Crisis warns of benefit sanction ‘hotspots’

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

Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for £5 a month?

17 Responses to “Crisis warns of benefit sanction ‘hotspots’”

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Guest

    What a mess of conspiracy theories!

  4. 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.

  5. Guest

    I’m sure there’s extinctions involved in that morass of theories.
    Or whatever.

  6. RoughSleeper

    Dear Leon Wolfeson

    As I said, no theories are involved, this has all been hard research.

    There is a world of difference between being, sat on a chair, in a bedroom, or office in Cheltenham, or wherever, eating pies and pop all-day, absorbing State issued bulletins, then criticising, and trolling, under a different name from that that you usually blog under, to the opposite world of hard work, research, genuine undercover testing, journalism, documenting, and reporting, and the solid knowledge gained from such. This knowledge can only be earned, by getting off your chair, and testing the State functions, at grass roots.

    Why have you chosen to Troll, using “As Guest”, instead of your Left Wing name on this post of “Leon Wolfeson”? Is this so that it doesn’t show up on your Leon Wolfeson posts, where your political cred would then be damaged? Do you have a left Wing Name, and a Right Wing name, so that you can post different sides with cred?

    Whatever the name for a State Troll, State should be subservient to Democracy, not the other way around!

    As I said get ‘Real knowledge’, by getting of that chair.

  7. RoughSleeper

    Dear Leon Wolfeson

    As I said, no theories are involved, this has all been hard research.

  8. Guest

    Oh yes, spouting off nonsense is such hard work LB.

  9. Guest

    Dear Lord Blagger –

    You continue your attempts to censor me, I see, as you try in this case to argue with a plain fact. Well, two there obviously, since you evidently are both a sadist and a capitalist.

    I also don’t use multiple usernames like your stable of them, so sorry. I hear your opposition to “ard work, research, genuine undercover testing, journalism, documenting, and reporting”, as you sit in Monaco and attack Britain.

  10. RoughSleeper

    Dear Leon Wolfeson

    Oh dear.

    So wrong on so many subjects!

    Oh dear.

    Oh dear.

    Oh dear.

  11. RoughSleeper

    What if! Just, What if!

    The above posts show the results of apathy in a population. People willing to have little angry shouts about the system, but, as in WW2 Germany, not really believing that anything bad is happening behind the scenes. “It could never happen here! This is Germany!”

    It appears that our politicians, as the public, don’t delve below the surface on any issue, and try to put everything into little tick boxes that have already been provided for them, by State.

    Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said:

    “The ISC has repeatedly shown itself as a simple mouthpiece for the spooks – so clueless and ineffective that it’s only thanks to Edward Snowden that it had the slightest clue of the agencies’ antics.”

    “’The committee calls this report a landmark for ‘openness and transparency’ – but how do we trust agencies who have acted unlawfully, hacked the world’s largest sim card manufacturer and developed technologies capable of collecting our login details and passwords, manipulating our mobile devices and hacking our computers and webcams?”

    “No doubt it would be simpler if we went along with the spies’ motto of ‘no scrutiny for us, no privacy for you’ – but what an appalling deal for the British public.””

    What if, the politicians are also as clueless, of the State, on all other issues?

    What if Shami Chakrabarti, was that clued up, on some of these agencies’ antics?

    What if, it could really be happening?

    What if! Just, What if!

  12. Guest

    Yea, I’m wrong in your world to;

    Be a moderate leftist
    Not hate workers.
    Support Britain.


    Thanks, Lord Blagger.

  13. Guest

    (PS, Your other account Sillyhester (or whatever)) just said *exactly* the same thing.
    There is no coincidence.

  14. RoughSleeper

    On second thoughts, stay on that chair.

  15. Guest

    Your personalities demand a link!
    Then you passive-aggressively demand I do it for free.

    Nope, pay up, Lord Blagger, if you want me to work for you. And of coyrse you’re so narked that I’m still posting here and you’re talking about wanting to censor me again.

    Along with your threatening blather, as usual.

  16. Leon Wolfeson

    Oh a blank post. Right.

Leave a Reply