Homeless Action Scotland
14th National Homelessness Conference
Edinburgh - 21 November 2013
Sanctions and Homelessness
David Webster
Urban Studies
University of Glasgow
Outline
• Huge increase in number & length of
sanctions under Coalition
• Strong evidence that a high proportion are
unreasonable, unlawful and pointless
• Lack of independence of DWP decisionmaking and useless appeal system
• Impact on claimants in general
• Specific impacts on homelessness and on
homeless
• What can be done?
The tightening sanctions regime
• One fifth (19%) of all JSA claimants Apr 2007Mar 2012 = 1,483,760 people (FoI) – more
now
• 860,000 sanctions in year to 30 June 2013
(was 500,000 in last year before Coalition)
• 4.35% of all JSA claimants per month under
Coalition (Labour: 2.6% per month 2000-2010)
• One third of homeless JSA & nearly one fifth
of homeless ESA claimants sanctioned MayJuly 2013 (HomelessWatch)
Tightening regime (2)
• Abundant evidence of pressure on DWP staff
to maximise sanctions
• Fewer referrals are getting favourable
decisions
• People are increasingly driven from claiming
at all (‘reserved/cancelled’ decisions)
Tightening regime (3)
• All the most frequently occurring JSA
sanctions lengthened from 22 Oct 2012
• ESA (WRAG) sanctions also much harsher from
3 Dec 2012 – now lose all of personal
allowance (previously only WRAG component)
• Minimum period now 4 weeks
• Now 3-year sanctions for repeat ‘failures’:
already hit 700 JSA & 440 ESA claimants –
proportionally higher for ESA
• Max. penalty for 75 years to 1986 was 6 wks
0
Apr-00
Oct-00
Apr-01
Oct-01
Apr-02
Oct-02
Apr-03
Oct-03
Apr-04
Oct-04
Apr-05
Oct-05
Apr-06
Oct-06
Apr-07
Oct-07
Apr-08
Oct-08
Apr-09
Oct-09
Apr-10
Oct-10
Apr-11
Oct-11
Apr-12
Oct-12
Apr-13
JSA sanctions and disentitlements per month
2000 - 2013 (thou.)
100
Coalition govt Harsher regime
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
02/6
JSA sanctions & disallowances: Decided referrals and adverse decisions
per month as % of claimant unemployed
14
Coalition government
Total decided referrals as % of total claimant unemployed
12
Total adverse decisions as % of total claimant unemployed
Start of recession
John Hutton
Sec of State
10
8
6
4
2
Aug-13
Apr-13
Dec-12
Aug-12
Apr-12
Dec-11
Apr-11
Aug-11
Dec-10
Aug-10
Apr-10
Dec-09
Aug-09
Apr-09
Dec-08
Aug-08
Apr-08
Dec-07
Aug-07
Apr-07
Dec-06
Apr-06
Aug-06
Dec-05
Aug-05
Apr-05
Dec-04
Aug-04
Apr-04
Dec-03
Aug-03
Apr-03
Dec-02
Aug-02
Apr-02
Dec-01
Aug-01
Apr-01
Dec-00
Aug-00
0
Apr-00
01RevB/3
Sep-13
Feb-13
Jul-12
Dec-11
May-11
Oct-10
Mar-10
Aug-09
Jan-09
Jun-08
Nov-07
Apr-07
Sep-06
Feb-06
Jul-05
Dec-04
May-04
Oct-03
Mar-03
Aug-02
Jan-02
Jun-01
Nov-00
Apr-00
JSA: Non-adverse as % of total decisions
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
JSA sanctions & disallowances:
Reserved or cancelled as % of total decisions
35
Note: Data on the split between reserved
and cancelled decisions were published for
the first time on 6 Nov 2013. In the period
Nov 2012 to June 2013, cancelled accounted
for 82.6% of these decisions.
