(Department for Work and
Pensions):It has been a long-standing policy of successive
Governments that claimants on work-related benefits are generally
expected to undertake certain activities in return for financial
support through the benefit system. This system of ‘conditionality’
can lead to sanctions, which deduct benefit from claimants when
they fail, without good reason, to meet a conditionality
requirement, such as failing to attend a Jobcentre interview or
failing to search for work. This ensures a fair, proportionate and
effective use of public money, in support of employment and wider
outcomes for society.
Today, we are publishing the Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
Sanctions Early Warning Trial’s final evaluation report
(Jobseeker’s Allowance Sanctions Early Warning Trial Evaluation –
Final report) and qualitative research (Jobseekers Allowance:
Sanctions Early Warning Trial).
In October 2015, the Department for Work and Pensions announced
that it would be trialling a new process for JSA sanctions in
response to the Work and Pensions Select Committee’s
recommendations to review the JSA sanction process.
The trial was delivered between April and September 2016 and
involved 6,500 claimants. It tested an approach of adding an
additional step into the sanction decision making process, by
informing claimants through a ‘Sanction Warning Letter’ that, on
the basis of information available, the Decision Maker intended
to apply a sanction. Claimants were then given a further 14 days
(on top of the standard 7 days they already receive before the
decision is initially considered) to submit evidence of good
reason for not meeting their conditionality.
The aim of the trial was to consider whether such an approach
would have an effect on:
- The volume of claimants that provide reasons for not meeting
their conditionality requirements.
- The volume of claimants sanctioned who request a Mandatory
Reconsideration of the initial sanction decision.
- The service received by the claimant and whether this
represented value for money.
- The effectiveness of the process as perceived by Decision
Makers.
The key findings of the trial were:
- 13 per cent of those receiving a ‘Sanction Warning Letter’
responded to it during the additional 14 days and provided
evidence. In around half of these cases the evidence provided did
not contain a good reason for the Labour Market Decision Maker to
change their decision and the sanction was applied.
- There were some indications that the trial had an impact on
reducing the proportion of cases where a Decision Review or
Mandatory Reconsideration was carried out. However, as these
findings are based on low volumes, they are indicative only.
- The qualitative evaluation concluded that given the
additional burden placed on the Departmental resources and
marginal gains achieved, the trial did not appear to be an
effective use of the Department’s resource.
- Results from the qualitative evaluation showed that there was
support from staff for the intentions underpinning the trial,
however evidence from interviews with staff suggested that in
practice the trial appeared to make little difference to the
outcomes of claimants.
Given the low proportion of cases in which claimants provided
further evidence and the even lower proportion of cases where
decision outcomes were changed, we do not consider that the
benefits of the approach are sufficient to justify the extra time
and cost it adds to the process.
We are now exploring the feasibility of an alternative process to
give claimants written warnings, instead of a sanction, for a
first sanctionable failure to attend a Work-Search Review. The
aim will be to conduct a small-scale proof of concept to obtain
qualitative feedback from staff on this new process, followed by
any subsequent tests. More details will be made available once we
have progressed with the design work.
