Welfare conditionality is ineffective, authors of major study say
Issued: Tue, 22 May 2018 14:10:00 BST
Welfare conditionality within the social security system is largely ineffective and in some cases pushes people into poverty and crime, a major study involving the University of Glasgow has found.
Welfare conditionality links eligibility for welfare benefits and services to responsibilities or particular patterns of behaviour, under threat of sanction for non-compliance. It has been a key element of welfare state reform in many countries since the mid-1990s.
Supporters say the use of sanctions and support is an effective way of weaning people off benefits and into paid work, or addressing anti-social behaviour.
However, critics argue that behavioural conditionality is largely ineffective in promoting paid employment and personal responsibility, and is likely to exacerbate social exclusion among disadvantaged populations.
The WelCond project, led by the University of York and involving the Universities of Glasgow, Sheffield, Salford, Sheffield Hallam and Heriot-Watt, analysed the effectiveness, impact and ethics of welfare conditionality from 2013-2018.
Dr Sharon Wright, a University of Glasgow Senior Lecturer in Public Policy and a co-investigator on the study, said: “Our five year study followed 481 social security recipients over two years.
“We found that sanctions have universally negative impacts. Support is largely self-help or ineffective.”
The findings are based on repeat longitudinal interviews undertaken with people in England and Scotland and drawn from nine policy areas, including Universal Credit, disabled people, migrants, lone parents, offenders and homeless people.
Key findings include:
- Little evidence welfare conditionality enhanced people’s motivation to prepare for or enter paid work
- Some people pushed into destitution, survival crime and ill health
- Benefit sanctions routinely triggered profoundly negative personal, financial and health outcomes
The mandatory training and support is often too generic, of poor quality and largely ineffective in enabling people to enter and sustain paid work
The report quotes a homeless man who says he was forced into drug dealing due to welfare conditionality, while a disabled woman said she “sunk into depression” as a result of benefit sanctions.
The authors of the report say it is time for a “comprehensive review” of the use of welfare conditionality.
Professor Peter Dwyer, from the University of York’s Department of Social Policy and Social Work, said: “Our review reveals that in the majority of cases welfare conditionality doesn’t work as intended and we have evidence it has increased poverty and pushed some people into survival crime.
“What also became apparent was people were focusing on meeting the conditions of their benefit claim and that became their job – it is totally counter-productive. You are just making people do things to meet the conditions of the claim rather than getting them into work.”
“Successive governments have used welfare conditionality and the ‘carrot and stick ’ it implies to promote positive behaviour change.
“Our review has shown it is out of kilter, with the idea of sanctioning people to the fore. It is more stick, very little carrot and much of the support is ineffective.”
Other key recommendations include:
- Reduce the severity of sanctions
- Job search support and employment and skills training need to be significantly improved
- The wider application of welfare conditionality within the benefit system for disabled people, homeless people and other vulnerable people, such as those with drug or alcohol dependency, should be paused
The study was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is part of UK Research and Innovation, a non-departmental public body funded by a grant-in-aid from the UK government.
Welfare Conditionality: Sanctions, Support and Behaviour Change (WelCond) analyses the effectiveness, impacts and ethics of welfare conditionality, and the sanctions and mandatory support that underpin this approach, across a range of welfare domains.
The project draws on analyses of qualitative data generated in interviews with 52 policy stakeholders, 27 focus groups conducted with practitioners, and 1082 repeat qualitative longitudinal interviews undertaken with welfare service users in England and Scotland (481 at wave a). Of these, 339 were interviewed on two or three occasions across a two year period. Interviewees were drawn from nine policy areas: jobseekers, Universal Credit (UC) recipients, disabled people, migrants, lone parents, offenders, social tenants, homeless people, and those subject to anti-social behaviour (ASB) interventions and Family Intervention Projects (FIPs).