20.6
46.3
52.5
71.6
78.9
85.6

11.1
14.0
10.0
5.0
6.3
2.3

12.2
9.6
7.2
4.0
5.9
1.8

56.1
30.2
30.4
19.4
9.0
10.3

£18,371£22,917£24,657£27,572

44.9
48.5
42.5
34.4 hours

8.4
11.8
14.2
31.6 hours

7.9
10.7
10.9
31.9 hours

38.8
29.1
32.4
34.2 hours

47.5
33.4

8.7
14.2

8.5
6.5

35.3
45.8

28.6
20.2
21.9
35.0
77.2
61.8
64.3

10.7
11.4
7.3
11.4
10.5
16.6
6.8

12.7
16.9
7.3
8.1
3.0
5.2
3.9

47.9
51.5
63.5
45.6
9.3
16.5
25.0

32

Operatives
Elementary
Industry3
Agriculture, forestry and fishing(A)
Energy and water (B, D, E)
Manufacturing (C)Construction (F)Distribution, hotels andrestaurants (G, I)
Transport and communication(H, J)
Banking and finance (K, L, M,
N)
Public administration,
education and health (O, P, Q)
Other services (R, S, T, U)
Sector2
Private firm or business
Other type of organisation
Region
North East
North West
Yorkshire and Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
LondonSouth East
South West
Wales
ScotlandNorthern Ireland

88.8
82.3

2.7
3.8

4.1
3.9

4.4
10.1

71.9

10.3

3.2

14.7

40.8
67.6
60.7
78.0

9.3
6.1
11.6
6.8

7.1
6.9
6.2
2.9

42.8
19.4
21.6
12.3

41.1

5.7

4.2

49.0

17.7

6.1

9.6

66.6

40.4

14.1

13.1

32.5

37.5

9.3

8.9

44.3

52.4
35.8

6.4
13.4

6.9
12.5

34.2
38.3

51.1
45.1
55.1
54.8
54.6
44.3
32.5
37.4
47.6
45.1
38.7
58.0

11.0
8.3
10.4
9.8
7.6
12.6
7.5
10.0
10.4
9.8
9.4
9.7

9.8
9.6
7.0
7.2
9.5
7.8
7.6
11.6
8.8
12.3
6.4
4.0

28.1
37.0
27.5
28.1
28.4
35.6
52.4
41.1
33.2
32.9
45.5
28.4

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey(6,579 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20182019 and not from the Covid-19 Survey, hence there may be some inaccuracies.
3. In wave 3, respondents were asked to describe the industry in which they worked.
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3.

33

Table A3:
Use of the Home as a Workplace: Ordered Regressions1, Before and During Lockdown
January/
February
2020(1)April 2020

May 2020

June 2020

(2)

(3)

(4)

0.19
(0.06)***-0.07(0.08)-0.23(0.08)***-0.23(0.11)**
0.89(0.08)***
0.33(0.09)***
0.42(0.08)***-0.08(0.15)-1.35(0.45)***

0.12(0.06)**-0.16(0.08)**-0.18(0.08)**-0.27(0.11)**
0.83(0.08)***
0.36(0.10)***
0.45(0.08)***-0.23(0.16)-0.17(0.24)

0.11(0.06)*-0.05(0.08)-0.11(0.08)-0.07(0.11)
0.82(0.08)***
0.29(0.10)***
0.36(0.08)***-0.23(0.15)-0.96(0.34)***

0.07(0.06)

0.16(0.06)***

0.01(0.06)-0.04(0.08)-0.03(0.08)

0.04(0.08)

0.02(0.06)

0.13(0.06)**

0.06(0.06)

0.31(0.05)***-0.01(0.00)***
0.38(0.10)***
0.09(0.09)
0.32(0.09)***
0.18(0.10)*

0.08(0.04)*-0.01(0.00)***
0.17(0.10)*
0.04(0.09)
0.24(0.09)***
0.04(0.10)

0.26(0.04)***-0.01(0.00)***
0.26(0.10)***-0.08(0.09)
0.25(0.09)***
0.05(0.10)(a) Personal Characteristics
Female0.15(base=male)(0.05)***
30-44 years old
0.02(base=16-29 years old)
(0.07)
45-59 years old
0.07(0.07)
60 years old and over
0.09
(0.09)
Degree (base=
0.47
GCSE or equivalent)(0.07)***
Vocational degree
0.17(0.09)**
A-level or equivalent
0.14(0.07)*
Other qualification-0.01(0.14)No qualification-0.88(0.37)**(b) Household Composition
Living as couple
0.25(base=not living as(0.05)***
couple)Child 0-4 in household
0.02(base=no child in(0.07)
household)Child 5-15 inhousehold
0.17(base=no child in(0.05)***
household)(c) Job Characteristics
Log net weekly pay
0.20(0.04)***
Number of weekly-0.00
working hours(0.00)*
Self-employed
1.16(base=employee)(0.07)***
Professionals-0.10(base=Managers)(0.07)
Associate professionals
0.02(0.07)
Administrative &-0.21
secretarial(0.09)**
34

