tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/benefit-sanctions-34773/articlesBenefit sanctions – The Conversation2022-09-28T16:54:55Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1913782022-09-28T16:54:55Z2022-09-28T16:54:55ZUniversal credit changes: increasing pressure on part-time workers is the wrong move at the worst time<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/486834/original/file-20220927-26-hq3qol.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2312%2C1713&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The growth plan will require thousands more workers on universal credit to search for more work or face sanctions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bath-uk-october-5-2012-people-1694021932">1000 Words/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng has laid out the government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-announces-new-growth-plan-with-biggest-package-of-tax-cuts-in-generations">“mini budget”</a>, a package of tax cuts that will mostly benefit the wealthiest in Britain. But people on the other end of the income scale are facing changes too. </p>
<p>Kwarteng announced that those on universal credit will now face <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62989572">stricter requirements</a> to look for work or face their benefits being cut. People in part-time work will need to prove they are looking for more work. </p>
<p>For those of us who have spent years researching the benefits system and the impact of welfare reforms, our collective sigh was audible. This announcement contradicts countless studies showing that this kind of policy is ineffective and only increases pressure on people who are already struggling. As workers grapple with a devastating cost-of-living crisis, this renewed offensive on low-income households is the wrong move at the worst time. </p>
<p>Approximately 6 million people now claim <a href="https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit">universal credit</a>, a single monthly payment for people who are unemployed or on a low income. Of these claimants, around 2.3 million are <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-13-january-2022/universal-credit-statistics-29-april-2013-to-13-january-2022#:%7E:text=The%20number%20of%20people%20on%20Universal%20Credit%20in%20employment%20has,on%20Universal%20Credit%20has%20decreased.">in work</a>.</p>
<p>Claimants can be required to undertake job search and work-related activities for up to 35 hours per week. This is what’s known as conditionality – your eligibility to receive benefits is contingent upon you meeting certain conditions. </p>
<p>Historically, the UK benefits system has imposed conditionality on unemployed people (you must be actively looking for work to receive benefits). Universal credit expanded this when it was introduced in 2013, bringing out-of-work and in-work claimants into the same system, and requiring part-time workers to actively seek additional work. </p>
<p>Failure to comply with these expectations can result in a <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/benefit-sanctions-are-harmful-and-ineffective/">benefit sanction</a>, when benefits are stopped for a specified period – in some cases, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-sanctions-statistics-background-information-and-methodology/a">up to six months</a>.</p>
<p>The chancellor’s new growth plan requires people on universal credit who earn less than the equivalent of 15 hours a week at the national living wage to take steps to increase their earnings, or face benefit reductions. Previously, this was the case for people working nine hours a week or less, and was already set to increase to 12 hours this month. </p>
<p>This new move is anticipated to bring an additional 120,000 people into the government’s <a href="http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2021-0349/78_Intensive_Work_Search_regime_v19_0.pdf">intensive work search regime</a>, which usually involves weekly or fortnightly meetings with a work coach.</p>
<p>The government’s own research failed to deliver a compelling case for this policy change. A <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/739775/universal-credit-in-work-progression-randomised-controlled-trial-findings-from-quantitative-survey-and-qualitative-research.pdf">randomised control trial</a> conducted between 2015-18 found that after 52 weeks, people in an intensive in-work progression regime only earned an average of £5.25 more per week compared with workers who weren’t receiving additional support. A <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/739767/impact-assessment-universal-credit-in-work-progression-randomised-controlled-trial.pdf">further assessment</a> at 78 weeks suggested that there was no significant impact.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/universal-credit-is-built-around-flawed-incentives-that-are-doing-real-damage-fixing-it-is-essential-105202">Universal Credit is built around flawed incentives that are doing real damage – fixing it is essential</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The real effects of benefits sanctions</h2>
<p>Our <a href="http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/">research, carried out over a five-year period from 2013-2018</a>, demonstrates that sanctions-backed conditionality can be counterproductive and ineffective. We have <a href="https://theconversation.com/universal-credit-is-built-around-flawed-incentives-that-are-doing-real-damage-fixing-it-is-essential-105202">previously highlighted</a> the flaws in increasing conditionality for in-work claimants.</p>
<p>Pressuring low-paid, part-time workers to increase their hours or take on multiple jobs can have adverse physical and mental health impacts. Working parents in our research noted the strain of balancing work and home life, including the shortcomings and high costs of childcare, and a heavy reliance on family or friends to compensate for this. The dangers of taking away essential income from people during difficult times are evident.</p>
<p>When speaking to people on universal credit, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-social-policy/article/inwork-universal-credit-claimant-experiences-of-conditionality-mismatches-and-counterproductive-benefit-sanctions/82C05CC442F9EBA049E99E0523A9C3F0">we found</a> that many experienced increasing distress with the mounting pressure of in-work conditionality. Some even ended up leaving universal credit despite remaining eligible. This resulted in significant financial hardship. </p>
<p>An <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-progression-out-of-low-pay-a-call-to-action/supporting-progression-out-of-low-pay-a-call-to-action">independent review</a> commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in 2020 called for incentive-based approaches rather than sanctions. Baroness Ruby McGregor-Smith, who conducted the review, highlighted the need for investing in training, childcare and transport to enable people to progress. She also noted that JobCentres and other free or affordable support are primarily aimed at helping people into work in the first place – not to progress in work. </p>
<p>The government’s latest announcement is not just a concern for claimants. <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.13130">In recent research</a> with employers, businesses reported that they may not be able to offer more hours on a consistent basis, and raised concerns about how this policy would impact staff wellbeing and retention rates. </p>
<h2>Who will be hit hardest?</h2>
<p>The people most likely to be hit hardest by this policy are people who are already disadvantaged and struggling. Women, especially <a href="https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-motherhood-pay-gap-a-review-of-the-issues-theory-and-international-evidence(029c55cb-1a95-43e2-be6d-efbadfdcf2c4).html">mothers</a> and those with caring duties, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0950017007087420">disabled people</a> and some <a href="https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/bme-women-and-work">black and minority ethnic groups</a>, are often in part-time or lower-paid work, so are more likely to face these requirements. They are also at higher risk of underemployment and insecure jobs.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uks-work-first-approach-to-benefits-hurts-mothers-176074">The UK’s 'work-first' approach to benefits hurts mothers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The DWP’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-future-cohort-study-understanding-universal-credits-future-in-work-claimant-group/the-future-cohort-study-understanding-universal-credits-future-in-work-claimant-group#composition-and-characteristics">own analysis</a> shows that most in-work universal credit claimants likely to be brought under an in-work conditionality regime will be women (77%) and parents (70%), with over half (51%) expected to be lone parents. Nearly one-third (27%) will be disabled or limited by a health condition. </p>
