A Brief History of Behaviour Conditionality
In 1997 after 18 consecutive years of conservative governance, the results of a landslide election left Tony Blair, of the modernised Labour Party, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Blair’s Labour Party aligned most closely with democratic socialism, an ideology in which government investment in the social sphere is a central tenet. 18 years of conservative governance had seen significant cuts to welfare spending and so reimagining an effective system of welfare fell at the top of the political agenda.
This ushered in an era of Third Way politics, which attempted to bridge conservative and liberal political values and was concerned with reciprocity between state and citizen. Third Way political views on welfare assert that it is a government’s responsibility to provide opportunities, but that it is the opportunity of the citizen to take those opportunities and to find work. At a nationally broadcasted speech outside a social housing unit in London, Blair (1998) introduced what he referred to as “The New Deals” The New Deals were a set of welfare reforms featuring a principle of conditionality at the core, meaning that claimants had to perform with a certain set of behaviours in order to receive benefits. Claimants who did not comply with the conditions outlined in the New Deals faced sanctions, which meant losing significant portions of their benefit payment.
The majority of the conditions outlined in the New Deals were focused around participation in the Paid Labour Market. This was termed “workfare” and Blair promised that the new deals would provide employment opportunity, training and incentivization that would make living life solely on benefits impossible, thus breaking the cycle of poverty (1998). The New Deals targeted specific groups such as the long term unemployed, young people and for the first time: lone parents and people with disabilities. It mandated that single parents and people with disabilities attend a job centred interview to discuss work possibilities and prospects. For the first time, participation in the paid labour market was the only recognized contribution to society (Dwyer, 2004).
Conditionality Today
Since the implementation of the New Deals in 1998, conditionality has become increasingly central to all spheres of social policy in the United Kingdom. The conditionality embedded in the New Deals and subsequent welfare reform allows the government to apply a lens of morality to benefit recipients, thereby placing the fault with the individual for any sanctions to benefits they receive. Conditionality stands in contrast to the principle of Universalism, which asserts that mere citizenship entitles an individual to receive benefits (Jacques and Noel, 2018). Thereby, conditionality creates an underclass of sorts, within the population of benefit recipients: that of an undeserving poor, who are seen as refusing to work or lazy (Dwyer, 2004). Certain groups such as: lone parents, people with disabilities and the homeless are overrepresented in this frequently sanctioned underclass.
It is, of course, difficult to determine whether conditionality in the deliverance of Social Policy is inherently unfair, however the rhetoric of “incentivization” which upholds the UK government’s recent policy reform is not reflective of a just system of conditional welfare. This statement is based on significant evidence which supports the notion that these recent policy reforms, have accomplished little of what they set out to and have only resulted in already marginalized groups being pushed further towards the periphery. This essay will examine the ways in which conditionality has been implemented across several key social security benefits; in order to examine the manner in which benefits have become increasingly conditional on behaviour and the negative impacts this has had on specific groups.
Conditionality in Social Security
In order to receive many social security benefits claimants must go through Jobcentre Plus (Department of Work and Pensions 2017). Upon registration with Jobcentre Plus, claimants are assigned an advisor and are required to partake in a work focused interview. Agreeing to partaking in this interview is a condition in eligibility for a wide range of benefits, including three key benefits which will be discussed in this section: Employment Support Allowance, Job Seekers Allowance and Income Support. The same interview is conducted for individuals claiming Universal Credit in areas where it has been implemented, and the implications of the conditionality featured Universal Credit will also be briefly discussed in this section.
Employment Support Allowance
Employment and Support Allowance is a payment for those who have a disability or illness which makes working impossible (Department of Work and Pensions 2018). Individuals applying for Employment and Support must first participate in a work focused interview, with a particular emphasis on health and how it interferes with the claimant’s ability to work. Following the interview, participants are required to participate in a two-part work capability assessment (Department of Work and Pensions 2018). The first part of the work capability assessment determines whether or not the claimant’s condition is severe enough to receive Employment Support, or if they must seek work and apply for separate benefits. If a claimant is found to be deserving of Employment and Support Allowance, they progress onto the second portion of the work capability assessment, which determines which Employment Support group they belong in: The Work-Related Activity group or the Support group. In order to prepare for future return to work, claimants placed in the work-related activity group must attend meetings, training and other mandatory activities relating to work, at the request of their advisor. Claimants placed in the support group are not required to participate in work related activities.