Skill trades
Caring & leisure
Sales
Operatives
Elementary
Agriculture(base=manufacturing)
EnergyConstruction
Distribution & retailTransport
Banking & finance
Education & health
Other services(d) Place of Residence
North East(base=Wales)
North West
Yorkshire & Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
LondonSouth East
South West
ScotlandNorthern Ireland-0.85(0.11)***-0.61(0.10)***-0.69(0.11)***-1.17(0.16)***-1.06(0.12)***
0.04(0.42)
0.59(0.18)***
0.01(0.13)-0.09(0.10)
0.29(0.11)***
0.35(0.09)***-0.04(0.09)
0.23(0.13)*-0.99(0.13)***-0.71(0.11)***-0.33(0.12)***-1.27(0.17)***-1.22(0.14)***-0.80(0.45)*
0.48(0.23)**
0.13(0.16)-0.59(0.11)***
0.13(0.13)
0.36(0.11)***-0.41(0.10)***
0.21(0.17)-1.19(0.13)***-0.71(0.12)***-0.46(0.12)***-1.80(0.19)***-1.38(0.14)***
0.01(0.54)
0.68(0.25)***
0.33(0.16)**-0.29(0.12)**
0.51(0.14)***
0.51(0.11)***-0.09(0.11)
0.42(0.17)**-0.96(0.15)***-0.68(0.12)***-0.19(0.12)-1.69(0.20)***-1.01(0.13)***-0.81(0.58)
0.86(0.24)***
0.09(0.15)-0.43(0.12)***
0.47(0.14)***
0.51(0.12)***-0.05(0.11)
0.28(0.16)*

0.15(0.15)
0.05(0.12)
0.15(0.13)
0.12(0.13)-0.04(0.13)
0.11(0.12)
0.12(0.12)
0.17(0.12)
0.21(0.13)*-0.01(0.13)-0.26(0.20)

0.15(0.16)
0.07(0.13)-0.05(0.14)
0.10(0.14)-0.07(0.14)
0.15(0.14)
0.35(0.14)**
0.22(0.13)*
0.14(0.14)
0.41(0.14)***-0.25(0.21)

0.19(0.17)
0.32(0.14)**
0.10(0.14)
0.21(0.14)
0.15(0.14)
0.20(0.14)
0.38(0.14)***
0.37(0.13)***
0.25(0.14)*
0.56(0.15)***-0.26(0.22)

0.06(0.17)
0.04(0.14)-0.21(0.14)-0.19(0.15)-0.12(0.15)
0.04(0.14)
0.22(0.14)
0.19(0.14)-0.02(0.15)
0.15(0.15)-0.24(0.22)(e) Model Parameters
35

Pseudo-R2
Number of weighted
observations

0.18
4,305

0.17
2,996

0.22
2,778

0.22
2,697

1. The dependent variable is: never working at home; sometimes working at home; often working at home; always
working at home.
* p<0.1; ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01. Unweighted samples are 5,123, 3,566, 3,298 and 3,198 respectively.
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3.

36

Figure 1:
Main Place of Work Transition Typology: Before and During Lockdown

Before Lockdown

During Lockdown
Always/Often
Working at Home

Sometimes/NeverWorking at Home

Always/Often
Working at Home

Established home-centred
workers(2)

New factory/office-centred
workers(3)

Sometimes/NeverWorking at Home

New home-centred
workers(1)

Established factory/officecentred workers(4)37

Table A4a:
Profiling Main Place of Work Transitions, January/February to April 2020

Socio-economic
Characteristics

New homecentred
workers
(1)

All
Sex
Male
Female
Age
16-29
30-44
45-59
60 and above
Spouse/partner
Lives with spouse/partner
Children in household
Has child 0-4-years-old
Has child 5-15-years-old
Highest qualification2
DegreeVocational degree
A-level or equivalent
GCSE or equivalent
Other qualification
No qualifications
Pay
Net annual earnings
Working hours
30 or more hours a week
16-29 hours a week
1-6 hours a week
Average number of working
hours
Employment status
Employee
Self-employedOccupation2
Managers & directors
Professionals
Associate professionals
Administrative & secretarial
Skill trades
Caring & leisure37.5

Transition Typology
EstablishedNew
Establishedhomefactory/office factory/officecentred-centred-centred
workers
workers
workers
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
Row percentages/absolute values
12.0
0.8
47.0

37.8
41.3

12.7
11.3

0.6
1.0

49.0
46.4

44.8
44.0
37.3
28.1

6.4
12.2
12.3
17.6

0.3
0.7
0.8
1.7

48.5
43.1
49.7
52.7

40.1

13.9

0.7

45.3

40.4
40.9

12.3
13.8

0.3
0.7

47.1
44.6

55.7
34.2
38.4
18.6
12.4
4.5

17.8
10.7
7.0
6.6
10.1
3.6

1.0
0.3
0.4
0.3
2.6
3.2

25.5
54.8
54.2
74.4
74.8
88.7

£26,696£25,997£21,742£19,140

43.3
34.9
22.7
34.5 hours

10.5
11.9
21.3
31.4 hours

0.5
0.7
2.8
22.9 hours

45.7
52.5
53.2
33.0 hours

42.1
18.2

8.4
40.7

0.5
2.9

49.1
38.2

44.5
56.2
57.1
56.4
15.2
20.9

17.6
16.6
18.7
9.1
4.6
5.1

1.7
0.8
1.4
0.8
0.3
0.6

36.2
26.5
22.7
33.6
79.9
73.4

38

SalesOperatives
Elementary
Industry2
Agriculture, forestry andfishing (A)Energy and water (B, D, E)
Manufacturing (C)Construction (F)Distribution, hotels andrestaurants (G, I)
Transport and communication(H, J)
Banking and finance (K, L,
M, N)
Public administration,
education and health (O, P, Q)
Other services (R, S, T, U)
Sector2
Private firm or business
Other type of organisation
Region
North East
North West
Yorkshire and Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
LondonSouth East
South West
Wales
ScotlandNorthern Ireland

27.6
11.1
8.7

4.7
1.4
1.9

0.3
0.0
0.0

67.4
87.6
89.4

12.1

20.7

0.0

67.3

53.7
30.9
38.1
19.5

15.9
9.5
5.5
6.6

1.4
0.2
0.7
0.7

29.0
59.5
55.7
73.7

39.2

18.4

1.3

41.1

52.1

17.3

0.9

29.7

44.0

9.6

0.8

45.6

37.6

31.4

0.0

31.1

37.3
49.0

10.7
7.5

0.6
0.5

51.5
43.1

36.8
39.6
34.7
33.1
34.0
40.6
49.2
44.5
34.4
34.7
44.6
30.2

11.8
10.9
8.5
10.2
11.2
12.1
15.2
13.9
16.4
10.3
8.5
10.0

0.5
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.5
1.6
1.3
0.2
0.6
1.0
0.0

50.8
48.7
56.5
56.2
54.1
46.8
34.1
40.4
49.0
54.3
45.9
59.8

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey(7,030 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20182019 and not from the Covid-19 Survey, hence there may be some inaccuracies.
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 1.