30
25
20
15
10
5
Sep-13
Feb-13
Jul-12
Dec-11
May-11
Oct-10
Mar-10
Aug-09
Jan-09
Jun-08
Nov-07
Apr-07
Sep-06
Feb-06
Jul-05
Dec-04
May-04
Oct-03
Mar-03
Aug-02
Jan-02
Jun-01
Nov-00
Apr-00
0
Changing reasons
• People are more careful to hold on to a job in
a recession - therefore, big fall in penalties for
voluntary leaving/ misconduct (was always the
main reason); ‘availability’ static
• Correspondingly bigger rise in more aggressive
sanctions, especially
– ‘Not actively seeking work’ (now 36.3%)
– Non-participation in training/employment
schemes (inc. Work Programme) (now 30.0%)
• Failure to attend advisory interview now
19.9%
50
Reasons for JSA sanction/disallowance:
2004, 2012 and 2012/13
per cent 2004
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
per cent year to Oct 2012
per cent Oct 2012 to June 2013
JSA: Adverse decisions per month for ‘not Actively
Seeking Work’ as % of claimant unemployed
2.5
John Hutton
Sec of State
2.0
Coalition govt
1.5
1.0
0.5
Sep-13
Feb-13
Jul-12
Dec-11
May-11
Oct-10
Mar-10
Aug-09
Jan-09
Jun-08
Nov-07
Apr-07
Sep-06
Feb-06
Jul-05
Dec-04
May-04
Oct-03
Mar-03
Aug-02
Jan-02
Jun-01
Nov-00
Apr-00
0.0
Sep-13
Feb-13
Jul-12
Dec-11
May-11
Oct-10
Mar-10
Aug-09
Jan-09
Jun-08
Nov-07
Apr-07
Sep-06
Feb-06
Jul-05
Dec-04
May-04
100
Oct-03
Mar-03
Aug-02
Jan-02
Jun-01
Nov-00
Apr-00
JSA sanctions for not actively seeking work:
Adverse decisions as % of referrals
John Hutton Sec of State
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
JSA: Adverse decisions per month for failure to participate in
employment or training schemes as % of claimant unemployed
2.5
Transfer to Work
Programme
contractors
2.0
Effects of Reilly
& Wilson
'Poundland' case
1.5
1.0
0.5
Sep-13
Feb-13
Jul-12
Dec-11
May-11
Oct-10
Mar-10
Aug-09
Jan-09
Jun-08
Nov-07
Apr-07
Sep-06
Feb-06
Jul-05
Dec-04
May-04
Oct-03
Mar-03
Aug-02
Jan-02
Jun-01
Nov-00
Apr-00
0.0
JSA: Adverse decisions per month for failure to attend advisory
interview as % of claimant unemployed
2.50
John Hutton
Sec of State
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
Sep-13
Feb-13
Jul-12
Dec-11
May-11
Oct-10
Mar-10
Aug-09
Jan-09
Jun-08
Nov-07
Apr-07
Sep-06
Feb-06
Jul-05
Dec-04
May-04
Oct-03
Mar-03
Aug-02
Jan-02
Jun-01
Nov-00
Apr-00
0.00
Unreasonable (=unlawful)
sanctions
• Sanctions have gone up when the claimant
count includes hundreds of thousands of
people who would normally be in work
• Huge volumes of anecdotal evidence indicate
that many sanctions are unfair, negligent or
downright fraudulent
• This is possible because there is no legal
protection for claimants other than a Tribunal
appeal system which hardly anyone uses
• Further reduction in safeguards, e.g. since Oct
12 a JS Direction can be given orally!
Unreasonable sanctions (2)
• Ministers have not set targets but they clearly
have driven up sanctions through
management action
– ‘Expectations’
– Performance reviews and PIPs
– ‘Scorecard’
• ‘A regular "deep throat" DWP correspondent
describes the work: "You park your conscience
at the door. Sanctions are applied for anything
at all to hit the targets.“‘ - Polly Toynbee,
Guardian, 8 Nov 2013
Unreasonable sanctions (3)
• ‘Had 2 job interviews. Informed Jobcentre I would be a
little late. Was 15 minutes late. They sanctioned me
anyway.’
• ‘I was supposed to apply for 7 jobs a week, I applied for
10 one week and 5 the next week, so they sanctioned me
for a week’ (NB This would now be 4 weeks)
• ‘I am epileptic and can’t apply for certain jobs that’s why
I am limited, I apply for 5-10 jobs that I can do but it’s not
enough.’
• ‘Had to look after my mum. She is disabled and was very
ill.’
• ‘A letter was returned which they sent to the wrong
address.’
