Government urged to publish more data to give the public a clearer understanding of how jobseekers are penalised

The UK statistics watchdog has asked the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure its statements on jobseeker sanctions are “objective and impartial” following a series of complaints by leading experts.

In an indictment of current DWP methods, the UK Statistics Authority’s (UKSA) chief, Sir Andrew Dilnot, has said he will write to the top statistician in the department requesting that it publishes much more data and gives the public a clearer understanding of how it is imposing sanctions on jobseekers.

Sanctions are used by civil servants to penalise jobseekers when they are alleged to have broken benefit rules. Over the last decade those punishments have become increasingly severe. As of October 2012, jobseekers can be stripped of their allowance for up to three years.

Guardian research earlier this week showed that the government had significantly understated the impact of its benefit sanctions regime.

In the last few years, the proportion of jobseekers given sanctions each month has hovered between 4% and 6%. Using those monthly sanction rates – the only officially published rates available – ministers have claimed that only a small minority of jobseekers have been affected by the government’s increasingly severe welfare policies.

Using the proportion of all those penalised over the course of 12 months shows that each year, one in six (17%) of all jobseekers have their payments stopped.

The difference between the two proportions occurs because jobseekers are often unemployed for longer than one month and so the annual rate captures the cumulative effect of the government’s policy.

The confusion that has ensued between the use of official monthly and unofficial annual estimates would end if the DWP conceded to Dilnot’s request to publish annualised sanction rates.



Addressed to leading welfare academic Dr David Webster, whose initial 12-page complaint spurred UKSA into a response, Dilnot’s letter dated 5 August says he will be “suggesting a more comprehensive analysis of sanction rates for JSA claimants supported by a clear explanation”.



He will also ask the DWP to “ensure all statements made using the official statistics are objective and impartial and appropriately apply the definitions of the variables underpinning the data”.



Only last month the minister for welfare reform, David Freud, refused to give parliament annualised sanction rates, saying it was too expensive.

The DWP has told the Guardian it will consider Dilnot’s request but insisted its methods were the most accurate.

“A monthly figure better reflects the number of current claimants who are subject to a sanction, and is therefore a better estimate at a given point in time,” a DWP spokesman said. “We regularly review how we produce and publish official statistics. The head of profession for statistics will look at the letter from the UKSA and consider the recommendations.”

Webster, a Glasgow University research fellow, said he was very pleased with the outcome as it would, “expose the massive scale of the sanctions industry”.

“This is a very satisfactory response from UKSA. It has essentially accepted all the criticisms I made of the DWP’s sanctions statistics,” he said. “I’m particularly pleased at the recommendation that the quarterly statistics releases should include a statement of the proportion of claimants sanctioned in the most recent one-year and five-year periods.

“This will put a stop to the government’s claims that only a tiny minority of claimants are sanctioned and expose the massive scale of the sanctions industry. We will now need to ensure that these recommendations are fully implemented.”