39

Table A4b:
Profiling Main Place of Work Transitions, January/February to May 2020

Socio-economic
Characteristics

New homecentred
workers
(1)

All
Sex
Male
Female
Age
16-29
30-44
45-59
60 and above
Spouse/partner
Lives with spouse/partner
Children in household
Has child 0-4-years-old
Has child 5-15-years-old
Highest qualification2
DegreeVocational degree
A-level or equivalent
GCSE or equivalent
Other qualification
No qualifications
Pay
Net annual earnings
Working hours
30 or more hours a week
16-29 hours a week
1-6 hours a week
Average number of working
hours
Employment status
Employee
Self-employedOccupation2
Managers & directors
Professionals
Associate professionals
Administrative & secretarial
Skill trades
Caring & leisure39.1

Transition Typology
EstablishedNew
Establishedhomefactory/office factory/officecentred-centred-centred
workers
workers
workers
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
Row percentages/absolute values
11.1
1.2
48.6

36.6
41.5

11.5
10.8

1.1
1.4

50.9
46.3

43.9
43.2
37.2
27.8

4.0
11.4
12.4
15.9

1.2
0.6
1.2
2.9

50.8
44.8
49.2
53.4

37.7

13.3

1.5

45.5

41.8
40.6

10.3
13.7

1.7
1.4

46.2
44.4

55.3
34.8
38.4
17.2
13.8
10.0

16.6
10.4
5.9
7.7
8.0
0.7

1.5
0.7
1.4
0.5
1.6
4.6

26.6
54.1
54.2
74.7
76.7
84.7

£26,672£26,404£17,076£19,542

41.7
35.7
28.5
33.7 hours

9.8
11.7
18.0
32.1 hours

1.0
0.6
3.7
25.9 hours

47.6
52.0
49.7
33.6 hours

41.8
18.0

7.9
37.7

0.7
4.1

50.1
40.1

44.9
56.1
58.2
53.3
12.7
20.8

17.3
16.2
17.4
10.9
2.5
6.3

1.3
0.7
1.3
1.9
1.3
3.5

36.5
27.1
23.0
34.0
83.5
69.5

40

SalesOperatives
Elementary
Industry2
Agriculture, forestry andfishing (A)Energy and water (B, D, E)
Manufacturing (C)Construction (F)Distribution, hotels andrestaurants (G, I)
Transport and communication(H, J)
Banking and finance (K, L,
M, N)
Public administration,
education and health (O, P, Q)
Other services (R, S, T, U)
Sector2
Private firm or business
Other type of organisation
Region
North East
North West
Yorkshire and Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
LondonSouth East
South West
Wales
ScotlandNorthern Ireland

25.4
8.6
7.8

3.8
0.2
1.7

0.0
0.8
0.4

70.8
90.3
90.2

14.6

15.7

0.0

69.7

54.5
28.2
30.5
19.4

16.5
7.2
4.8
5.6

0.0
0.8
2.4
0.8

29.0
63.8
62.3
74.2

37.8

20.3

0.2

41.7

50.9

15.7

1.0

32.5

45.3

8.8

1.3

44.5

36.0

26.6

5.8

31.6

35.1
49.9

9.9
6.9

0.8
1.0

54.2
42.3

35.9
41.1
34.3
30.8
33.0
36.5
45.7
44.4
33.4
36.5
52.2
28.7

7.7
12.2
7.5
10.9
9.6
10.9
15.0
12.8
13.9
9.7
7.6
6.6

1.0
1.2
0.7
0.2
0.8
0.8
1.8
1.1
2.3
1.2
1.1
4.7

55.4
45.6
57.6
58.1
56.6
51.8
37.5
41.7
50.4
52.6
39.1
60.0

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey(6,484 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20182019 and not from the Covid-19 Survey, hence there may be some inaccuracies.
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 2.

41

Table A4c:
Profiling Main Place of Work Transitions, January/February to June 2020

Socio-economic
Characteristics

New homecentred
workers
(1)

All
Sex
Male
Female
Age
16-29
30-44
45-59
60 and above
Spouse/partner
Lives with spouse/partner
Children in household
Has child 0-4-years-old
Has child 5-15-years-old
Highest qualification2
DegreeVocational degree
A-level or equivalent
GCSE or equivalent
Other qualification
No qualifications
Pay
Net annual earnings
Working hours
30 or more hours a week
16-29 hours a week
1-6 hours a week
Average number of working
hours
Employment status
Employee
Self-employedOccupation2
Managers & directors
Professionals
Associate professionals
Administrative & secretarial
Skill trades
Caring & leisure

35.5

Transition Typology
EstablishedNew
Establishedhomefactory/office factory/officecentred-centred-centred
workers
workers
workers
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
Row percentages/absolute values
10.7
1.4
52.3

