Another report into the punitive sanctions system shows geographical variations in the number of jobseekers being cut off
The homelessness charity Crisis has warned today of a ‘postcode lottery’ with benefit claimants in some parts of the country being much more at risk of sanctions.
Last week a damning report by a coalition of UK churches exposed the human cost of the sanctions system, which it found to be cruel, arbitrary and poorly administered. The research showed a map of ‘hotspots’ where benefits sanctions were most likely to be implemented, and highlighted how sanctioned claimants found themselves at risk of homelessness.
The report, Benefit Sanctions and Homelessness – conducted for Crisis by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University – found that in Richmondshire in North Yorkshire, there were 15.4 sanctions for every 100 Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) claimants.
This was the highest in the country, followed by Test Valley, Southampton, Cheltenham and Fareham. Most local authorities had a rate of somewhere between four and eight sanctions per 100 claimants.
The report also provided evidence of large numbers of unfair or inappropriate decisions, with particular concern over the impact on homeless people. It warned that many people who were sanctioned had mental and physical health problems, a history of domestic violence or poor literacy and IT skills, making it harder for them to meet the conditions set out for claiming JSA.
Meanwhile the report looked at evidence suggesting that sanctions could increase people’s risk of becoming homeless, leaving them struggling with debt and without enough money for food, rent or heating.
Crisis suggested that geographical variations may be linked to Jobcentre Plus districts, and the areas that were more advanced in trialing and implementing Universal Credit and the Claimant Commitment. For example, Work Programme providers were divided into East and West London, and there was a clear split between the percentage of sanctions handed out in the east and west of the capital.
The report’s author Dr Kesia Reeve, of Sheffield Hallam University said:
“This evidence review raises serious questions about the appropriateness, effectiveness, and consequences of benefit sanctions, particularly for homeless people.
“The evidence at present is limited, but points clearly to a system that is more punitive than it is supportive and that fails to take into account the barriers homeless people face.
“The scale and magnitude of sanctions is startling, as is the wide variation found across the country. Over the coming year we will be building a robust evidence base, so that informed debate can take place about the appropriateness and effectiveness of welfare conditionality and benefit sanctions in the context of homelessness.”
Crisis warned that sanctions could lead to food poverty, forcing people to cut back on food, resort to food banks and even shoplift for food. They also said that sanctions could be counterproductive because they made it harder for people to find work. Sanctioned people may not be able to afford to travel or buy suitable clothes, and they may in addition feel extremely unmotivated and tempted to disengage from the system.
Crisis chief executive Jon Sparkes urged the next government to “commit to an urgent, wide-ranging review looking at the appropriateness and effectiveness of sanctions, especially for people at risk of or experiencing homelessness”.
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
17 Responses to “Crisis warns of benefit sanction ‘hotspots’”
Leon Wolfeson
Sanctions are *designed*, as stated in Government internal documents, to damage the health of people on them.
They’re only ever appropriate, thus, to sadists and capitalists.
RoughSleeper
Boots on the ground reply:
The problem with these big national charities, and their ‘news advert’ stories, is
the link in the story, that will lead us to their donation page.
It would be better if all charity money given, went to the little local genuine
charities of the towns of the givers, so that the money goes to a charity that
does actual work, and provides food, for us, rather than copying & making
statistics, to make free ‘news adverts’, to get money, to inflate their salaries
in London, and are nowhere to be seen locally, where the need is.
Ask your local ‘genuine’ RoughSleepers (the ones sheltering in the museums,
galleries, libraries, cinemas), who does most for them, and who Hoover up money,
away from their towns, and away from them. Big is not necessarily good. You will
find that some charities are genuine, some are ‘get rich’ businesses, sponging on
our backs, operating from a distance, and not in contact with us.
The big national ‘cut & pasting’, ‘statistic juggling’ charities, are advertising
companies, on extremely large salaries, that ‘bleed dry’ all the goodwill from
every town in Britain, so that there is nothing left for the little local
‘genuine’ charities that actually help us.
The help that they give, is inversely proportional to the noise that they make.
The small local charities, are run by quiet angels.
Many RoughSleepers were Whistleblowers, Pro Democracy, HR, and Justice
Campaigners, that fight for the rights for all UK public, and were unlawfully put
out of their homes, by state, to cut them off from their privileged paperwork, to
prevent cases going ahead.
They are not allowed state benefits, unless they agree to drop their cases. They
are not allowed Foodbank food, unless the same.
They have to live on Scrapee from dustbins to survive.
The big charities are controlled by the state charity watchdog. The big charities will not give up their salaries to actually help us.
Try getting a sandwich from Crisis, as I have!
Crisis say: “Crisis warned that sanctions could ‘lead’ to food poverty, forcing people to cut back on food, resort to food banks, and even shoplift for food.”
Either they are gaga, or are misleading the public.
Guest
What a mess of conspiracy theories!
RoughSleeper
No theory involved. Boots on the ground. Tested to extinction. Recorded everything, including all emails, and correspondence. No cop outs left for the State. Democracy is not what it used to be.
Expose the State, see what happens to you! Then get off your chair, put down your wallet, pick up a blanket, and test your ability to survive against the State, and, test the alleged support, and where any help really comes from.
If they did not respect Harold Wilson’s right to democracy, they wont respect you!
Look forward to seeing you not crumble up, and go to pieces, when you are thus off that chair, and tested.
Guest
I’m sure there’s extinctions involved in that morass of theories.
Or whatever.