<p>The department acknowledges that getting another job or advancing in their current job is difficult for people who have to balance work with caring responsibilities and health conditions. Placing more pressure on working claimants will amplify the disadvantages they already face, and the difficulties of contending with the cost-of-living crisis this winter.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191378/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Scullion has previously received funding from UKRI/ESRC</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katy Jones receives funding from the ESRC. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sharon Wright receives funding from UKRI/ESRC. </span></em></p>Requiring low-paid, part-time workers to increase their hours or take on multiple jobs can have adverse physical and mental health impacts.Lisa Scullion, Professor of Social Policy, University of SalfordKaty Jones, Research fellow, Manchester Metropolitan UniversitySharon Wright, Professor of Social Policy, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1760742022-02-10T16:08:04Z2022-02-10T16:08:04ZThe UK’s ‘work-first’ approach to benefits hurts mothers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445425/original/file-20220209-23-1t3zqhe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=55%2C15%2C5227%2C3500&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-beautiful-businesswoman-talking-on-mobile-1405812413">ErsinTekkol / Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Social security reform in the UK over the years has increasingly prioritised placing people in paid work, often using the threat of withholding benefits as an incentive to find a job. These systems pose particular challenges for unemployed mothers, and the new <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-jobs-mission-to-get-500-000-into-work">Way to Work campaign</a> is no exception.</p>
<p>When the government introduced universal credit in 2013, it increased the work preparation and job search requirements that parents have to carry out in order to receive benefits. Under the old social security system, single parents had to carry out a set number of job searching activities (like preparing a CV or contacting potential employers). This changed under universal credit, which instead requires them to dedicate a mandatory number of hours to job searching (up to 35 per week) or face benefits sanctions – the partial or complete withdrawal of benefit payments.</p>
<p>The government <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220177/universal-credit-wr2011-ia.pdf">touted universal credit</a> as an “opportunity to promote equality in work and narrow the employment gap”, as most of the parents who would be affected by these conditionality requirements were women. But work-first approaches like this actually contribute to gender inequality in the paid labour market, by compelling mothers to take the first available job regardless of compatibility with education, experience and caring responsibilities. </p>
<p>The focus in universal credit is getting claimants into any job quickly. Claimants used to be given three months to search for jobs in their previous occupation or sector. Under the new Way to Work campaign, this has been reduced to four weeks. At that point, if claimants do not look for work in another sector, their benefit payments could be cut or reduced.</p>
<p>This approach to getting people into any paid work quickly may be particularly harmful to mothers, who already have a weaker position in the labour market. Mothers are more likely to be in <a href="https://wbg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/FINAL-Female-Face-of-Poverty.pdf">low-paid, insecure jobs</a> like cleaning and catering. The gender pay gap (the difference in pay between men and women) <a href="https://ifs.org.uk/publications/10364">increases rapidly</a> for many women after they have children. The Resolution Foundation thinktank has <a href="https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/10/Great-Escape-final-report.pdf">also found</a> that compared to men, women particularly struggle to progress in paid work, probably because of caring responsibilities. By pressuring mothers to enter paid work quickly rather than helping them obtain sustainable jobs they are qualified for, mothers will face an even bigger challenge in advancing in the paid labour market.</p>
<p>In interviews with mothers receiving universal credit, I have found that when they entered paid work, it was mainly in low-paid, insecure, part time jobs, often below their qualification levels. The requirement to take “any work” was written on the participants’ claimant commitments, a document created at the start of the universal credit claim stating their work-related requirements. Participants were frequently reminded of the sanctions that could be issued if they did not fulfil these obligations. Many felt under significant pressure to obtain paid work quickly. As one coupled mother with two children explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You just think, ‘oh my God if I’m not doing everything in my power to be working’, and you know so you’ll just take on whatever work you can such as working away for a month or whatever, which is fine for some families but is not necessarily the right fit for us.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Exterior shot of a Job Centre Plus with parent holding the hand of a young child walking past" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445426/original/file-20220209-21-1tkpp6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445426/original/file-20220209-21-1tkpp6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445426/original/file-20220209-21-1tkpp6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445426/original/file-20220209-21-1tkpp6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445426/original/file-20220209-21-1tkpp6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445426/original/file-20220209-21-1tkpp6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445426/original/file-20220209-21-1tkpp6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Way to Work will force people to look for jobs outside of their expertise sooner, or face sanctions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/frome-uk-january-5-2017-exterior-559278979">1000 Words / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The lack of moves into adequately paid, sustainable jobs may be partly due to the emphasis in the universal credit system on ensuring claimants carry out their requirements rather than on providing specialist support in entering paid work. Women reported that they were offered minimal support in obtaining paid work. Instead, their appointments at job centres were mainly about checking they had met their requirements. One single mother with two young children said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think she [JobCentre Plus staff member] was to check things and just update the computer … rather than any kind of careers advice. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Stunted growth</h2>
<p>Mothers also told me that the work-related requirements in universal credit held them back from working towards their long-term work aspirations. One single mother who was undertaking a part time degree expressed frustration at the requirement to undertake paid work, as it got in the way of her studies, which she felt were important to her family’s long term financial situation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>That’s the one that’s having to take more of a back bench I’d say, which is not ideal is it, ‘cos that’s the thing that I really really need for our futures to be concentrating on. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This mother had to take some time out of her studies as she was overburdened by her responsibilities towards her three children, her studies and her work-related requirements. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0950017012460306">Other research</a> has also found that subjecting mothers to work-related requirements limits their opportunities for training and education. This is problematic given the importance of training and education to women’s ability to enter paid work and to their <a href="https://www.llakes.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/30.-Dorsett-Lui-Weale-final.pdf">long term earnings</a>. </p>
<p>Making mothers search for “any job” under the threat of sanction will not help improve gender equality in the paid labour market. Instead, mothers need specialist support in obtaining paid work that fits with their caring responsibilities and is helpful to their long term financial security.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/176074/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kate Andersen received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council to complete this research. </span></em></p>The Way to Work scheme will increase the pressure of benefits sanctions, which is particularly damaging for women and mothers.Kate Andersen, Research associate, Social Policy and Social Work, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1759742022-02-03T16:09:46Z2022-02-03T16:09:46ZWay to Work scheme: forcing people into jobs they aren’t suited for has damaging effects<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443862/original/file-20220201-22-7hf2w6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=14%2C155%2C4706%2C2972&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/westonsupermare-uk-august-26-2015-two-311273393">BasPhoto / Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK government has announced a new initiative to get 500,000 people into work and help fill the current record 1.2 million job vacancies in the economy. The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-jobs-mission-to-get-500-000-into-work">“Way to Work” campaign</a> promises to offer greater support to jobseekers and more engagement between the Department for Work and Pensions and employers, both welcome developments. </p>
<p>However, it will also use the threat of financial “sanctions” (in effect, fines) to force jobseekers on Universal Credit to look for work outside their chosen sectors more quickly. Previously, people had three months to look for jobs in their sector. Now, they will be forced to widen their search to employment fields where they lack experience or which they do not want, after just four weeks, or face having their benefits cut. This will be damaging and counterproductive not only to jobseekers, but to employers and the economy at large. </p>
