An inevitable consequence of being sanctioned is a temporary reduction in income. Evidence that this could cause hardship came from the first participant survey. Of the respondents who had been sanctioned, one in three had had to apply for a hardship payment as a result. By the time of the second wave, the proportion of those
sanctioned who had applied for a hardship payment69 had increased to 49%. The qualitative research explored experiences of sanctions being applied where claimants had felt that they were not justified or were the result of errors by the provider or Jobcentre Plus70.
In some of these cases, participants in the qualitative research had appealed against the decision. Cases where these appeals successful, included examples when Jobcentre Plus acknowledged that they had acted on wrong information, such as recording errors, or it was demonstrated that the Work Programme provider had given the participant insufficient information. Participants who had this experience often reported being angry about errors that left them without income and having to sort out a problem not of their making. Despite benefits eventually being reinstated some of these had run up overdraft and borrowing charges. Consequences of
financial sanctions included not being able to pay bus fares to get children to school, and family relationships becoming strained. Some participants also said that their experience of a sanction being applied had a negative impact on their relationship with their advisers, and their view of the programme.
There were some participants who acknowledged that their behaviour had led to the sanction and some changed behaviour as a result e.g. now always leaving a
message on the provider’s answerphone when not able to get through on the
telephone to rearrange an appointment. However, changing behaviour was harder for others such as those with memory and concentration loss related to health conditions and some with hearing impairments who said this led to misunderstandings and missed appointments.
Even a short time without income was hard to deal with, especially when participants already had debts to service. Some explained that as JSA and ESA are both usually
income71. A sanction often meant borrowing, relying on friends for meals, going into debt, and rent arrears. Not everybody in the qualitative research who reported losing benefit was aware of the hardship fund72. Some who were aware of the hardship fund said that they thought it was not worth spending the time, and bus fare, to make an application for a small amount of money which they believed would then have to be repaid73, further disrupting budgeting when benefit was restored. Participants who did not know about the hardship fund, or who decided not to use it said they had relied on “family” to tide them through. Family members who had helped them were often parents or grandparents, whose own low incomes came from pensions and benefits. There were a few examples of single people without children being left with no source of income, and one who went into rent arrears had to give up his home as a result of benefit sanctions being applied.
Reduced income due to sanctioning could lead participants to cancel advisory appointments because they had no money for bus fares. There also appeared to be less work-related activity in a period of benefit reduction because they could not afford to use telephones, travel to visit employment agencies, or buy stamps. Some who got into serious financial difficulty during sanctions said their focus shifted away from thinking about work onto how to get through without income.
10.5 Summary
The evaluation produced data on mandation, conditionality and sanctions from the participant surveys and qualitative research (as well as research with providers, reported in Foster et al., 2014). Points on which the participant findings are relatively conclusive include:
The message that Work Programme involvement is largely compulsory and backed up by a regime of sanctions. Most participants were aware of the conditionality and sanctions that applied to the programme.
Most participants had little problem with the notion of conditionality and sanctions. It was generally accepted as reasonable in return for receiving benefits.
Those who were actually sanctioned had mixed views – some acknowledged their behaviour had led to the sanction and subsequently changed their behaviour; others felt they were not justified. Some relied on families for help with the
financial implications, others felt they suffered hardship (and not all were aware of the hardship fund). For many participants the conditionality and sanctions regime
71
That is in addition to the two-week stoppage, participants had to wait a further two weeks to become eligible for their next benefit payment since this was paid in arrears and not in advance.
72
Claimants who are sanctioned are able to claim hardship - all ESA claimants have access to hardship payments from day one and JSA Claimants who are vulnerable can also claim hardship payments from day 1; all other claimants are eligible hardship payments from day 15.
was deemed to be unnecessary and irrelevant, as the desire to find work ensured their compliance with the requirements to attend meetings and engage with work- related activities.
For some participants the threat of sanctions had changed their behaviour, encouraging them to attend meetings that they might otherwise have failed to attend. Others perceived little impact on their behaviour.
There was little conclusive evidence about the effects of being sanctioned,
particularly any behavioural effects. Also there was limited information on the types of participants being sanctioned, particularly whether they were individuals who were reluctant or resistant to engaging or whether sanctions affected participants who missed appointments without being able to demonstrate good cause. There was a possibility that some who have been sanctioned were largely compliant and had been sanctioned because of an isolated lapse (e.g. a forgotten appointment). There was perhaps a case therefore for reviewing the procedures for sanctioning to ensure that the people who received sanctions were the intended target group i.e. those whose behaviour was assessed as not meeting conditionality requirements. There were no examples of participants being sanctioned for not taking a particular job and few cases where participants had felt under pressure to apply for jobs specifically because of the threat of sanctions.