33.5
37.6

11.3
10.2

1.4
1.4

53.8
50.8

43.1
38.1
33.3
25.9

3.8
11.3
11.3
16.5

0.9
1.5
1.0
3.4

52.3
49.1
54.4
54.3

35.8

12.8

1.7

49.8

37.8
26.6

11.1
11.6

1.9
1.7

49.2
50.1

51.8
31.9
32.7
17.8
9.6
9.1

16.8
9.5
5.9
6.1
6.8
5.3

1.6
1.2
1.7
0.4
2.3
3.0

29.8
57.4
59.8
75.7
81.3
82.5

£27,345£26,049£20,066£19,287

38.9
29.3
22.5
34.8 hours

8.8
12.0
21.4
30.6 hours

1.1
1.5
3.6
26.7 hours

51.2
57.2
52.6
34.0 hours

37.6
16.6

7.5
34.9

0.8
5.1

54.1
43.4

43.6
52.4
54.6
48.4
9.7
15.0

16.4
17.1
16.1
7.1
2.9
8.4

1.3
0.9
2.4
1.8
0.8
4.0

38.7
29.7
26.9
42.6
86.6
72.6

42

SalesOperatives
Elementary
Industry2
Agriculture, forestry andfishing (A)Energy and water (B, D, E)
Manufacturing (C)Construction (F)Distribution, hotels andrestaurants (G, I)
Transport and communication(H, J)
Banking and finance (K, L,
M, N)
Public administration,
education and health (O, P, Q)
Other services (R, S, T, U)
Sector2
Private firm or business
Other type of organisation
Region
North East
North West
Yorkshire and Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
LondonSouth East
South West
Wales
ScotlandNorthern Ireland

26.2
9.0
12.0

4.1
0.2
2.3

0.2
0.8
0.0

69.5
90.0
85.7

7.0

10.1

0.0

82.9

50.0
23.5
29.0
17.3

24.3
7.5
4.9
5.7

1.4
0.8
2.4
0.7

24.3
68.2
63.7
76.4

35.9

18.1

0.1

45.9

50.5

16.4

1.1

32.1

40.7

9.1

1.3

48.9

33.2

24.1

8.0

34.8

33.1
45.3

9.1
7.0

0.8
1.0

56.9
46.7

30.6
38.4
28.3
25.3
28.5
35.4
45.1
41.7
29.6
37.4
45.8
24.4

8.4
9.1
7.1
10.0
10.0
9.8
15.6
12.8
13.1
9.6
9.6
7.2

1.1
1.3
0.6
0.3
1.1
2.1
1.4
1.7
2.0
1.9
0.8
4.5

59.6
51.2
64.0
64.4
60.4
52.7
37.9
43.8
55.4
51.1
43.8
63.8

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey(6,209 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20182019 and not from the Covid-19 Survey, hence there may be some inaccuracies.
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3.

43

Table A5a:
Mental Health and Homeworking in Lockdown, April 2020:
Descriptive Statistics
Intensity of Homeworking1
Often
Sometimes
worked atworked at
home
home
(2)
(3)

Mental Health Indicators

Alwaysworked athome(1)
Feeling less or much less than usual:Able to concentrate
37.3

Never
worked at
home
(4)

36.4

27.7

23.3

Able to enjoy normal day-today activities
Able to play a useful role

48.2

49.3

40.7

38.5

24.6

23.0

17.8

11.2

Capable of making decisions

14.5

16.0

10.2

8.9

Reasonably happy

22.8

25.2

22.2

19.9

Able to face up to problems

11.9

16.7

10.1

11.1

36.0

33.9

30.1

31.2

29.7

29.9

24.2

26.1

Losing self-confidence

18.1

19.0

14.2

15.0

Not being able to overcome
difficulties
Losing sleep over worry

14.2

18.1

11.3

13.4

24.1

30.9

22.2

25.7

Feeling worthless

8.5

8.9

6.7

9.2

12.63†(5.8)-1.34‡
(6.3)

12.78
(6.1)
-1.48
(6.7)

11.69
(5.3)
-0.52
(6.0)

11.93
(5.5)
-0.64
(5.3)

Rather or much more than usual:
Feeling constantly understrainFeeling unhappy or depressed

Mean GHQ score (standard
deviation)
Mean change in GHQ score
between 2017-182 and April
20203 (standard deviation)

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey(6,773 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20172018
3. Negative value means a decrease in mental health.
† This is significantly higher than either columns (3) and (4) (p<0.01), but is not significantly different fromcolumn (2).
‡ This fall in well-being is significantly higher than either columns (3) (p<0.01) and (4) (p<0.05), but is not
significantly different from column (2).
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 1.

44

Table A5b:
Mental Health and Homeworking in Lockdown, May 2020:
Descriptive Statistics
Intensity of Homeworking1
Often
Sometimes
worked atworked at
home
home
(2)
(3)

Mental Health Indicators

Alwaysworked athome(1)
Feeling less or much less than usual:Able to concentrate
33.5

Never
worked at
home
(4)

30.9

23.0

18.4

Able to enjoy normal day-today activities
Able to play a useful role

41.7

48.3

31.0

33.6

22.0

21.9

14.5

12.7

Capable of making decisions

15.2

16.7

8.7

9.9

Reasonably happy

24.9

25.4

16.2

18.0

Able to face up to problems

14.6

14.5

8.2

11.4

34.8

36.0

26.5

29.6

29.0

29.9

24.4

26.3

Losing self-confidence

20.9

22.6

14.8

16.6

Not being able to overcome
difficulties
Losing sleep over worry

16.3

20.3

12.8

14.5

22.5

27.4

20.6

22.3

Feeling worthless

10.5

12.8

9.6

9.3

Mean GHQ score (standard
deviation)
Mean change in GHQ score
between 2017-182 and May
20203 (standard deviation)

12.85†(5.83)-1.60‡

12.99(6.28)-0.84

11.60(4.96)-0.76

12.10(5.27)-1.09

Rather or much more than usual:
Feeling constantly understrainFeeling unhappy or depressed

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey(6,513 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20172018. Negative value means a decrease in mental health.
† This is significantly higher than either columns (3) and (4) (p<0.01), but is not significantly different fromcolumn (2).
‡ This fall in well-being is significantly higher than either columns (3) and (4) (p<0.05) as well as from column(2) (p<0.10).
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 2.

