At work, I have been putting together an information leaflet about benefit sanctions for Jobseekers Allowance claimants. The plan was to produce a quick guide to what it means to be 'available for work' and 'actively seeking work', some pointers on what to expect from the new 'Claimant Commitment' and finally to explain a claimant's appeal rights and options for emergency support should sanctions befall them.
Too few people challenge sanction decisions, though it isn't to be wondered at. Firstly, from interviewing people who have been sanctioned, it's apparent that many are simply afraid to do so, in case they are perceived as a trouble-maker and sanctioned again the next time a feeble pretext to do so arises. One woman didn't even want to be seen talking to Citizens Advice Bureau workers in front of other Work Club attendees.
Even if you have the nerve to fight back, there are practical problems. Most people receive only a letter stating that there are doubts about their compliance with their Jobseekers Agreement before their money stops, and by the time they receive a formal decision to sanction them, at least for an initial 4 week sanction, the time has passed and benefit is in payment again. Having struggled through that month and with benefit reinstated, the tendency is not to rock the boat at that stage.
Those who press on through what is now a two-stage appeal process, with the dithering of 'mandatory reconsideration' before an appeal can be lodged, can expect a wait of anything up to a year or more for their day in front of a tribunal. In the meantime many will find work or be sent to the Work Programme; others will opt for a hearing 'on the papers' without being able to access legal support to put a witness statement together or, if they opted for an oral hearing, their nerve may fail at the thought of facing a 'tribunal judge'.
But it is worth the fight. More than half of sanctions decisions appealed have been overturned and a decision issued in the claimant's favour. This is higher even than the 40% success rate for ESA appeals, often held up as damning evidence of failures within Atos and the DWP. More people should appeal; it's a 'nothing to lose' scenario. With fixed period sanctions, a tribunal cannot impose a greater penalty even if they side with the DWP. Success not only gets you your lost JSA money back, it also means that if you are penalised again within a 52 week period of the first, you don't face a harsher 13 week penalty.
Of course the Government are at pains to insist sanctions are a 'last resort'. In theory, as long as you can demonstrate you are 'available for' and 'actively seeking' work, sanctions should not be an issue. But the evidence suggests otherwise. In addition to blogs and forums sharing stories of stupid sanctions, there are reports from reputable agencies - advice centres, foodbanks, local authorities - full of instances where sanctions appear to have been applied heavy-handedly, randomly, irrationally.
Locally, professionals advising jobseekers talk of a 'climate of fear' and that people are 'terrified' of sanctions, of people turning up day after day at library and community Work Clubs to trawl the infamous Universal Jobsmatch site to prove they are actively seeking work, even though few new jobs appear from one day to the next and they might be better employed looking elsewhere. They too sense that sanctions are applied arbitrarily and without common sense or compassion - when a claimant has been rushed to hospital (even when they can provide evidence that was the case) or even for missing their 'signing on' time attending a job interview. One client who sold a mobile phone for food during a four week sanction was subsequently sanctioned for 13 weeks - for not being contactable by the Jobcentre.
So what is actually going on?
There appears no doubt that Jobcentre staff are under pressure to hand down more sanctions - the numbers have jumped dramatically and a steady drip of whistle-blower revelations have demolished the official denials that any targets exist. And those most likely to be hit are young people under 25 - who make up approximately a quarter of JSA claimants, but were the recipients of approximately half of all sanctions.
A colleague has concluded that if all Jobcentre staff are indeed under pressure to sanction a set number of people each week, the decent majority are most likely to attempt to achieve this by imposing short 'first offence' sanctions on the claimants most likely to cope - younger people, often living with families who can support them temporarily, or single people without children. That may be true, but there also seems to be some picking on vulnerable people - such as those struggling due to literacy problems and learning difficulties - by setting them up to fail with impossible tasks included in their Jobseekers Agreement.
Yet bizarrely, in the face of mounting evidence that even people making entirely reasonable efforts to find work are being sanctioned. we still hear politicians talking about the need for greater conditionality and measures to stop people choosing to live on benefits as a 'lifestyle choice'
And the mass of 'hard-working' people cheer along - at least until it's their turn to make a claim.