Unreasonable sanctions (4)
• ‘They recommended two jobs for me to apply for but at
that time I didn’t know how to use the website and was
waiting to see my personal adviser for help, but he was
on holiday when the sanction occurred.’
• ‘I was left with no money because I did not go to a course
that I can’t understand anyway as I have learning
difficulties.’
• ‘Did not do enough to find work, in between FINDING
work and starting it.’
– Manchester CAB, ‘Punishing Poverty’
Esther McVey, Employment
Minister - 6 Nov 2013
• ‘The vast, vast majority of people don't get
sanctions…… The people who get sanctions
are wilfully rejecting support for no good
reason….. Sanctions are only applied in the
most serious cases….. We'll do everything to
stop you having a sanction.’
• ALL OF THE ABOVE IS INCORRECT, AND
OBVIOUSLY SO.
‘Hardship’ payments
• Brutal regime dating from 1996 (JS Act 1995)
• ‘Hardship payments’ 60% of JSA (rarely, 80%)
• Harsh test, e.g. no payment if cash from a
payday lender exceeds ‘applicable amount’
• Two-week wait before application except for
arbitrarily defined ‘vulnerable’ - officially
acknowledged to damage health
• In 2005 one quarter getting 60%, 1 in 67 80%
• Effects particularly serious for homeless
• Under Universal Credit will become repayable
Appeal system
• Current system designed by Peter Lilley,
enacted by New Labour (Harriet Harman)
• Social Security Act 1998 ended independent
adjudication (in existence since 1911),
transferred decisions to Secretary of State
– Appeal Stage 1: internal ‘reconsideration’
– Appeal Stage 2: Tribunal (legal aid ended 1/4/13)
• Few appeal – seen as long and futile, lack of
support, can’t afford phone calls/stamps/fares
• Tribunal rulings set no precedent so Sec of
State can keep using same unfair devices
Appeal system (2)
• April 2000 to April 2012 inclusive:
- 17.0% asked for reconsideration, 52.8%
successful
- Only 1.8% appealed to a tribunal, 17%
successful
• Nov 2012 to June 2013 inclusive:
– 25.3% asked for reconsideration, 50.9% successful
(= 4% freed of sanctions by extra 1st stage appeals)
– 1.7% appealed to a tribunal, 42.2% successful
• Massively increased Tribunal success rate suggests
that many/most of the extra sanctions are dishonest
– but few go to Tribunal
JSA sanctions & disallowances: Reconsiderations
and appeals as % of initially adverse decisions
30
Coalition govt
25
20
15
10
Reconsidered as % of all initially adverse decisions
Appealed as % of all initially adverse decisions
5
Feb-13
Jul-12
Dec-11
May-11
Oct-10
Mar-10
Aug-09
Jan-09
Jun-08
Nov-07
Apr-07
Sep-06
Feb-06
Jul-05
Dec-04
May-04
Oct-03
Mar-03
Aug-02
Jan-02
Jun-01
Nov-00
Apr-00
0
JSA sanctions & disallowances: Claimants' success
rate at reconsideration and appeal (%)
70
60
50
Reconsidered non-adverse decisions as % of all reconsidered decisions
40
Appealed non-adverse decisions as % of all appealed decisions
30
20
10
Feb-13
Jul-12
Dec-11
May-11
Oct-10
Mar-10
Aug-09
Jan-09
Jun-08
Nov-07
Apr-07
Sep-06
Feb-06
Jul-05
Dec-04
May-04
Oct-03
Mar-03
Aug-02
Jan-02
Jun-01
Nov-00
Apr-00
0
Impact on homelessness:
Sources of information
• Three recent major reports:
– Homeless Link/CRISIS/St Mungo’s – ‘The
Programme’s Not Working’ (Nov 2012)
– CRISIS – ‘Dashed Hopes, Lives on Hold’ (Jun 2013)
– HomelessWatch – ‘A High Price to Pay: the impact
of benefit sanctions on homeless people’ (Sept
2013) – survey of 52 organizations
• Many CAB reports inc. Gtr Manchester CAB
survey ‘Punishing Poverty’ (Oct 2013)
• Huge amount in newspapers & on web
Sources of information (2)
• DWP has no useful research on sanctions and
homelessness
• The most recent govt research on sanctions
does not mention homelessness (Peters &
Joyce, DWP 2006)
– Research design not likely to find homeless people
- one third (32%) of their sample had moved and
could not be included
– Sanctions running at much lower level in 2004
when fieldwork done
Sanctions and homelessness:
Two aspects
1. Effect of sanctions in making people
homeless
2. Impact of sanctions on homeless people
1. Same as on anyone
2. Particular effects on homeless people
Sanctions: Creating homelessness
• Of 45 services responding to HomelessWatch, 23 said
clients had been evicted as a result of sanctions
• There is no way of estimating total number losing
their homes, but it is clearly substantial
• Main problems are:
− Loss of Housing Benefit/Council Tax reduction
through lack of information
− Arrears of service charges not covered by HB