45

Table A5c:
Mental Health and Homeworking in Lockdown, June 2020:
Descriptive Statistics
Intensity of Homeworking1
Often
Sometimes
worked atworked at
home
home
(2)
(3)

Mental Health Indicators

Alwaysworked athome(1)
Feeling less or much less than usual:Able to concentrate
32.0

Never
worked at
home
(4)

30.6

23.7

18.5

Able to enjoy normal day-today activities
Able to play a useful role

35.6

35.2

34.3

27.9

18.0

17.7

19.3

12.7

Capable of making decisions

14.9

15.1

16.8

10.3

Reasonably happy

22.7

19.6

24.1

15.1

Able to face up to problems

13.4

13.8

13.7

11.3

35.1

30.7

34.8

25.1

26.5

25.3

27.5

21.4

Losing self-confidence

18.5

23.3

22.2

14.9

Not being able to overcome
difficulties
Losing sleep over worry

18.3

16.2

18.6

12.6

23.5

23.0

26.2

19.9

Feeling worthless

10.3

9.9

14.3

9.9

Mean GHQ score (standard
deviation)
Mean change in GHQ score
between 2017-182 and June
20203 (standard deviation)

12.78†(5.73)-1.49‡(6.10)

12.77(5.90)-1.41(6.13)

13.08(6.36)-1.54(6.65)

12.02(5.38)-1.08(5.53)

Rather or much more than usual:
Feeling constantly understrainFeeling unhappy or depressed

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey(6,474 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20172018. Negative value means a decrease in mental health.
† This is significantly higher than either column (4) (p<0.01), but is not significantly different from columns(2) and (3).
‡ This fall in well-being is not significantly different from columns (2), (3) and (4).
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3.

46

Table A6a:
Mental Health and Work Location Transitions in Lockdown, April 2020:
Descriptive Statistics
Transition Typology1
Mental Health Indicators
New home- EstablishedNew
Establishedcentredhomefactory/office factory/office
workers
centred-centred-centred
workers
workers
workers
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Row percentages/absolute values
Feeling less or much less than usual:Able to concentrate
39.8
28.3
25.0
23.9
Able to enjoy normal day-today activities
Able to play a useful role

50.0

43.1

40.5

38.6

26.3

18.5

31.6

12.0

Capable of making decisions

15.3

12.8

14.8

8.8

Able to face up to problems

13.5

10.0

17.5

10.5

Reasonably happy

24.0

19.2

28.7

20.3

36.8

32.5

37.4

31.0

31.0

26.2

25.5

25.6

Not being able to overcome
difficulties
Losing self-confidence

15.6

12.4

22.1

12.7

19.5

14.4

32.3

14.5

Feeling worthless

9.1

6.6

5.0

8.6

Losing sleep over worry

25.8

24.2

20.9

25.1

Mean GHQ score (standard
deviation)
Mean change in GHQ score
between 2017-182 and April
20203 (standard deviation)

12.85†(5.92)-1.55‡(6.48)

12.06(5.66)-0.79(5.82)

13.05(6.62)-2.99(6.45)

11.86(5.41)-0.57(5.39)

Rather or much more than usual:
Feeling constantly understrainFeeling unhappy or depressed

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey(6,109 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20172018. Negative value means a decrease in mental health.
† This is significantly higher than either columns (2) (p<0.05) and (4) (p<0.01), but is not significantly different
from column (3).
‡ This fall in well-being is significantly different from columns (2) (p<0.05) and (4) (p<0.01), but notsignificantly different from column (4).
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 1.

47

Table A6b:
Mental Health and Work Location Transitions in Lockdown, May 2020:
Descriptive Statistics
Transition Typology1
Mental Health Indicators
New home- EstablishedNew
Establishedcentredhomefactory/office factory/office
workers
centred-centred-centred
workers
workers
workers
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Row percentages/absolute values
Feeling less or much less than usual:Able to concentrate
34.0
30.0
20.8
19.2
Able to enjoy normal day-today activities
Able to play a useful role

43.9

39.2

27.9

33.4

23.4

16.8

20.8

13.1

Capable of making decisions

16.2

13.4

7.4

9.9

Able to face up to problems

15.5

11.8

15.4

10.8

Reasonably happy

24.9

25.7

18.5

17.7

34.8

36.1

30.8

29.0

29.1

29.7

22.3

26.2

Not being able to overcome
difficulties
Losing self-confidence

17.7

14.5

12.9

14.1

21.9

18.8

15.5

16.4

Feeling worthless

11.9

7.5

7.1

9.4

Losing sleep over worry

24.4

19.6

18.5

22.0

Mean GHQ score (standard
deviation)
Mean change in GHQ score
between 2017-182 and May
20203 (standard deviation)

13.02†(6.08)-1.54‡(6.29)

12.43(5.26)-1.20(5.50)

11.96(5.60)-1.97(4.83)

12.00(5.19)-1.01(5.30)

Rather or much more than usual:
Feeling constantly understrainFeeling unhappy or depressed

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey(5,904 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20172018. Negative value means a decrease in mental health.
† This is significantly higher than either columns (2) (p<0.1) and (4) (p<0.01), but is not significantly different
from column (3).
‡ This fall in well-being is significantly different from columns (4), but is not significantly different fromcolumns (2) and (3).
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 2.

48

Table A6c:
Mental Health and Work Location Transitions in Lockdown, June 2020:
Descriptive Statistics
Transition Typology1
Mental Health Indicators
New home- EstablishedNew
Establishedcentredhomefactory/office factory/office
workers
centred-centred-centred
workers
workers
workers
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Row percentages/absolute values
Feeling less or much less than usual:Able to concentrate
32.8
30.4
25.3
19.7
Able to enjoy normal day-today activities
Able to play a useful role

32.5

32.0

28.3

29.4

17.7

18.2

24.9

14.0

Capable of making decisions

14.8

16.0

16.8

11.8

Able to face up to problems

14.2

12.0

7.0

12.0

Reasonably happy

22.6

21.0

19.5

17.1

34.5

34.1

27.2

27.8

26.0

27.7

25.4

23.2

Not being able to overcome
difficulties
Losing self-confidence

18.2

18.0

20.1

14.2

20.2

16.7

18.7

16.1

Feeling worthless

23.0

24.5

22.8

21.4

Losing sleep over worry

10.1

10.9

5.7

11.0

Mean GHQ score (standard
deviation)
Mean change in GHQ score
between 2017-182 and June
20203 (standard deviation)

12.85†(5.81)-1.49‡(6.11)

12.60(5.79)-1.48(6.16)

12.03(5.63)-0.36(4.48)

12.29(5.62)-1.17(5.84)

Rather or much more than usual:
Feeling constantly understrainFeeling unhappy or depressed

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey(5,695 respondents – unweighted).
2. These data are taken from wave 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study which was carried out in 20172018. Negative value means a decrease in mental health.
† This is significantly higher than either column (4) (p<0.05), but is not significantly different from columns(2) and (3).
‡ This fall in well-being is not significantly different from columns (2), (3) and (4).
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3.

49

Table A7a:
Changing Mental Health and Homeworking in Lockdown:
OLS Regressions
Change in Mental Health Compared to
2017-2018
April 2020
May 2020
June 2020
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a) Intensity of Homeworking
Sometimes(base=never)
Often
Always(b) Personal Characteristics
Female(base=male)
30-44 years old(base=16-29 years old)
45-59 years old
60 years old and over(c) Household Composition
Living as couple(base=not living as couple)
Child 0-4 in household(base=no child in household)Child 5-15 in household(base=no child in household)(d) Controls
Highest qualification (5levels); industry (9 SIC
sections); region (12regions/nations; employment
status dummy(e) Model Parameters
Constant
2

R
Number of observations

-0.93

-0.21

-0.87

(0.43)**(0.40)(0.41)**

-0.90

-0.21

-0.03

(0.45)**(0.43)(0.45)

-0.92

-1.10

-0.22

(0.30)***(0.29)***(0.30)

-0.94

-0.48

-0.27

(0.24)***(0.24)**(0.26)

-0.01

1.02

-0.35

(0.35)(0.34)***(0.35)

0.72

1.53

0.76

(0.34)**(0.33)***(0.34)**

0.84

1.65

1.08

(0.46)*(0.44)***(0.47)**

0.61

0.35

0.95

(0.26)**(0.26)(0.27)***

-0.86

-0.02

0.20

(0.36)**(0.36)(0.37)

0.18

-0.20

(0.26)(0.25)-0.03(0.26)

Yes

Yes

Yes

-0.61

-1.60

-2.11

(0.94)(0.89)*(0.96)**

0.04
3,105

0.05
2,987

0.06
2,917

* p<0.1; ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01. Unweighted samples are: 3,681, 3,533 and 3,461 respectively.

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3.

50

Table A7b:
Changing Mental Health and Work Location Transitions in Lockdown:
OLS Regressions
Change in Mental Health Compared to
2017-2018
April 2020
May 2020
June 2020
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c) Homeworking Transition
New home-centred worker(base=establishedfactory/office-centred
worker)Established home-centred
workerNew factory/office-centred
worker(d) Personal Characteristics
Female(base=male)
30-44 years old(base=16-29 years old)
45-59 years old
60 years old and over(c) Household Composition
Living as couple(base=not living as couple)
Child 0-4 in household(base=no child in household)Child 5-15 in household(base=no child in household)(d) Controls
Highest qualification (6levels); industry (9 SIC
sections); region (12regions/nations; employment
status dummy(e) Model Parameters
Constant
2

R
Number of observations

-0.85

-0.92

0.05

(0.27)***(0.27)***(0.29)

-0.30

-0.81

0.07

(0.41)(0.41)**(0.44)

-2.88

-0.40

0.65

(1.28)**(1.09)(1.10)

-0.91

-0.48

-0.36

(0.24)***(0.24)**(0.26)

-0.07

0.99

-0.50

(0.36)(0.34)***(0.36)

0.67

1.51

0.59

(0.34)*(0.33)***(0.35)*

0.79

1.67

0.98

(0.46)*(0.45)***(0.49)**

0.61

0.40

1.10

(0.26)**(0.26)(0.28)***

-0.82

-0.02

0.06

(0.36)**(0.36)(0.38)

0.14

-0.18

0.04

(0.26)(0.26)(0.27)

Yes

Yes

Yes

-0.89

-1.77

-2.33

(0.93)(0.90)**(0.99)**

0.04
3,070

0.05
2,955

0.06
2,791

* p<0.1; ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01. Unweighted samples are 3,639, 3,494 and 3,305 respectively.

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, waves 1, 2 and 3.

