Work is not a guaranteed route out of poverty, according to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The way employers organise their workforces, and the support people receive to remain and progress in their jobs, are key factors.

The charity found that many people slipped in and out of poverty because they moved repeatedly between unemployment and low-paid, temporary work. Employers in industries with fluctuating and often seasonal demand - such as food processing, packing, cleaning, childcare and leisure - could offer a better mix of permanent and temporary employment opportunities without jeopardising their business, the study found.

The public sector should use its purchasing power to favour companies that offered greater job security, the researchers said. Getting people off benefits and into work had been a key part of the government's drive to tackle poverty, and work "does remain the best defence against poverty", the foundation said.

However, this applied primarily to those with permanent contracts who had the chance of promotion or a pay rise.

Even before the recession about a fifth of those in poverty were moving between work and unemployment, and entering work could not provide a sustainable route out of poverty "if job security, low pay and lack of progression [once in work] are not also addressed", the foundation said.

The need to ensure that work was lasting and supported had been recognised in welfare-to-work contracts, which pay providers for keeping people in work for at least 26 weeks. But the way employers organised their workforces also played "an important role in the low-pay, no-pay cycle".

The research looked at how employers in 26 sectors with fluctuating demand organised their workforces. Each typically offered the low-paid low-skill jobs that were often a first step into the labour market.

Some companies had a "permanent" workforce model, with few temporary staff.

Demand fluctuation was handled by overtime and multi-skilling so that people carried out different jobs at different times. Others employed mainly temporary workers.

Although the researchers had not undertaken a full economic analysis, it was "striking" that there appeared to be little difference in the effectiveness of the companies.

They suggested that some employers "could offer greater job security with-out jeopardising their business".

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.