<p>The number of unemployed people who are claiming benefits is up by 600,000 compared to before the pandemic. However, the <a href="https://learningandwork.org.uk/what-we-do/employment-and-social-security/labour-market-analysis/january-2022-18">labour force</a> has lost 1.1 million people –- almost twice as many – due to reductions in immigration, early retirements, people off sick, some converting into students and other reasons. There are also unemployed people who do not claim benefits. While this worker shortage is a much bigger problem, Way to Work will not address it, because of its narrow focus on the claimant unemployed. </p>
<p>However, the high turnover of unemployed claimants -– with <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/alternative-claimant-count-statistics-january-2013-to-august-2021/alternative-claimant-count-statistics-january-2013-to-august-2021">over 200,000 new claims per month</a> – does mean that the Way to Work policy will affect a lot of people.</p>
<h2>Sanctions and jobseekers</h2>
<p>Historically, the reason for a time limit on job searching within a preferred sector was the belief (based on anecdotal evidence rather than research) that after three months of unsuccessful trying, people’s chances of getting a job there were small. But four weeks is clearly too short from this point of view. Claimants will not even have received their first Universal Credit payment, and employers will scarcely have had time to complete the recruitment process. The main effect may well be to deter workers with significant skills or experience from claiming benefit at all. </p>
<p>Studies in <a href="https://personal.lse.ac.uk/petrongo/petrongolo_jpube_2009.pdf">Britain</a>, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jae.2289">Switzerland</a> and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sjoe.12051">Sweden</a> have found that sanctions push people into worse jobs, with lasting ill effects. The most recent official study in the UK, by the <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/report/benefit-sanctions/">National Audit Office</a>, found that while sanctioned unemployed claimants did indeed spend less time on benefits, they were just as likely to stop claiming as to get a job, and getting a job was at the expense of worse earnings prospects. For many people, the mere threat of sanctions will be enough to bring about these effects.</p>
<p>This is before we even consider the damaging effects on claimants who actually experience sanctions. <a href="https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/evidence-mounts-case-governments-sanctions-regime/">Physical</a> and <a href="https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/199036/">mental</a> ill health, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-social-policy/article/impact-of-welfare-benefit-sanctioning-on-food-insecurity-a-dynamic-crossarea-study-of-food-bank-usage-in-the-uk/9BDC098A9A432583859D6739C0A0DA0C">hunger</a>, <a href="https://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/homeless-experiences-welfare-conditionality-benefit-sanctions.pdf">homelessness</a>, <a href="https://www.moneyandmentalhealth.org/publications/suicide-and-debt/">debt</a> and “<a href="https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/portec/v5y2006i2p149-165.html">survival crime</a>”, have all been <a href="https://cpag.org.uk/policy-and-campaigns/briefing/benefit-sanctions">extensively documented</a> consequences. </p>
<p>There have been numerous studies on the impact of welfare conditionality and sanctions on different labour markets around the world. A <a href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/gmw9v/">comprehensive review</a> of findings, compiled by a University of Glasgow team, found that overall, sanctions positively impacted employment levels, but negatively impacted job quality and stability long term. They also found that sanctions led to increases in nonemployment and economic inactivity, as well as increased material hardship, health problems and sometimes, poorer child wellbeing. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Five people in professional dress sitting side by side in a queue for a job interview, some are reading CVs or drinking coffee" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/444037/original/file-20220202-19-33mtpb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/444037/original/file-20220202-19-33mtpb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444037/original/file-20220202-19-33mtpb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444037/original/file-20220202-19-33mtpb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444037/original/file-20220202-19-33mtpb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444037/original/file-20220202-19-33mtpb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/444037/original/file-20220202-19-33mtpb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sanctions might improve employment levels, but at the expense of long term stability and job quality.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/multiethnic-applicants-sitting-queue-preparing-interview-1022439355">fizkes / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Economic impact</h2>
<p>The policy will also be bad for the economy. Forcing people into less preferred jobs is bound to make for a worse match between applicant and job, in terms of knowledge, skills, experience and motivation: square pegs in round holes. It is obvious that neither employers nor consumers will be happy with this. Neither want workers whose heart is not in the job, and employers don’t want to waste time looking at unsuitable applicants. </p>
<p>There is also solid evidence that it will reduce economic efficiency and productivity. An <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/588585">American study</a> found that if people have greater resources to draw on while unemployed, they take more time to find a job – indicating that choosiness pays off. If a longer job search pays off for the individual, it will also do so for the economy. Other American studies from <a href="https://economics.mit.edu/files/5685">2000</a> and <a href="https://voxeu.org/article/unemployment-benefits-job-match-quality-and-labour-market-functioning">2021</a> found that availability of unemployment benefits increases total output and welfare in the economy as a whole.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/183161/">2018 paper</a> to the <a href="http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/40475_Welfare-Conditionality_Report_complete-v3.pdf">Welfare Conditionality Conference</a>, I pointed out that historically, major drives to impose financial penalties on jobseekers occurred during periods of recovery from recession. In a recovery, governments get impatient at the slow pace of unemployed people getting back into work. Higher-than-usual unemployment benefit claims also become an attractive target for cost savings. Sadly, Way to Work fits all too clearly into this pattern. It may save the government some money in the short term, but only at the expense of the longer term wellbeing of jobseekers and the wider economy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175974/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span><a href="mailto:david.webster@glasgow.ac.uk">david.webster@glasgow.ac.uk</a> is affiliated with Labour Party - ordinary member.</span></em></p>Evidence shows that benefits sanctions push people into worse jobs, with long term negative effects.David Webster, Honorary Senior Research Fellow, School of Social & Political Sciences, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1490482020-11-06T15:25:35Z2020-11-06T15:25:35ZThe UK welfare system is failing claimants with mental health problems – here’s what needs to be done<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367975/original/file-20201106-15-4bn08t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/ptsd-mental-health-concept-psychologist-sitting-1142776922">Chanintorn.v/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Mental health is a growing concern, with up to <a href="https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/mental-health.htm">one in two</a> people now thought to experience a mental health problem in their lifetime. Many working-age adults <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/better-mental-health-jsna-toolkit/6-working-age-adults">experience</a> problems like depression, anxiety, phobias or PTSD, which are <a href="https://research-portal.uws.ac.uk/en/publications/activation-health-and-wellbeing-neglected-dimensions">worsened</a> by unemployment. Yet there are striking discrepancies between UK welfare policy and the actual experience of benefit claimants with mental health problems. </p>
<p>Health and social security policy documents increasingly pledge to improve mental health and the government is trying to get more people with mental health issues <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/is-work-good-for-your-health-and-well-being">into work</a>. But in practice, mental health problems are often unrecognised, invalidated or actively <a href="https://meassociation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/wca-review-2012.pdf">harmed</a> by work capability assessments that block access to benefits and employment services.</p>
<p>Our <a href="http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/224227/1/224227.pdf">study</a> compared 15 recent policy documents with the experiences of 144 people with a range of mental health problems (including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, PTSD, schizophrenia and addictions) who either receive a benefit with work search conditions or are in employment. Many had multiple mental and physical health problems. </p>
