Benefit sanctions shoot up 50% in six months

Benefit sanctions shoot up 50% in six months
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2017/09/04/benefit-sanctions-shoot-up-50-in-six-months

The number of sanctions imposed on people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or Universal Credit rose from 18,994 last July to 33,860 in December, before falling back to the 30,000 mark by March this year.

that increase is more like 70% that it is a 50% increase

76 per cent of these decisions resulted in a sanction being imposed in March 2017

So it was decided that it was ok to put 3 out of 4 people at risk of starvation. Modern 21st century Britain. What a wonderful place to live

its just a reminder of this

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2017/05/16/dwp-sets-80-benefit-appeal-rejection-target

it really makes you suspect that jcp offices was targetting jcp claimants with 80% dwp sanctions

From August 2015 to December 2016 the official DWP figures for UC sanctions are 109,301 overall.

This figure does not include sanctions that were over-turned.

In December 2016 14,823 UC claimants were subject to a sanction deduction out 433,848 claims (3.4%)

The most horrific figure is between April 2000 and March 2017 there have been 6,881,530 adverse sanction decisions in total.

Admin wrote:The number of sanctions imposed on people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or Universal Credit rose from 18,994 last July to 33,860 in December, before falling back to the 30,000 mark by March this year.

that increase is more like 70% that it is a 50% increase

So by my calculations, sanctions rose by 56% (from 18,995 up to 33,860) July 2016.
They then fell by 11% in December 2016 (the difference between 33,860 and 30,000) but this meant they were still up by 36.7% (the difference between 30,000 and 18,994) by March 2017.  

Please can someone check I got my math's right?  

from 18,995 up to 33,860 so double is 37,990 would be 100% increase

so from my maths its around 75% too 80% increase

a 50 % increase would be 9.4975 = 28.4925

Admin wrote:from 18,995 up to 33,860 so double is 37,990 would be 100% increase

so from my maths its around 75% too 80% increase

a 50 % increase would be 9.4975 = 28.4925

 Sorry Admin' my error, I see what I should have done.

33,860 is 89% of 37,990 so that is what the increase is.
It then dropped down to 79%.

Does that look more accurate now?

no need to be sorry caker

everyone adds up differently with what they was taught with even ive had some reminders on how to do it myself

it looks right to me even i checked with someone else before posting it

.....schoolgirl error

And I gather it is also to massage the jobless figures, as I understand while on a "sanction" you are not on the official figures? Or as the DWP call it "off-stream"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41252976

Here's an article about the rising sanction rate .

SANCTIONS – THE MOST AND THE LONGEST
If you want a measure of just how harsh the modern benefits regime is, you only have to look at sanctions.

As sanctions expert Dr David Webster of the University of Glasgow points out, for 73 years – between 1913 and 1986 - the longest a claimant could have their unemployment benefit suspended for was 6 weeks.

And most sanctions were much shorter.

Now they can last for years.

And it is sick and disabled ESA claimants who have the distinction of getting a higher percentage of sanctions lasting over 6 months than any other group of claimants.

But it is the rapidly rolling-out UC that has the highest proportion of sanctions.

The sanctions rate for JSA claimants is 2.5% per month.

But for UC the rate rockets to three times that number, at 7.4% per month.

Still, as David Gauke also explained in his speech yesterday, his party is on a journey:

“Universal credit is the next step on our journey. A journey to a welfare state that gives people the help that they need but does not trap them in dependency.”

There’s certainly few more effective ways of preventing people being dependent on benefits than snatching those benefits away from them.

Some people may think that such an enormous sanctions rate is both harsh and short-sighted in a benefit that is supposed to make work pay. Mr Gauke, however, disagrees. He is both caring and a man of vision, as he explained in his speech:

It is a vision of the welfare state that is compassionate, practical and aspirational. It is, in short, a Conservative vision for a modern welfare state.

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3669-4-october-2017-update?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Benefits%20and%20Work&utm_content=v1+October+4+2017+newsletter

....On a more practical note, do we know if people on UC are more likely to be sanctioned than on JSA?

Is it a case that the new harsher conditionality contains more traps for people to fall into? Is the UC online account more treacherous than UJM?

There has to be a reason for more sanctions. People need to know how to avoid the traps, if that is what is contributing to this increase.

In the pdf I have of the sanctions stats up to July 2016 it doesn't include why UC sanctions were enacted. That data is missing. However, lower and mid level sanctions have the highest figures.

Absolut wrote:In the pdf I have of the sanctions stats up to July 2016 it doesn't include why UC sanctions were enacted. That data is missing. However, lower and mid level sanctions have the highest figures.

Thanks.

Clearly we need to monitor the situation for further developments.