Conditionality is central in each stage, during and after the process of claiming Employment and Support allowance and claimants can be sanctioned for failure to comply with any of the steps (Department of Work and Pensions 2018). Sanctions are possible outcomes of: failure to sign on to claimant commitment , non-attendance to the work and health focused interview, non-attendance to either of the two work capability assessments or for the Work-Related Activity group: failure to attend any work-related activity mandated by an individual’s Jobcentre Plus advisor. Each step of the process of claiming Employment and Support, makes it clear that the expected outcome is that claimants return to participation in the paid labour market as soon as possible.
Significant research has suggested that claimant’s experience with conditionality in the Employment and Support claims process has not been positive, with particularly negative experiences reported by claimants with mental illnesses. One report published in London and conducted through interviews with 15 members of the Work-Related Activity Group found that the immense fear of being sanctioned for non-attendance at a work-related activity or failure to comply with the advice of a Jobcentre Advisor had a detrimental impact on claimants’ mental health and sense of self-worth (Mehta et. Al 2018). Participants also reported that the training was not well suited to their needs and did not take in to account pre-existing skills and qualifications that they possessed. One respondent described being asked by his Jobcentre advisor to remove his university degree from his CV so that he would not seem “overqualified”. Because receiving full Employment and Support Allowance is dependent on taking the advice of Jobcentre advisors, participants reported feeling constantly anxious about the possibility of being sanctioned.
Another report conducted between 2014 and 2017 in a series of three interviews with a group of 265 disabled people, revealed similar findings. Of particular concern was the Work Capability Assessment, which participants found was extremely negligent towards mental illnesses and failed to request the opinions of or prior evidence of illness from claimants’ own doctors (Dwyer et. Al 2018). As with the previous study, participants reported that the assessment caused great anxiety and exacerbated, often already poor, symptoms of mental illness. Most of the respondents reported a desire to work, however great difficulty finding suitable work and feelings of discouragement throughout the Employment and Support Allowance claims process. This suggests that the narrative of “incentivization” that the government claims that the conditionality embedded in the Employment and Support Allowance claims process provides, is likely misguided.
Jobseekers Allowance
Jobseekers allowance is a social security benefit which is paid to those who are actively seeking work (Department of Work and Pensions 2018). Individuals applying for Jobseeker’s Allowance must participate in the standard work focused interview. Claimants must also submit to a multitude of other conditions, such as: signing onto a claimant commitment created by Jobcentre, attending regular meetings with Jobcentre advisors, applying for all jobs recommended by Jobcentre advisors, participate in employment schemes when offered, take any job offered, participating in any training courses recommended by Jobcentre advisors. Claimants failing to comply with any of the conditions results in benefit sanctions.
The list of conditions which claimants must meet in order to receive Jobseeker’s allowance are particularly difficult for specific groups. A study conducted by McCarthy et. Al (2015) at Sheffield Hallam University set out to investigate the experiences of homeless people in claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance. They found that 63% of the 1013 homeless people who had faced sanctions and who participated in the research reported great difficulty in avoiding sanctions to their Jobseekers Allowance payment, not because they were unwilling to meet the requirements, but because they were unable to (McCarthy et. Al 2015).
The aforementioned research identifies several barriers which people face in claiming Jobseeker’s allowance while homeless. The participants of the study had been sanctioned for a variety of reasons while claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance. Reasons for sanctions included: not signing on, missing a work focused interview with a Jobcentre advisor and not seeking employment at an acceptable rate. 82% of the survey participants felt that their sanction was not deserved, and that they had a valid reason to have not complied with the conditions of Jobseeker’s Allowance. They identified many barriers which affecting high percentages of respondents, which made meeting the conditions impossible. The three barriers affecting the highest percentages of respondents were: Being financially unable to travel to mandatory appointments (77%), being asked to apply for too many jobs each week (72%) and having important appointments; often relating to health and addiction which interfered with scheduled appointment with Jobcentre (72%). Homeless individuals who were simultaneously struggling with addiction or mental illness reported much greater difficulty in meeting the conditionality of Jobseeker’s allowance, which reveals the intersectional nature of the issue. Respondents who reported homelessness combined with illness, disability or addiction reported much higher rates of difficulty in meeting the behavioural conditions.