<p>The results are clear: a troubling lack of trust, empathy and understanding is damaging vulnerable people by failing to understand the effect mental health issues can have on someone’s capacity to work.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q5nFEn_MXng?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Policy v experience</h2>
<p>UK benefits policy contains a positive message that mental health needs to be taken seriously. It calls for the need to increase support for people with mental health problems entering, sustaining and returning to employment. The Department of Health’s strategy “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/no-health-without-mental-health-a-cross-government-outcomes-strategy">No health without mental health</a>” claims: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mental health is central to our quality of life, to our economic success and interdependent with our success in improving education, training and employment outcomes and tackling some of the persistent problems that scar our society, from homelessness, violence and abuse, to drug use and crime. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Likewise, the Scottish government’s <a href="https://www.gov.scot/publications/mental-health-strategy-2017-2027/">mental health strategy 2017-2027</a> outlines: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Labour market policies should focus on assisting people with poor mental health to move from unemployment into employment, and public health and employment initiatives must focus on assisting people to stay in work.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Meanwhile, our research confirms that the experiences of people with mental health problems using the UK welfare system are largely negative and the pressure arising from conditions and sanctions exacerbate mental health problems.</p>
<p>This is poignantly testified by our research participants. Craig who is employed full-time and on universal credit, while dealing with depression and stress-related disorders, says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The only role they’ve had is just destroying my life, not bettering it. They’re just making is harder every time … It’s driving people to depression.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Thomas, who also has depression, an incurable virus and experience of domestic violence, is claiming employment and support allowance while unable to work. His health worsened after a benefit sanction that forced him into debt and he had to use food banks. Without income, he was unable to attend hospital for treatment. Thomas says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So you end up falling back into a deeper little hole. And then … that hole gets bigger and bigger and you’re stuck in it … I took an overdose because of the stress. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>UK policy largely assumes that a combination of support and sanctions motivates people to find employment or return to work. But participants repeatedly emphasised that this stick and carrot strategy does not work. This is the same for benefit claimants who do not have problems with poor mental health and needs to be urgently reconsidered by policymakers. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Job Centre Plus sign shot from below." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367926/original/file-20201106-17-dayss5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367926/original/file-20201106-17-dayss5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367926/original/file-20201106-17-dayss5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367926/original/file-20201106-17-dayss5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367926/original/file-20201106-17-dayss5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367926/original/file-20201106-17-dayss5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367926/original/file-20201106-17-dayss5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Research shows that working can help people’s health and mental wellbeing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-april-13-exterior-job-centre-87093956">1000 words/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Invisible mental health</h2>
<p>Participants complained that their mental health problems were rarely considered in the process of applying for and claiming benefits, such as in their work capability assessment or back-to-work activities. Those we spoke to were intimidated by work capability assessments that asked inappropriate questions while casting doubt over mental health conditions.</p>
<p>When it came to scoring their capacity for work, several participants discovered that no concession was made for their mental health problems and were found fit for work when they were not. Losing disability benefits means having to comply with pressure to find a job.</p>
<p>Their experiences expose the fact that the welfare system is designed to ignore mental health in practice. Everyday pressures and poverty arising from inadequate benefits and sanctions contribute to the worsening of mental health problems and actually serve to keep people away from employment. This was captured by our participant Rosie, who has depression and anxiety disorder: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I just wasn’t ready to work. I’d spent years … never in debt [then] had to leave my job and get another. I had several years of a downward spiral and, yes, being put in the group where … you’re kind of ready for work … that wasn’t the right category for me, which caused a lot of sanctions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The failure to properly take account of claimants’ mental health issues adds to the long list of failings that need to be addressed by central and devolved governments in their approaches to health, employment and social security. There is hope for improvements in Scotland, where back-to-work support services and some disability benefits are fully devolved. Positive statements in policy documents are welcome, but need to translate to real improvements for benefit claimants.</p>
<p>Trust must be rebuilt in social security. Mental health problems need to be properly identified and understood in terms of how they can affect a person’s capacity to work, and recognised in formal assessments of people’s needs. </p>
<p>Support needs to be empathetic and free from the threat of removing benefits. Government should enable appropriate interventions that help people with mental health problems. Specifically, individual placement and support should be fully available via UK and Scottish employability services.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149048/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sharon Wright receives funding from the Health Foundation and the Economic and Social Research Council.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alasdair Stewart receives funding from the Health Foundation, the Economic and Social Research Council, and the Global Challenges Research Fund.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Gawlewicz receives funding from the Health Foundation.</span></em></p>New research shows how the UK welfare system can worsen mental health problems.Sharon Wright, Professor of Social Policy, University of GlasgowAlasdair B R Stewart, Research Associate, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of GlasgowAnna Gawlewicz, Research Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1120892019-02-27T12:33:32Z2019-02-27T12:33:32ZSkint Britain: response to series about life on Universal Credit shows government is still not listening<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261220/original/file-20190227-150715-1uupvh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trevor, Tamsyn and Tracey: struggling to survive on Universal Credit. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Richard Ansett via Channel 4</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s customary to celebrate with cake. We all do it. Even the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Job Centre Plus offices across the country have been marking the roll-out of Universal Credit with big slabs of <a href="https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/universal-credit-stormont-cake-bill-15601218">cake</a>. But, for many people the introduction of Universal Credit, a new social security benefit replacing six previous benefits, is anything but cause for celebration. </p>
<p>The many flaws with the benefit are starkly depicted in Channel 4’s series <a href="https://www.channel4.com/programmes/skint-britain-friends-without-benefits">Skint Britain</a>, which explores just what living on Universal Credit can entail. The show follows people like David, forced to survive on £5 for a month after a benefit sanction, and Tracey who is unable to access support for her serious cancer prognosis. Their stories are mirrored in the wide and growing evidence documenting the hardship caused by Universal Credit, which is associated with <a href="https://www.trusselltrust.org/what-we-do/research-advocacy/universal-credit-and-foodbank-use/">rising food bank use</a> and can all-too often trigger <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/universal-credit_uk_5c2653fae4b08aaf7a901ba4">increased poverty</a> and even destitution. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/universal-credit-is-built-around-flawed-incentives-that-are-doing-real-damage-fixing-it-is-essential-105202">Universal Credit is built around flawed incentives that are doing real damage – fixing it is essential</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As the first episode of Skint Britain aired, the DWP’s press office issued a series of <a href="https://twitter.com/dwppressoffice/status/1095791806258786306">tweets</a>, which sought to sell Universal Credit as a positive and necessary step forward. </p>