51

Table A8a:
Productivity, Use of the Home and Homeworking Transition Status, All,
June 2020: Descriptive Statistics

Estimated
Productivity
Change1

I get much
more done
I get a little
more done
I get thesame done
I get a little
less done
I get muchless done
Productivity
changeindex2

Use of the Home as Workplace
Homeworking Transition
All –Sometimes
Often
AlwaysNew
Establishedsometimes,
(2)
(3)
(4)
homehomeoften or
centredcentredalwaysworkers
workers(1)(5)(6)
Column percentages/absolute values
12.2
9.3
9.4
13.7
13.5
10.0
14.9

11.3

13.3

16.4

18.6

8.3

41.2

40.4

40.4

44.8

37.5

52.4

20.8

17.4

24.1

21.0

22.8

18.0

10.8

17.1

12.8

8.5

7.6

11.4

-0.03

-0.21***-0.18***+0.06**+0.08**-0.13**

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey
and did at least some of their work at home (4.297 respondents – unweighted).
2. T-tests are used to determine whether the productivity change index is significantly different from zero, ***= p<0.01; ** = p<0.05; * = p<0.1.
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3.

52

Table A8b:
Productivity, Use of the Home and Homeworking Transition Status, Employees,
June 2020: Descriptive Statistics

Estimated
Productivity
ChangeI get much
more done
I get a little
more done
I get thesame done
I get a little
less done
I get muchless done
Productivity
changeindex

Use of the Home as Workplace
Homeworking Transition
All –Sometimes
Often
AlwaysNew
Establishedsometimes,
(2)
(3)
(4)
homehomeoften or
centredcentredalwaysworkers
workers(1)(5)(6)
Column percentages/absolute values
13.5
9.1
10.0
15.5
14.3
13.9
15.4

11.9

13.5

16.9

17.6

10.5

40.9

46.8

38.4

39.8

37.9

53.2

21.0

16.5

25.1

21.1

23.3

14.5

9.2

15.6

13.0

6.6

7.0

7.9

+0.03

-0.18**-0.18***+0.14***+0.09**+0.08

Notes:
1. The table reports all employees aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey
and did at least some of their work at home (3.477 respondents – unweighted).
2. T-tests are used to determine whether the productivity change index is significantly different from zero, ***= p<0.01; ** = p<0.05; * = p<0.1.
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3.

53

Table A9a:
Main Reason for Fall in Productivity While Homeworking, All, June 2020
Main Reason Given for Fall in Productivity

Percentage

I have had less work to do
I have had to provide childcare/home schooling and/or care for others whileworking
Other reasons (e.g. lack of motivation/focus/concentration, limited access toworkplace resources and interaction with others, and changes to workorganisation because of Covid-19)
The equipment, software and/or internet connection I use limits what I can do
I have been interrupted by noise made by others
I have had to share space and equipment

30.2
28.3
20.4

12.7
5.8
2.6

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey,
did at least some of their work at home and reported a fall in the amount they produced per hour when working
at home (1,272 respondents – unweighted).
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3.

54

Table A9b:
Main Reason for Fall in Productivity While Homeworking, Employees, June 2020
Main Reason Given for Fall in Productivity

Percentage

I have had to provide childcare/home schooling and/or care for others whileworking
I have had less work to do
Other reasons (e.g. lack of motivation/focus/concentration, limited access toworkplace resources and interaction with others, and changes to workorganisation because of Covid-19)
The equipment, software and/or internet connection I use limits what I can do
I have been interrupted by noise made by others
I have had to share space and equipment

28.6
26.8
20.1

15.6
6.4
2.6

Notes:
1. The table reports all employees aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey,
did at least some of their work at home and reported a fall in the amount they produced per hour when working
at home (999 respondents – unweighted).
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3.

55

Table A10a:
Changes in Productivity and Use of the Home as Place of Work, June 2020:
Ordered Regressions(a) Intensity of Homeworking
Often working at home(base=sometimes)
Always working at home

Model 1Model 20.03
(0.09)
0.24(0.07)***

0.03(0.09)
0.20(0.07)***-0.06(0.09)
0.17(0.07)**-0.04(0.09)
0.19(0.07)***

0.04(0.05)

0.06(0.05)
0.12(0.08)
0.16(0.08)*
0.20(0.12)*

0.04(0.05)
0.13(0.08)
0.16(0.08)**
0.19(0.12)

0.16(0.06)***
0.14(0.08)*

0.14(0.06)**
0.17(0.08)**

0.03(0.06)-0.03(0.06)-0.01(0.00)**-0.33(0.07)***-0.01(0.00)***-0.33(0.08)***

0.23(0.07)***
0.97(0.26)***-0.88(0.27)***
0.17(0.15)-0.26(0.15)*-0.01(0.00)***-0.31(0.08)***-0.25(0.09)***
0.02(0.00)***-0.13(0.08)-0.25(0.08)***-0.27(0.10)***
-0.23

-0.24
(0.09)***
0.02(0.00)***-0.13(0.08)*-0.26(0.08)***-0.28(0.10)***-0.32(b) Personal Characteristics
Female(base=male)
30-44 years old(base=16-29 years old)
45-59 years old
60 years old and over(c) Household Composition and Commitments
Living as couple(base=not living as couple)
Child 0-4 in household(base=no child in household
Couple X child 0-4(base=neither)Child 5-15 in household(base=no child in household
Couple X child 5-15
(base=neither)
Number of hours doinghousehold work
Providing home schooling(base=no home schooling)(d) Job Characteristics
Self-employed(base=employees)
Number of weekly working
hours
Professionals(base=Managers)
Associate professionals

0.02(0.00)***

Administrative & secretarial
Skill trades
56

Model 3Model 4

Caring & leisure
Sales
Operatives
Elementary(e) Controls
Industry(9 SIC sections)Regional(12 regions/nations)(f) Model Parameters
Pseudo-R2
Number of weighted
observations(0.18)-0.66(0.13)***-0.07(0.13)
0.13(0.31)-0.35(0.17)**(0.18)*-0.69(0.13)***-0.05(0.13)
0.14(0.31)-0.32(0.17)*

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

-0.11
1,924

-0.07
1,924

-0.05
1,924

-0.04
1,924

* p<0.1; ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01. Unweighted samples are 2,291.