Income Support
Income support is a social security benefit which can be paid to claimants with low or no income, who are not eligible for Employment and Security Allowance or Jobseekers Allowance (Department of Work and Pensions 2018). Claimants must provide a reason for why they are not actively seeking work. It is frequently claimed by: lone parents with children under 5, foster parents with a child under 16, carers, people on parental leave, refugees and students enrolled in full time non-university education.
Prior to 2008, lone parents could claim income support if their youngest child was under the age of 12. Over the following few years the cut off age for the youngest child has dropped several times. As of 2017, lone parents can only claim income support if they have a child younger than five (Department of Work and Pensions). Lone parents with a child over one who are claiming income support must agree to participate in a work focused interview, as well as attend any work-related training recommended by Jobcentre plus. This is deemed necessary in order to prepare lone parents for the future transition to employment, for which the search begins when the youngest child turns five. Failure to attend the work focused interview or subsequent training is a sanctionable offense.
As is with other benefits, research suggests that the conditionality which is present in income support may be misguided. While the government claims that these measures instil the value of work (Department of Work and Pensions 2018), a study conducted by Whitworth and Griggs suggested that about 80% of lone parents with children under the age of five would like to work, are seeking work or are already working (2013). The research also shows it is very difficult for lone parents to make the transition from Income Support into employment. There are few jobs with hours that are compatible with caring for a child and reliable child-care is often difficult for lone parents to secure.
Universal Credit
Universal Credit was a policy reform introduced by the coalition government under David Cameron in 2013. It amalgamates the six former benefits: Income Support, Income- Based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Income-Related Employment Support Allowance, Housing Benefit, Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit, into one monthly payment per household(Cameron, 2012). Since 2013 Universal Credit has been implemented in various parts of the UK, slowly replacing former individual social security payments. As of June 2018, 980 000 people in the United Kingdom were claiming Universal Credit and it is expected that by 2023 everyone claiming benefits will claim Universal Credit (Department of Work and Pensions 2018).
Universal Credit has been critiqued the behaviour conditional policy with the most austere sanctions to date. In order to claim Universal Credit claimants must first agree to participate in a work-focused interview, following which, they are assigned to one of four levels of conditionality (Dwyer and Wright, 2014). These levels range from no conditions, to full conditionality: the default option which requires an active search for work. Claimants can be sanctioned for up to three years if they do not meet the requirements outlined in their Jobcentre contract. Universal Credit also expands conditionality past Jobseekers, to those employed in part-time work, who can be sanctioned for failing to apply for more hours or full-time work.
Universal credit has varying impacts across households. It is estimated that 3.1 million households will have increased income by about 168 pounds per month while claiming Universal Credit and 2.8 million households will lose about 137 pounds each month (Dwyer and Wright 2014). Under universal credit monthly benefits are paid to the member of the household with the highest income, dubbed the “lead earner”. The one payment per household can create a dynamic of financial control. This can have particular implications for women, who are overrepresented as secondary earners under Universal Credit. Particularly relevant in cases of domestic abuse, lack of financial control means that women often do not have the means to protect themselves or their children (Liverpool City Council, 2018).
Conclusion
Although benefit payments are a complex issue and involve the distribution of limited government resources, the push towards behavioural conditionality across all areas of Social Policy has not created a just system of welfare. Much of the conditionality embedded in the claiming process of certain benefits has negative implications for specific marginalized groups and sanctions cultivate a great deal of shame and anxiety. While conditionality allows the government to attribute the cause of sanctions to the individual’s level of motivation, they are ineffective and unjust, as they do little to address the vast and diverse systematic barriers that marginalized groups face in accessing employment.