<p>In one tweet, the DWP emphasised how Universal Credit’s system of monthly payments is designed to reflect the <a href="https://twitter.com/dwppressoffice/status/1095804183813517313">world of work</a>. Claimants are “helped” into the habit of monthly budgeting to better prepare them for the “reality” of life in paid work. However, as researchers have <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-policy-and-society/article/universal-credit-assumptions-contradictions-and-virtual-reality/4F8BC473BBBD6733F9A0E31D71051E8C">pointed out</a>, while the government says that three out of four employees are paid monthly, this means that one in four is not. While a fixed monthly salary is the common experience of employees in professional and managerial employment, the frequency of wage payments varies for those who work according to hourly rates and varying shift patterns while juggling caring commitments which don’t fit easily into the rigid monthly framework set by Universal Credit.</p>
<p>The DWP’s social media activity also flagged adjustments made to the benefit, such as the removal of the seven day waiting period before a claim can be made. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1095792684457963523"}"></div></p>
<p>But claimants still face <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-its-like-to-transition-on-to-universal-credit-85190">a minimum wait of five weeks</a> for their first payment. And five weeks can be a very long time to wait when you are living on no income. </p>
<p>While claimants can access a 100% advance during the five-week wait, any advances received must be repaid back over the subsequent year, which will reduce a person’s monthly entitlement and so often push them into further poverty. Only claimants who meet the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/universal-credit-advances">eligibility criteria</a> can receive advances. On Skint Britain, a DWP telephone advisor informs cancer patient Tracey that she is not eligible to receive an advance, and that she is out of options for monetary support. </p>
<h2>Not fit for purpose</h2>
<p>Further tweets from the DWP emphasised that <a href="https://twitter.com/dwppressoffice/status/1095794065260589059">benefit sanctions are a “last resort”</a>, and something which existed prior to Universal Credit. In fact, <a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/david-webster">statistical analysis</a> of rates of sanctions shows that Universal Credit has seen far higher frequency of sanctioning than under the six benefits that it replaces. Too often, people are sanctioned for what seem like minor infringements: simple mistakes which then have significant and long-lasting <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-universal-credit-perpetuates-the-false-equation-between-public-and-private-debt-105686">financial repercussions</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/two-real-life-accounts-of-the-effect-of-benefits-sanctions-46500">Two real-life accounts of the effect of benefits sanctions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There is a jarring disconnect between the reality of life for those in receipt of Universal Credit and the DWP’s efforts to draw a picture of a benefit that is fit for purpose. The newly appointed secretary of state for work and pensions, Amber Rudd, has promised to <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-19/debates/C08F7C18-E3D5-47DE-98AC-2CF0587FD472/OralAnswersToQuestions">listen “very carefully”</a> to concerns about Universal Credit. But the DWP’s response to Skint Britain appears to be a tone-deaf defence of the system, which is as dogmatic as it is unpersuasive. The official lines and simplistic presentation parroted in these tweets suggest that Rudd’s promise may amount to little more than political rhetoric. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260742/original/file-20190225-26177-ephxlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260742/original/file-20190225-26177-ephxlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260742/original/file-20190225-26177-ephxlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260742/original/file-20190225-26177-ephxlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260742/original/file-20190225-26177-ephxlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260742/original/file-20190225-26177-ephxlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/260742/original/file-20190225-26177-ephxlk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">David and his dog Benson featured Skint Britain.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Richard Ansett via Channel 4</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Sadly, this doesn’t give us much hope for the next stage of Universal Credit’s roll-out, which will move three million more claimants on to the new benefit. This process has been delayed to allow the DWP to “test and learn” from a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/amber-rudd-sets-out-fresh-approach-to-universal-credit">pilot of 10,000 claimants</a>. But the government fail to recognise the dissonance between the political assumptions on which Universal Credit is built and the reality of claimants’ lives. Paired with the <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Rolling-out-Universal-Credit-Summary.pdf">definitive evidence</a> that discredits its flawed approach to reform of the social security system, this makes us fear that very little is likely to change. </p>
<p>Rather than test and learn, the DWP needs to start to listen and learn. Listening to claimants themselves, such as those interviewed for Skint Britain, would be a very good place to start. Then, and only then, might the celebration of Universal Credit’s continued roll-out with cake seem like anything other than a very cruel joke.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112089/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ciara Fitzpatrick received funding for her PhD from the Department for Employment and Learning (Northern Ireland) between 2014 - 2018. She was also recently funded by the Legal Education Fund / Joseph Rowntree Foundation (alongside colleagues at Ulster University) to draft a report on "Destitution and Paths to Justice". She is currently a recipient of a small research grant from the Socio-Legal Studies to carry out an examination of "In-work conditionality and the ageing worker in Northern Ireland". </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ruth Patrick is currently working with Dr Mark Simpson and colleagues at Ulster University on a participatory research project looking at the rollout of Universal Credit in Northern Ireland, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Ruth is a member of the Labour Party. </span></em></p>Defensive responses on Twitter from the Department of Work and Pensions to the Channel 4 series Skint Britain appear tone-deaf.Ciara Fitzpatrick, PhD Candidate and Research and Policy Officer at Law Centre NI, Ulster UniversityRuth Patrick, Lecturer in Social Policy & Social Work, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1056862019-01-07T16:18:20Z2019-01-07T16:18:20ZHow Universal Credit perpetuates the false equation between public and private debt<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/251875/original/file-20181221-103660-161hsgw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What the 'credit' in Universal Credit actually means.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-women-worried-about-bills-789678214?src=yTFgisO_2_R7E_03ub5xaw-2-9">Fure/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The full roll out of Universal Credit, the government’s plan to collapse six welfare benefits into one, was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/05/amber-rudd-to-delay-universal-credit-roll-out-pilot-study">delayed in early January</a>. This followed mounting concerns by MPs and months of trenchant <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/benefit-sanctions-universal-credit-dwp-report-study-no-evidence-a8577061.html">criticism</a> of its design, including from the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Poverty/EOM_GB_16Nov2018.pdf">UN’s special rapporteur</a> on extreme poverty and human rights. </p>
<p>These criticisms are warranted and important. Yet the concept of Universal Credit, and its approach to debt, reveals something wider about the UK’s current political moment.</p>
<p>Taken at face value, Universal Credit has a seemingly innocent meaning. “Credit” simply means a payment made to your account. “Universal” means that it replaces previously separate benefits payments with a singular one that should fit all requirements. On this <a href="https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit">official</a> reading, the concept may invoke positive connotations of efficiency and solvency. </p>
<p>But people generally associate credit with a form of borrowing, which produces an interest-bearing debt. Under this interpretation, the repayment of a debt is taken to be a moral obligation – and this is relevant to Universal Credit.</p>
<p>Some may argue that Universal Credit is not a loan: no interest is charged, no debt is created, no underwriting takes place. Yet it nevertheless establishes a loan-like relationship to recipients who will be <a href="https://theconversation.com/constant-anxiety-of-benefit-sanctions-is-toxic-for-mental-health-of-disabled-people-105067">sanctioned</a> if they fail to meet the conditions set up in the “claimant commitment” each recipient must sign. The conditions are all about finding as much work as possible quickly. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/universal-credit-is-built-around-flawed-incentives-that-are-doing-real-damage-fixing-it-is-essential-105202">Universal Credit is built around flawed incentives that are doing real damage – fixing it is essential</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Public services become conditional</h2>
