Scope response to the Independent Review of

Jobseeker’s Allowance Sanctions

  1. Summary

1.1.Over 110,000 disabled people on Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) have been sanctioned for non-compliance with benefit conditions.

1.2.Disabled people face a wide range of barriers in the labour market, and Scope believes that sanctions make their lives harder without increasing motivation or capacity to work.

1.3.Our experience of supporting disabled people on JSA is that they are not well informed about their obligations for receiving JSA or about the potential use of sanctions.

1.4.To improve the fairness and transparency of the conditionality regime, Scope recommends that the Independent Review should:

1.4.1.Consider whether there could be ‘trigger points’ in a disabled person’s journey through the benefits system where information about sanctions will be provided.

1.4.2.Engage with the Jobcentre Plus pilots being carried out by the Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team.

1.4.3.Extend and revitalise the network of Disability Employment Advisers (DEA) within Jobcentre Plus.

  1. Background information

2.1.Between October 2012 and June 2013, 111,990 disabled people on Jobseeker’s Allowance had an adverse sanctions decision made against them.[1]

2.2.In general, Scope is concerned about the rising use of sanctions against disabled people and in principle we believe that the use of sanctions makes disabled people’s lives harder without increasing their motivation or capacity to work.

2.3.Our experience of supporting disabled people into work shows that the primary barriers to work are a lack of inclusive work opportunities, and having poor quality or inconsistent care and support in place to find and retain work. Neither of these issues is resolved by conditionality and sanctions.

2.4.We provide answers to specific consultation questions below.

  1. To what extent do JSA claimants understand that when they are referred to a 'back-to-work' scheme (such as the Work Programme) their benefit may be sanctioned if they don't take part?

3.1.In general, Scope’s services typically work with Employment Support Allowance (ESA) customers, offering both employment support and independent welfare advice through our Response helpline. However, where we do support disabled people on JSA, our experience is that they are not well informed about their obligations for receiving JSA or about the potential use of sanctions.

3.2.For instance, advisers on our two Work Choice contracts routinely have to explain the implications of non-compliance to all our disabled customers including those on JSA, and report that many are referred onto the programme by Jobcentre Plus (JCP) without having had their obligations explained.

3.3.The lack of information provided to disabled people affects the overall quality of disabled people’s journey through the employment support system. Having to explain these obligations can undermine the positive relationship Scope advisers have with their customers, and can make it harder to motivate customers.Disabled people on Work Choice also report experiencing significant stress and anxiety at the outset of a programme, affecting their ability to engage in the process.

3.4.Recommendation: The review should consider whether there could be ‘trigger points’ in a disabled person’s journey through the benefits system where information about sanctions will be provided.

3.5.One such trigger point could be when a disabled person moves from Incapacity Benefit onto Jobseekers Allowance, following reassessment. This group – which in the last quarter alone could be as many as 33,764 people[2] – are likely to be finding themselves suddenly exposed to the conditionality regime after a long period with little or no contact with JCP, and so are likely to need substantial support to understand their new situation.

3.6.Recommendation:Scope would also suggest that this review could engage with the JCP pilots being carried out by the Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team. These are exploring whether proactive and positive framing of employability interventions is more helpful for claimants, and how best to communicate information with Jobcentres. There may be some useful cross-learning for communication within the sanctions regime.

  1. To what extent does a claimant’s failure to meet their conditions arise from them not having a sufficient understanding of what is expected? Are there ways in which this could be made clearer to them?

4.1.When disabled people do not meet the conditions of their benefit, there are likely to be a wide range of factors at work including failure of the system to take full account of disabled people’s specific support needs. There is a recognition that these needs exist – notably through the existence of Disability Employment Advisers – but there continues to be too much emphasis placed on individual capacity rather than the quality and range of support being provided.

4.2.For instance, there is currently too little access to specialist disability advice within Jobcentres. Although JCP operates a network of Disability Employment Advisers, there are only 491 individual advisers across the UK.[3]As a result, a DWP evaluation of JCP plus found that only 22% of disabled people who say they would benefit from seeing a DEA are able to do so.[4]

4.3.Access to DEAs matters for a variety of reasons.Firstly, DEAs should have a good understanding of the wide range of barriers disabled people face in the labour market, and so are able to put in place an effective, personalised Jobseeker’s Agreement with fair and reasonable conditions attached to it. Doing so makes the conditionality and sanctions regime fairer and more transparent, and wouldinvolve disabled people far more in agreeing what they see as reasonable obligations.

4.4.Secondly, good quality DEAs should have an understanding of how disabled people’s conditions and impairments can impact on their ability to fulfil obligations, and are therefore well-placed to decide on a fair and reasonable application of sanctions for different individuals.

4.5.For instance, Scope’s Work Choice advisers report that on a number of occasions DEAs have been able to stop a sanction being enacted,where an individual customer has legitimately misunderstood their obligations. By performing this vital intermediary function, they are able to prevent inappropriate sanctions taking place, but earlier and better access to specialist advice would have prevented an intervention having to take place at this later stage, saving money and distress to the individual.

4.6.Recommendation: DWP should extend and revitalise the network of Disability Employment Advisers within Jobcentre Plus, ensuring that far more disabled people have the option to co-produce a more personalised Jobseekers Agreement right from the very beginning of the process. This should also ensure that a DEAs time is not taken up with intervening in decisions that have gone wrong.

For further information, please contact Robert Trotter (Public Policy Advisor), on , or 020 7619 7247.

[1]DWP (2013), Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment Support Allowance Sanctions – decisions made to June 2013:

[2]It is difficult to estimate the size of the flow from IB to ESA using the available data. But quarterly WCA outcomes data shows that of the 146,800 IB claimants reassessed between September and November 2012, 23% or 33,764 were found fit for work. Even accounting for those who appeal or simply drop their claim, there is likely to be a large group of disabled people moving onto JSA. See: DWP (2013), Employment and Support Allowance: Outcomes of Work Capability Assessments, GB:

[3]See written answer to Parliamentary Question on 7th December 2010:

[4]DWP (2012), The Jobcentre Plus Offer: Findings from the first year of the evaluation: