'JSA Sanctions and Disallowances', Evidence submitted to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee Inquiry into the Role of Jobcentre Plus in the reformed welfare system, Second Report of Session 2013-14, Vol. II, pp. Ev w90-w101

Abstract

This submission presents key findings to date from a critical examination of unemployment benefit sanctions and disallowances based primarily on statistical analysis. It shows that the severity of the regime has increased drastically under the Coalition and is increasing further. One fifth of JSA claimants have been sanctioned/disallowed, 4.2% per month of all claimants and 8% per month of those aged 18-24. Disallowances for ‘voluntary leaving’ and ‘losing a job through misconduct’ were previously a major component but have almost disappeared in the recession, with disallowances for (not) ‘actively seeking work’ showing a very big increase, and big increases also for non-participation in training (including the Work Programme) and non-compliance with a Jobseeker’s Direction. Severity is greater at times when it is least productive. A gap has been emerging in the treatment of white and minority ethnic groups, and disabled people are over-represented among repeat sanctions/disallowances. The reasons for these differences should be investigated. Although sanctions increase job search and exit from benefits, they cannot be justified when all their effects are considered. These include worse matches of people to jobs, lower productivity, wastefully large numbers of job applications, damage to health, families and relationships, homelessness, destitution as reflected in the rise of Food Banks, increased crime, diversion of Jobcentre resources from their proper role, and creation of a climate of fear and hostility which undermines the whole system. Sanctions, which are financial penalties intended to affect behaviour, should be abolished. Entitlement conditions have to be retained, but should be accompanied by a proper safety net for those disallowed, and an approach to influencing claimants, where justified, which is properly based on behavioural psychology, as pioneered by the Prime Minister’s ‘nudge unit’