− Family disputes resulting from sanctions
− General loss of ability to cope
Creating homelessness (2)
• Housing & Council Tax Benefit/Reduction
– Sanctioned claimant’s ‘passported’ HB/CTB/CTR
claim is terminated
– But claimant is not told that they must submit a
new claim on the basis of nil income
– This looks deliberate
– Result is that claimant starts to run up arrears and
often ends up evicted
Creating homelessness (3)
• HB/CTR max. backdating reduced to 6 months
Oct 2008 and only allowed if ‘good reason’ –
sanctioned claimants don’t appear to get it
• Even if HB continues:
– Homeless hostels have additional charges not met
by HB – 30 of 39 organizations reported arrears in
these due to sanctions (HomelessWatch)
– Council Tax in England now also usually has a
percentage not met by CTR
• Sanctioned claimants must meet these from
nil or heavily reduced income
Creating homelessness (4)
• Martin, bricklayer, missed appointment
because in hospital. Sanctioned 4 months.
Lived off family & friends. Lost home, now in
hostel. Won appeal but still in hostel – BBC
Radio Sheffield, 4 Nov 2013
• ‘Because my Housing Benefit wasn’t paid for 3
months and still hasn’t been reinstated I’m
facing eviction and I’m a full time carer to my
adult son’ – Manchester CAB
Creating homelessness (4)
• ‘At 52 years of age I lost my home and my 21 year old
son, who has had to move in with his girlfriend’s
family. We are both sofa-surfing with absolutely no
hope for a future of any kind…..I stay with a friend
who feeds me, but have been suicidal for a long while
now’
• ‘I have been kicked out of my mother’s household
due to being sanctioned and I’m now homeless’ –
Manchester CAB
• ‘One young homeless man described how his mother
asked him to leave home in part because he could
not repay the money he borrowed from her after he
was sanctioned’ – HomelessWatch
Impact on claimants, homeless or not
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Damage to health & family relationships
Debt
Family and friends suffer hardship
Sanctions cause 25% of Food Bank use
Increased crime (incl. ‘survival theft’ )
People pushed into worse jobs that don’t last
Claimants’ & employers’ time wasted through
pointless job applications
• People alienated from employment services
• Claimants fear to complain re bad treatment
Impact (2)
• ‘I had no income, and had to borrow from my
parents (who are also on benefits and don't
get much income). It has affected me
mentally, and I am severely depressed and
having anxiety attacks.’
• ‘Starved and lived off what I had. Scrounged
food from bins and only left the house after
darkness fell. Had no electric or gas. Struggled
and went without nothing for 3 days.‘
• ‘I’ve lost over 2 stone in weight through lack of
food.’
Impact (3)
• ‘My mum has been taken to court and fined
for not being able to pay the shortfall in
Council Tax and is struggling to pay the rent
arrears accrued when I was sanctioned and
the strain has quite literally smashed our
family to pieces – I feel like a burden on her
and have felt suicidal on more than one
occasion’
• ‘It’s all getting too much. We are now
prisoners in our home, no point going out,
can’t buy or do anything’ – Manchester CAB
Impact (4)
Julie doesn’t like borrowing money but had no
choice after she was sanctioned. After she
bought food and paid her bills, she didn’t have
much money left. The food she bought ran out
and she had to visit a foodbank so that she
could eat. Julie says she is lucky she was ill and
wasn’t very hungry. She spent a lot of time in
bed because she was ill, which meant she
could keep her heating on low and not use
much electricity. – CRISIS, ‘Dashed Hopes,
Lives on Hold’ (June 2013)
Impact (5)
• Huge diversion of Jobcentre resources to
sanctioning, away from employment support
• All observers agree that Jobcentre Plus is
currently providing very little genuine
employment support (see HofC Work &
Pensions Committee written evidence)
• Only 8 of 45 orgs said sanctions were
motivating homeless clients to get into
employment, and 3 of 45 that they led them
to engage better with Jobcentre Plus
(HomelessWatch)
Particular impact of sanctions on
homeless people
• Homeless people already in crisis – sanctions
pile on another, making it impossible to cope
• Young people are particularly likely to be
sanctioned – and also to be homeless
• Homeless people usually lack support from
family & friends – which is key to survival
• Many homeless people have other issues, e.g.