<p>The “credit” in Universal Credit is then not about an actual loan of money. It’s rather about a relationship of discipline and punishment similar to the relationship of debtor to creditor – a relationship of unequal power which supposedly generates moral obligations. </p>
<p>The idea here is that if people receive money through Universal Credit they do not do so primarily as a right, but as a form of performance-dependent loan to help them become “fit to work” and to start working. In this morality story, taxpayers prepay for your benefits so that you can repay this figurative debt by becoming a working taxpayer yourself. If you fail to comply with your “claimant commitments”, you become unworthy of their support. Then your means for subsistence will be reduced or withheld. </p>
<p>But it is not only money that these “debtors” are supposed to eventually pay back by becoming taxpayers. They also repay by submitting to a way of living in which everything becomes secondary to gainful employment. </p>
<h2>Fixation on private debt</h2>
<p>The reason why the creditor-debtor relationship is used as the model for the obligations of those who receive Universal Credit lies in the grip which the logic of private debt has on British politics.</p>
<p>Private debt is rightly a worry for many Britons. Millions of UK households currently have negative equity or rely on credit card debt or overdrafts to pay for essentials. Unsecured consumer credit, the type that’s not related to mortgages, is fast <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/18/uk-debt-crisis-credit-cards-car-loans">on the rise</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252639/original/file-20190107-32127-1y6knsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/252639/original/file-20190107-32127-1y6knsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252639/original/file-20190107-32127-1y6knsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252639/original/file-20190107-32127-1y6knsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252639/original/file-20190107-32127-1y6knsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252639/original/file-20190107-32127-1y6knsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/252639/original/file-20190107-32127-1y6knsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Public and private debt: not the same thing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/773824573?src=8KStCIohsomNgA8iNK62Lg-1-81&size=medium_jpg">John Williams RUS/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Public debt has been at the forefront of British politics at least since the onset of the recent great financial crisis in 2008. The austerity policies of recent UK governments were framed as a direct response to dangerous levels of public debt. The reduction of public spending was justified as necessary to avoid economic collapse. The consequences of these spending cuts are widely felt and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/16/women-austerity-poor-vulnerable-gender-inequality">disproportionately borne</a> by the disadvantaged and vulnerable. </p>
<p>At the same time, there has been an equation of public and private forms of debt. This equation works via transferring the idea of overspending that causes life-changing bankruptcy from your own household to the nation. As the then deputy prime minister, <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/full-text-nick-cleggs-speech-to-liberal-democratautumnconference-21236.html">Nick Clegg, put it</a> in 2010: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We can’t keep spending money as if nothing had changed … It’s the same as a family with earnings of £26,000 a year who are spending £32,000 a year. Even though they’re already £40,000 in debt. Imagine if that was you. You’d be crippled by the interest payments.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>With this equation, any pound spent on welfare is a pound added to the debt tally that urgently needs to be reduced. Under this logic, welfare payments should therefore be cut as much as possible. Any pound spent on welfare that cannot be cut should be tied to as strong an expectation as possible that it will be repaid – in some form or other – like a private loan. </p>
<h2>A misplaced equation</h2>
<p>But the equation hides the differences between public and private debt. States which have sovereignty over their currency such as the UK (and unlike members of the Eurozone) cannot become insolvent like private households. They can always issue more currency to remain solvent. Under some circumstances the issuing of currency can lead to inflation but that is a different question, to which a <a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Philosophy-of-Debt/Douglas/p/book/9781138929746">more complex answer</a> than “balance the budget or go bust” is in order. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/two-real-life-accounts-of-the-effect-of-benefits-sanctions-46500">Two real-life accounts of the effect of benefits sanctions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The concept of Universal Credit illustrates the fixation on debt in current British politics. This fixation supports the ongoing shift from a period when public services were considered as a right, to the point where they are received conditionally, on “credit”. </p>
<p>To become free of this fixation, people should spend more time trying to <a href="https://www.luminosoa.org/site/books/10.1525/luminos.14/">understand public debt</a> and <a href="https://positivemoney.org/publications/#1504779308350-888031e1-fb67">money creation</a>. Doing so would not only be useful for assessing arguments for austerity and conditional welfare. It could also help expand the limits of what kinds of politics are “economically” possible after all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105686/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Janosch Prinz receives funding from The Leverhulme Trust. </span></em></p>The concept of Universal Credit reveals something wider about the UK’s current political fixation on debt.Janosch Prinz, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow, University of East AngliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/851902017-10-05T08:36:38Z2017-10-05T08:36:38ZWhat it’s like to transition on to Universal Credit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188767/original/file-20171004-6702-1rv1uz4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government has rejected calls for the rollout of the one-stop benefit to be paused. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">via shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Originally designed with the intention of “making work pay” by smoothing out transitions between paid work and welfare, Universal Credit is now being widely criticised for failing to deliver on its promises. Despite calls by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/29/universal-credit-rollout-should-be-paused-tory-mps">a group</a> of Conservative MPs for the next phase of the welfare benefit’s rollout to be paused, in early October the work and pensions secretary David Gauke <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/02/heidi-allen-tory-mp-theresa-may-universal-credit">said</a> it would go ahead as planned. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit">Universal Credit</a> replaces six means-tested welfare benefits (Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support, Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and Housing Benefit) with a single monthly benefit payment. This payment varies, dependent on an individual’s earnings the previous month. </p>
<p>Each Universal Credit recipient has to agree a “claimant commitment” with their adviser or job coach, which can include requirements to undertake up to 35 hours of job search and training per week. Benefit sanctions are applied for non-compliance. For the first time, Universal Credit has extended welfare conditionality to low-paid workers in receipt of in-work benefits such as tax credits and housing benefit. This means claimants have to attend mandatory appointments in order to keep receiving the benefit – even if they already work. </p>
<p>Although some supporters of Universal Credit argue that many of the current issues are indicative of a social security system undergoing a significant transition, our ongoing <a href="http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/">research project</a> on welfare conditionality points to more systemic failings in how the new system is designed and implemented.</p>
<p>New claimants face a wait of up to six weeks before they receive an initial payment but some respondents in our study spoke of longer waits due to administrative errors and delays. While waiting, people are routinely left with little or no money for basic necessities like food and rent payments and consequently fall into debt.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/648831/universal-credit-payment-advances-statistical-ad-hoc.pdf">Department for Work and Pensions</a> about half of all claimants living in areas where Universal Credit has been fully rolled out receive an advance payment. While these are available to help tide people over during the waiting period, they are discretionary and only available as repayable loans deducted from any future payments. This leaves recipients in the difficult position of having to live on a reduced income moving forward, potentially worsening budgeting problems between monthly payments.</p>
<p><iframe id="uRZe1" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/uRZe1/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Changes to the system</h2>
