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’”
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.
RoughSleeper
Dear Leon Wolfeson
As I said, no theories are involved, this has all been hard research.
Guest
Oh yes, spouting off nonsense is such hard work LB.
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.
RoughSleeper
Dear Leon Wolfeson
Oh dear.
So wrong on so many subjects!
Oh dear.
Oh dear.
Oh dear.