mental illness, substance use, learning
difficulty, making sanctions likely & coping
more difficult
Impact on homeless people (2)
• Letters particularly likely not to reach claimant
• Language difficulties of homeless migrants
• Support workers spending more time dealing
with sanctions and less helping clients to
independent living (HomelessWatch)
• How do you resettle a homeless person
serving a 3-year sanction? – only way out is 6
months in continuous employment – hard to
achieve
Leslie Morphy, Chief Executive of
Crisis – 6 Nov 2013
“These ’sanctions’ are cruel and often
handed out unfairly, due to errors on the
part of the job centre or Work
Programme provider. They can leave
people utterly destitute – without money
even for food and at severe risk of
homelessness. Quite how this is meant to
motivate people or help them back into
work is difficult to see.”
What can be done?
• Three levels:
–Casework
–Campaigning
–Longer term reform
Casework
• Your client MUST appeal at least to the
‘reconsideration’ stage – the average case has
a better than 50-50 chance of success
• Go to their MP – the DWP caves in rapidly as
they want to keep MPs’ support for the
system
• After both the above, consider a Tribunal
appeal – chances of success have risen sharply
• Your client MUST get their HB/CTR/hardship
payment applications in on time
Campaigning
• Scottish Welfare Fund should be reformed to
allow assistance to sanctioned claimants
• Good opportunity in forthcoming Scottish
Welfare Fund Bill
• Get your horror stories into the media
• Campaign over the most blatant failures of the
system:
– Safeguarding HB/CTR. These claims should be
automatically continued when there is a sanction
– Lack of independence in DWP decision-making
Scottish Welfare Fund Guidance
6.9 ‘ Crisis Grants and Community Care grants
should not undermine DWP’s sanctions and
disallowances. If an applicant is subject to a
disallowance or a sanction by the DWP, and
their benefit is reduced as a result, a Crisis
Grant should only be awarded to meet
expenses which are the consequence of a
disaster or the cost of food for their children.
The applicant may be able to get a hardship
payment from the DWP.’
Longer term reform
• Sanctions should be abolished
• Sanctions have little effect on the overall level
of unemployment
• A high proportion of the things claimants are
forced to do are not sensible
• Claimants’ own strategies for getting work
should be respected
• There are other ways of influencing behaviour
• Sanctions cause too much damage to people &
society
• For more detail see
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.s
vc/EvidencePdf/1401
Longer term reform (2)
• Apart from the Baldwin govt’s ‘Actively
Seeking Work’ campaign of 1926-29, the
National Unemployment Insurance system
worked happily with very few disqualifications
other than 6 weeks for Voluntary Leaving &
Misconduct until the later 1980s
• Conditions are unavoidable in any insurance
scheme, but there should be a proper safety
net for people who do not meet them
Conclusion
• All three major parties are deeply implicated
in the sanctions system
• Currently politicians are responding to what
they perceive as public hostility to the
unemployed
• But this can be changed - the main priority
should be to raise public awareness since this
is very low
More information
• Citizens Advice Bureau publications (on web)
• Guardian website
• My Written Evidence to House of Commons
Work & Pensions Committee inquiry Role of
Jobcentre Plus in the reformed welfare system
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/Evidence
Pdf/1401
• Working Brief, Autumn 2013 issue
• http://stats.cesi.org.uk/WBejournal/WorkingBrief233autumn2013.pdf
• Paul Spicker’s Social Policy blog
http://paulspicker.wordpress.com/
• Email me at: david.webster@glasgow.ac.uk