<p>Rising debt problems have been further compounded by three further significant changes in how Universal Credit operates, compared to the benefits it replaces. First, many have struggled with the switch from fortnightly to monthly payments. During our interviews, one recipient in Scotland told us:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Hate this monthly pay. I don’t know how people survive on it. It was easier when you were getting paid fortnightly. At least you just had to get fortnight to fortnight. Getting it monthly, and then you’ve got all your bills coming out of it a month, and then you’re looking at £80-odd, or £100 for the month.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Scotland has just introduced <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-is-changing-the-way-universal-credit-is-paid-to-help-people-budget-85135">new regulations</a> allowing Universal Credit to be paid fortnightly. </p>
<p>Second, payment of the housing element of Universal Credit directly to the claimant, rather than the old system of directly to the landlord, has significantly increased rent arrears among vulnerable people. For those who are struggling to make ends meet or who have been sanctioned, the rent doesn’t get paid.</p>
<p>Third, many claimants are also struggling to get to grips with the variations in Universal Credit payment that occur each month. Because the benefit is paid in arrears, based on earnings for the previous month, the system assumes that moving forward any earnings from work will be at the same level the next month, with the amount adjusted up or down depending on previous monthly earnings. However, this is routinely not the case for a lot of people on flexible or zero-hours contracts. One in-work recipient of Universal Credit in Bath told us:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I’ve got rent arrears [£2,500] and just trying to sort of like survive, I can’t do it on my weekly payments… that’s when I’m working… I’m not sat on benefit waiting to get benefits… I’ve got no Universal Credit this month because apparently I earned too much.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Counter-productive consequences</h2>
<p>Beyond these significant debt-related issues, it is surely time for a more fundamental rethink about whether welfare conditionality should be applied to people who are working but receiving Universal Credit. Requiring those already in work to attend interviews with job coaches under pain of sanction is plainly counter-productive. It does not meet with the needs of employers who want people to be at work rather than discussing options in Jobcentres, and it is a nonsense for a policy that is supposed to encourage engagement with paid employment to be sanctioning people for not attending interviews because they are working. As one in-work Universal Credit recipient from Manchester told our researchers:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I rang them up to say that I couldn’t come in because I was working full-time. So they said that was all right. Then I got a letter saying I’d missed my interview and they’ve taken me off Universal Credit. So I thought, you know what, just stuff you. I can’t be bothered with them anymore… So, basically, mostly I’ve struggled because I just can’t be doing with them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For some recipients in our study, Universal Credit appeared to be working well. One man in Bath outlined how the mandatory training he had received helped him into work. He also said that for him, the monthly top-ups to his variable pay were helpful. That said, such voices were very much in the minority.</p>
<p>While we support the heightened calls for a pause in the rollout of Universal Credit, a more systematic rethink of the benefit is also required for it to be able to address the unintended outcomes and issues we’ve heard about in our research. Only then might Universal Credit start to deliver real social security in the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85190/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Dwyer receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for research on welfare conditionality. He is a member of the Labour Party's Social Security Commission. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sharon Wright receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for research on welfare conditionality. </span></em></p>The rollout of the new benefit system will not be paused – but it is causing real hardship.Peter Dwyer, Professor of Social Policy, University of YorkSharon Wright, Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/749692017-03-31T09:46:49Z2017-03-31T09:46:49ZNew welfare reforms put extra pressure on single parents to enter paid work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162958/original/image-20170328-3812-2t4mr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Do you have to go?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">via shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Parents of children as young as three will now be expected to seek paid employment if they want to receive state benefits as part of a package of welfare reforms implemented in April 2017. These changes prioritise work in the formal labour market, but neglect the very hard work that parenting also entails. </p>
<p>Successive governments have sought to push people claiming out-of-work benefits from <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/welfare-reform">“welfare” into “work”</a>. Single parents <a href="http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Briefing_LoneParents_14.09.10_FINAL.pdf">have been targeted</a> in this effort, with a particular reliance on “welfare conditionality” – the attachment of work-related conditions to the receipt of benefits. For example, people who claim Jobseeker’s Allowance are expected to seek work and to take steps to become “work-ready”. Failure to comply with these conditions can lead to a sanction where benefits are suspended.</p>
<p>When Income Support was first introduced <a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/lone-parents-and-access-means-tested-benefits">in 1988</a>, single parents were entitled to claim social security support until their youngest child was 16 years of age. Since 2008, this age limit has steadily declined. </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-e6gJ5" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/e6gJ5/6/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="300"></iframe>
<p>In the latest change implemented <a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/changes-welfare-reform-and-work-act-2016">in April 2017</a>, single parents claiming <a href="https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/overview">Universal Credit</a> will have to actively seek and be available for work when their youngest child turns three. Parents of even younger children will now also face conditions to prepare for work, such as requirements to attend interviews at job centres from when their youngest child is just 12 months old. These changes apply both to single parents and to parents who are part of a joint claim with a partner.</p>
<p>The push to get parents into paid employment is backed up by the ever-present threat of benefit sanctions. Unfortunately, this both serves to devalue the work that parenting involves and can have perverse and negative consequences for those affected. The government justifies the change, arguing that it is increasing entitlement to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thousands-of-parents-benefit-from-30-hours-free-childcare-early">free child care</a>. But this argument fails to recognise the <a href="https://theconversation.com/childcare-market-is-failing-to-provide-parents-with-choice-and-quality-61123">shortcomings</a> with available child care, such as poor choice and inflexible hours, as well as the fact that a parent’s right to choose to prioritise their parenting work is being removed, at least for those who are reliant on out-of-work benefits. </p>
<h2>Parenting pushed aside</h2>
<p>In my <a href="https://policypress.co.uk/for-whose-benefit">recent research</a> into experiences of welfare reform, I spoke to single parents affected by increased welfare conditionality. Susan* had recently fled domestic violence. She was looking for employment that could be combined with the care of her young daughter. Despite actively seeking work, Susan explained that job centre advisers often treated her without respect and undermined the parenting work which she was undertaking. She described what happened when she tried to change an appointment to sign on for Jobseeker’s Allowance that clashed with her daughter’s swimming lesson:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[The adviser said] ‘Sorry, we cannot accept such excuses’. I said ‘It’s not an excuse’ … Because it’s not easy for me, to pay like £50. And then the man came as well, and he said ‘do you know that your priority is attending these appointments?’ I said: ‘I don’t think so’. I said: ‘My priority is being a mother’. Because whether I’m drawing Jobseeker’s Allowance, whether Income Support, nothing, my daughter will always be there. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Susan was crying as she told me this. Her own priorities as a mother were not recognised by the welfare conditionality regime and the job centre’s insistence that she put her work-related obligations first. Susan was terrified that she might be sanctioned and would then not be able to feed and clothe her daughter. </p>
