ktlight
24th August 2011, 09:29
FYI:
ONE OF THE CONSISTENT GOALS of a series of welfare reforms has been to stimulate job entry. This approach presents mov-
ing off benefits and into employment as neutral and beneficial for recipients, employers, the state and wider society.1 In addition, contracting out the delivery of benefits and employment advice has changed the way in which the state interacts with citizens in need. But what do these changes mean in practice? Can they deliver the promised increase in employment rates, and will this solve child poverty?
Work for all?
Recent ‘work-first’ changes to social security and employment services are significant for people currently out of work and those at risk of losing their job, but they also have wider implications because they redefine the rights and responsi- bilities between individuals and the state.2
Receiving financial support from the state when unemployed or unable to work (because of ill health, disability or caring commitments) is harder now than at any time in the last 60 years. Driven by unequivocal cost-cutting and an ide- ological drive to tackle ‘welfare dependency’, eligibility criteria for a range of benefits have been tightened, and claiming benefits is more conditional on actively seeking work – backed by harsh penalties for non-compliance. Further- more, benefits are paid at low (often inadequate) rates, which are set to devalue over time.3 Low take-up because of stigma and administrative problems at service level also means that citizens lose out on essential income.
Under the previous government, welfare reform included a mix of enabling and punitive ele- ments. Enabling measures:
• increased the financial rewards of employment – eg, the national minimum wage and working tax credit;
• increased the availability of flexible high-quality affordable childcare – eg, the National Childcare Strategy; and
• contributed towards the costs of childcare – eg, child tax credit.
However, there were still problems with the ade- quacy of wages and tax credits, and the avail- ability and cost of childcare, especially for lone parents. Overall, reforms between 2007 and 2011 substantially increased the obligations on lone parents and ill and disabled people to find paid work, without guaranteeing jobs in local labour markets, job retention support or effec- tive anti-discrimination recruitment and employment practices. Under the coalition government, reform has taken a more punitive turn, masked by disingenuous rhetoric about ‘making work pay’ and ‘no one losing out’.
source to read more
http://www.cpag.org.uk/info/Povertyarticles/Poverty139/CPAG_Poverty139_CanWelfareReformWork.pdf
ONE OF THE CONSISTENT GOALS of a series of welfare reforms has been to stimulate job entry. This approach presents mov-
ing off benefits and into employment as neutral and beneficial for recipients, employers, the state and wider society.1 In addition, contracting out the delivery of benefits and employment advice has changed the way in which the state interacts with citizens in need. But what do these changes mean in practice? Can they deliver the promised increase in employment rates, and will this solve child poverty?
Work for all?
Recent ‘work-first’ changes to social security and employment services are significant for people currently out of work and those at risk of losing their job, but they also have wider implications because they redefine the rights and responsi- bilities between individuals and the state.2
Receiving financial support from the state when unemployed or unable to work (because of ill health, disability or caring commitments) is harder now than at any time in the last 60 years. Driven by unequivocal cost-cutting and an ide- ological drive to tackle ‘welfare dependency’, eligibility criteria for a range of benefits have been tightened, and claiming benefits is more conditional on actively seeking work – backed by harsh penalties for non-compliance. Further- more, benefits are paid at low (often inadequate) rates, which are set to devalue over time.3 Low take-up because of stigma and administrative problems at service level also means that citizens lose out on essential income.
Under the previous government, welfare reform included a mix of enabling and punitive ele- ments. Enabling measures:
• increased the financial rewards of employment – eg, the national minimum wage and working tax credit;
• increased the availability of flexible high-quality affordable childcare – eg, the National Childcare Strategy; and
• contributed towards the costs of childcare – eg, child tax credit.
However, there were still problems with the ade- quacy of wages and tax credits, and the avail- ability and cost of childcare, especially for lone parents. Overall, reforms between 2007 and 2011 substantially increased the obligations on lone parents and ill and disabled people to find paid work, without guaranteeing jobs in local labour markets, job retention support or effec- tive anti-discrimination recruitment and employment practices. Under the coalition government, reform has taken a more punitive turn, masked by disingenuous rhetoric about ‘making work pay’ and ‘no one losing out’.
source to read more
http://www.cpag.org.uk/info/Povertyarticles/Poverty139/CPAG_Poverty139_CanWelfareReformWork.pdf