TV ‘poverty porn’ and depictions of feckless families are shaping public debate about benefit cuts. Meanwhile, local councils, charities and social housing providers must pick up the pieces
The furore over Channel 4’s Benefits Street programme brings to a head an argument over the portrayal of benefits recipients that has been raging since the government’s radical welfare reform agenda kicked off in 2010. Many critics have accused ministers of actively encouraging public antipathy towards benefit claimants as a way of garnering popular support (and justification) for controversial cuts.
Certainly for those in the Treasury – tasked with wiping tens of billions of pounds off the benefits bill each year – public misperception about levels of fraud within the system and the generosity of payments have made their job easier. Within the Department for Work and Pensions, though, the motivation to cut benefits is less about cash and more about morality and behaviour. Concern regarding benefits dependency, fatherless households and moral decline is sincere – not a cover to cut spending. The tensions this has caused between the two departments, and the in-principle arguments for or against cuts to benefits, will become more pronounced in the run-up to the general election as politicians fight to capture public opinion.
Unfortunately, such discussions – and, some would say, reality TV ‘poverty porn’ – cast more heat than light on effective ways to tackle the impact of welfare reform on local communities.
Alongside voluntary organisations and housing providers, local authorities will often find themselves picking up the pieces, and expense, of families in crisis after a benefits cut. Big moral questions posed by welfare reform seem less important when battling more immediate problems. What will the future hold for those charged not with debating the principle, but addressing the reality of welfare reform?
Some of the earliest changes will now be bedding in. This year, the Personal Independence Payment will roll out in earnest to replace Disability Living Allowance, leading to about 600,000 disabled people losing their eligibility to financial support and passported services, such as Motability.
The transfer of people from Incapacity Benefit to Employment and Support Allowance will be finalised this year, and the time limitation of contributory ESA for those in the Work-Related Activity Group will start to bite in large numbers this spring. Both changes will see many people lose eligibility for ESA, and experience a significant reduction in income. Many will be in poor health and many will have been unemployed for a considerable time. Yet they will be relying on Jobseeker’s Allowance and the mainstream Work Programme (not proven to be effective in helping hard-to-reach groups) to get them into work. The sudden reduction in incomes will no doubt see spikes in poverty-related social problems among these households where ill-health is a complicating factor.
Evictions, homelessness and rehousing needs will become more obvious in the next year as the ‘bedroom tax’ takes effect. Two-thirds of those involved will be disabled – again, adding the complicating factor of poor health to the support such families will need. Worryingly, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles’ office warned that the costs associated with evictions (often borne by local authorities) could soon outstrip savings made by the policy.
This year will also see eligibility tightened so that new European Union migrants cannot claim benefits for three months. This will make new arrivals more vulnerable to homelessness or exploitation, with local support services charged with tackling these issues.
The impact of these changes – increasing the numbers of people in poverty and at risk of homelessness (particularly among those in poor health) – needs to be addressed, but local authorities also need to prepare for Universal Credit, which may increase demand for debt and budgeting advice (as managing larger monthly payments challenges those accustomed to weekly budgeting), and digital inclusion as online access becomes the norm.
Beyond the general election, scrapping Housing Benefit for the under-25s, the latest controversial suggestion by George Osborne, will be particularly problematic for care leavers and vulnerable young adults.
The impact of the welfare reforms will vary – different local circumstances, combined with different roll-out rates mean no two councils will experience the changes in the same way. Inevitably, local authorities with the highest rates of unemployment, poverty and poor health will face the greatest challenges.
There are other difficult truths. First, food banks will not be enough. Localisation of the Social Fund and increased benefits sanctions have seen many local agencies refer families to food banks as a form of emergency support, but as welfare reform beds in, unpaid rent and heating bills, and the need for clothes and furniture, will be just as pressing. Alternatives to the doorstep lender will need to be found.
Second, while the intention of many welfare cuts is to incentivise behaviour change (whether to downsize, find a job or work more), local factors such as the availability of jobs, smaller homes and the presence of family ties means those most affected by benefit cuts (the long-term unemployed, low-skilled or in poor health) will struggle to react to these ‘incentives’. Local authorities will need to help tackle these external obstacles to people coping with benefits cuts.
Finally, if Benefits Street shows us anything, it is that poor mental health, poor skills and substance abuse are often bound tightly in families with long-term reliance on benefits. There is no quick fix, financial or otherwise, to end this reliance. Simply cutting off their cash will usually exacerbate, not reduce, these problems.
It is falling to local authorities, social housing providers and charities to pick up the pieces, and bear the costs, of welfare reform. But as the debate becomes more abstract and increasingly politicised in Westminster in the election countdown, will their voices be heard above the din?
Claudia Wood is deputy director of Demos
This opinion piece was first published in the January/February edition of Public Finance magazine