<p>This was the experience of another mother I spoke to, Chloe*, who had her benefits stopped for four weeks when she failed to attend a routine appointment at the job centre. This meant very real and immediate hardship for her and her two young children: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Four weeks with no money is pretty alarming when you’ve got kids and bills and a house to run…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>After the sanction, Chloe’s mental health deteriorated rapidly, and she struggled to cope with day-to-day life. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We’re paupers, we’re so poor. It’s like we’re living in – you know where you see all these adverts – please feed our children – feed my bloody children…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The threat of benefit sanctions for single parents is mirrored in new measures targeting at other groups of benefit claimants, such as jobseekers and disabled people. From April 2017, as part of a new “<a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/252/pdfs/uksiem_20170252_en.pdf">Youth Obligation</a>”, most 18 to 21-year-olds will be mandated to apply for training or participate in work placements after six months on Universal Credit. If they fail to do so, they will lose eligibility for state financial support. In another change, some disabled people will see their <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/03/cut-to-disability-benefits-may-make-return-to-work-harder-claim-mps">benefit rates</a> fall by £30 to the same level as Jobseeker’s Allowance. </p>
<p>The government’s current policies now rely on conditionality and sanctions as a matter of course. But by encouraging parents of ever younger children to move from welfare into work, they are rendering invisible the parenting work in which these parents are already engaged. Such policies prevent parents from being able to choose when and how to return to paid employment and are a punitive and clumsy intervention. </p>
<p>Most single parents do want to combine their parenting work with some form of paid employment, but what they need is properly tailored support, flexible jobs and high-quality child care – not compulsion and the constant threat of benefit sanctions. To be effective, policies need to start with a recognition and engagement with parents’ own aspirations and perspectives on their responsibilities. </p>
<p>* <em>Names have been changed to protect the identities of those in the study.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74969/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ruth Patrick received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council to complete this research. She is a member of the Labour Party.</span></em></p>From April, single parents will have to look for work when their youngest child turns three.Ruth Patrick, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/711242017-01-11T11:20:14Z2017-01-11T11:20:14ZAre the rich really getting poorer and the poor getting richer?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152364/original/image-20170111-6440-vt5o1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Prazis/www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The median UK household is better off. The poorest households are doing even better than the median, and the richest households have been the greatest losers. At least that’s one way to read the <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016#median-disposable-income-falls-for-the-richest-fifth-of-households-over-the-past-year">headline statistics</a> put out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on January 10 in a new report on household disposable income and inequality.</p>
<p>Yet exactly the same statistics could have been reported in a very different way. In fact, while the poorer 90% of UK households have seen their equality of income improve, all these households are now receiving less in real terms because of the fall in the value of the pound, and this report says nothing about the best-off 10% of households.</p>
<p>Let’s take the three groups, the average, the poorest, and the richest, one by one.</p>
<h2>The average household</h2>
<p>Does the median UK household now really have more disposal income than a year earlier? Here, the dates being compared are the financial year up to April 2016 compared with the financial year ending in April 2015. According to the ONS, that median disposal income is now £26,300, compared to £25,700 a year earlier. The government statisticians say this is the case after they have accounted for inflation and changes to household composition.</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-NDwcu" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/NDwcu/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The disposable income being described by the ONS is income after taxes have been paid and benefits have been received – but it is before housing costs have been deducted. So where rent and the cost of buying a home has risen those rises are not been taken into account.</p>
<p>Average UK house prices <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/april2016">rose by 8.2%</a> in the year to April 2016. Rents have been rising by similar amounts and fewer young couples are setting up home. If this housing crisis means that fewer grown-up children are able to leave home, household composition would alter and the average household would look a little better off overall because that grown-up child might well have an income. </p>
<h2>The poorest households</h2>
<p>The incomes of the country’s poorest households – in the bottom fifth of the income distribution – have increased. This is because unemployment has fallen and even very low-paid work pays more than most benefits (if you can get enough hours). However, the reason unemployment has fallen in recent years is because of the most draconian application of benefit sanctions ever applied in the history of the UK. </p>
<p>In 2013, over one million people <a href="http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-10-27-strong-link-between-increased-benefit-sanctions-and-higher-foodbank-use">were sanctioned</a>, losing benefits that amounted to more than all the fines handed out by sheriff’s courts in Scotland and magistrates courts in England and Wales for all the actual crimes committed that year.</p>
<p>What the imposition of sanctions at unprecedented rates showed was that it is possible to reduce unemployment by taking away benefits. To survive, people are forced to take any work that they can possibly find, or move in with relatives or with anyone that will give up a sofa. </p>
<p>This employment growth has resulted in the apparent disposable income of the median household in the worse-off fifth of households appearing to rise by £700 a year, or just over £13 a week. However, for those households in which an extra adult is now working, the cost of actually getting to work every day, of the clothing needed for that work, and the loss in time to care for others (such as children) will be more than that £13 weekly rise.</p>
<h2>The richest households</h2>
<p>At the same time, the ONS reports that the median income for the best-off fifth of households fell by £1,000 last year. But crucially, this is their median income, and the incomes of the better-off half of all those households are ignored. There is actually greater income inequality in the best-off fifth than between all the other 80% of households put together. Within the best-off tenth, inequalities are huge, with the top 1% of households receiving roughly the same income as the next 9%.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/budget/514">Information</a> on changes to national insurance contributions and child benefit payments, have shown us that most people in the best-off tenth will not have fared well either. But other statistics on the incomes of some of the very best-off (such as top paid bankers) also reveal that those in the very richest 1% have done well over this period.</p>
<p>The number of British bankers paid over a million Euros a year <a href="http://www.eba.europa.eu/-/eba-reports-on-high-earners-and-the-effects-of-the-bonus-cap">rose</a> from 3,178 to 3,865 in 2014. There is no reason to believe that has reduced. In fact, preliminary figures for 2015 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/28/wall-street-banks-city-staff-executive-pay-bonuses-2015">revealed</a> that 971 people working in just four of the large US banks in London received more than a million Euros in pay in 2015, with 11 working for Goldman Sachs getting more than 5m Euros each. </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-MCUxH" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/MCUxH/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="350"></iframe>
<p>For the poorer 90% of households in the UK, with total household incomes below £53,448 a year, economic inequalities are falling. But they are falling because the people who are poorest are being forced into work that they would not do if they had any choice. They are falling because benefits such as child benefit are no longer universal (top rate tax payers no longer qualify). Or possibly because it is harder and harder for young adults to leave the family home and statistical adjustments for household composition are not sophisticated enough to account for such changes. </p>
<p>Most people are not really financially better-off, other than a tiny proportion of the population in the top 1% who are not even included in these statistics. Most people becoming a little more equal (while a few become very much better off) – as living costs are about to rise even further due to inflation – is not a good news story.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71124/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Danny Dorling does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New ONS data indicate that the UK’s poorest households are doing better and the richest are worse off. But this isn’t the full picture.Danny Dorling, Halford Mackinder Professor of Geography, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.