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3.

57

Table A10b:
Changes in Productivity and Use of the Home as Place of Work, June 2020:
OLS Regressions
Model 1(c) Intensity of Homeworking
Often working at home(base=sometimes)
Always working at home

Model 20.04
(0.09)
0.26(0.07)***(d) Personal Characteristics
Female(base=male)
30-44 years old(base=16-29 years old)
45-59 years old

Model 3Model 40.02
(0.09)
0.20(0.07)***-0.06(0.09)
0.18(0.07)**-0.04(0.09)
0.19(0.07)***

0.04(0.05)

0.05(0.05)
0.13(0.08)
0.16(0.08)**
0.18(0.12)

0.03(0.05)
0.14(0.08)*
0.17(0.08)**
0.17(0.12)

0.16(0.06)***
0.13(0.08)

0.13(0.06)**
0.15(0.08)*

0.03(0.06)-0.04(0.06)-0.01(0.00)**-0.33(0.07)***-0.01(0.00)***-0.30(0.08)***

0.22(0.07)***
0.94(0.26)***-0.87(0.27)***
0.15(0.15)-0.25(0.15)*-0.01(0.00)***-0.29(0.08)***-0.23(0.09)***
0.02(0.00)***-0.13(0.08)-0.24(0.08)***-0.27(0.10)***-0.22(0.18)-0.23(0.09)***
0.02(0.00)***-0.13(0.08)-0.25(0.08)***-0.27(0.10)***-0.31(0.18)*

60 years old and over(c) Household Composition andCommitments
Living as couple(base=not living as couple)
Child 0-4 in household(base=no child in household
Couple X child 0-4(base=neither)Child 5-15 in household(base=no child in household)
Couple X child 5-15
(base=neither)
Number of hours doinghousehold work
Providing home schooling(base=no home schooling)(g) Job Characteristics
Self-employed(base=employees)
Number of weekly working
hours
Professionals(base=Managers)
Associate professionals

0.02(0.00)***

Administrative & secretarial
Skill trades

58

Caring & leisure
Sales
Operatives
Elementary(e) Controls
Industry controls(9 SIC sections)Regional controls(12 regions/nations)(f) Model Parameters
Constant
R2
Number of weighted
observations-0.59(0.12)***-0.08(0.13)
0.13(0.31)-0.36(0.17)**-0.62(0.12)***-0.06(0.13)
0.15(0.31)-0.32(0.17)*

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

-0.17
(0.06)***
0.01
1,924

-0.91
(0.11)***
0.09
1,924

-0.55
(0.23)**
0.14
1,924

-0.60
(0.23)**
0.15
1,924

* p<0.1; ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01. Unweighted samples are 2,291.

Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3.

59

Table A11a:
Future Working at Home Preferences, All, June 2020

Frequency of Working at Home,
Transition Status and Estimated
Productivity Change

Working at Home Preferences After Social Distancing(row percentages)
Never
Sometimes
Often
AlwaysFrequency of working at home (June 2020)
All of those working at home –10.5
sometimes, often or always
Sometimes
25.2

38.9

33.6

17.0

56.5

13.8

4.5

Often

14.9

49.1

32.7

3.4

Always

5.3

31.4

39.5

23.8

39.1

11.2

Established home-centred
2.3
13.9
41.3
workers
Estimated productivity change since working at home (all intensities)
Much higher
6.1
28.5
40.7

42.6

Much lower

Homeworking transition (January-February 2020 to June 2020)
New home-centred workers
7.9
41.9

Productivity change index

24.7

23.2

38.5

23.5

14.8

-0.49***-0.14***+0.14***+0.18***

Notes:
1. The table reports all workers aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey
and did at least some of their work at home (4,282 respondents – unweighted).
2. T-tests are used to determine whether the productivity change index is significantly different from zero, ***= p<0.01; ** = p<0.05; * = p<0.1.
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3.

60

Table A11b:
Future Working at Home Preferences, Employees, June 2020

Frequency of Working at Home,
Transition Status and Estimated
Productivity Change

Working at Home Preferences After Social Distancing(row percentages)
Never
Sometimes
Often
AlwaysFrequency of working at home (June 2020)
All of those working at home –11.8
sometimes, often or always
Sometimes
29.2

40.9

34.1

13.2

56.8

10.8

3.2

Often

17.2

49.8

30.9

2.1

Always

5.8

34.5

41.2

18.6

39.3

10.7

Established home-centred
3.0
17.4
45.5
workers
Estimated productivity change since working at home (all intensities)
Much higher
6.4
28.1
41.7

34.0

Much lower

Homeworking transition (January-February 2020 to June 2020)
New home-centred workers
8.3
41.7

Productivity change index

23.8

29.2

45.5

21.2

7.1

-0.46***-0.11**+0.22***+0.45***

Notes:
1. The table reports employees aged 16 and over who worked at least one hour in the week before the survey
and did at least some of their work at home (3,479 respondents – unweighted).
2. T-tests are used to determine whether the productivity change index is significantly different from zero, ***= p<0.01; ** = p<0.05; * = p<0.1.
Source: own calculations of the Understanding Society Covid-19 Study, wave 3.

61