Michael Adler (2018) Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment? Benefit Sanctions in the UK, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, £44.99, pp. 171, hbk.

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-896
Author(s):  
AMIR PAZ-FUCHS
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Benefit ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Benefit Sanctions ◽  
The Uk

scholarly journals In-work Universal Credit: Claimant Experiences of Conditionality Mismatches and Counterproductive Benefit Sanctions

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
SHARON WRIGHT ◽  
PETER DWYER
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Job Search ◽  
Longitudinal Research ◽  
Working Hours ◽  
Unique Contribution ◽  
Working Age ◽  
Micro Level ◽  
Benefit Sanctions ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Universal Credit is the UK’s globally innovative social security reform that replaces six means tested benefits with one monthly payment for working age claimants - combining social security and tax credit systems. Universal Credit expands welfare conditionality via mandatory job search conditions to enhance ‘progression’ amongst working claimants by requiring extra working hours or multiple jobs. This exposes low paid workers to tough benefit sanctions for non-compliance, which could remove essential income indefinitely or for fixed periods of up to three years. Our unique contribution is to establish how this new regime is experienced at micro level by in-work claimants over time. We present findings from Qualitative Longitudinal Research (141 interviews with 58 claimants, 2014-17), to demonstrate how UC impacts on in-work recipients and how conditionality produces a new coerced worker-claimant model of social support. We identify a series of welfare conditionality mismatches and conclude that conditionality for in-work claimants is largely counterproductive. This implies a redesign of the UK system and serves as an international warning to potential policy emulators.

scholarly journals Domesticating the ‘troubled family’: Racialised sexuality and the postcolonial governance of family life in the UK

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 933-950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joe Turner
Keyword(s):  
Biological Control ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
National Health ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Colonial Rule ◽  
History Of ◽  
Benefit Sanctions ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Postcolonial Governance

This article examines how the UK’s Troubled Families Programme works as a strategy of domestication which produces and delimits certain forms of ‘family life’. Drawing upon critical geographies of home and empire, the article explores how the Troubled Families Programme works to manage the troubled family as part of a longer history of regulating unruly households in the name of national health and civilisation. Viewing the Troubled Families Programme as part of the production of heteronormative order highlights how the policy remobilises and reconfigures older forms of colonial rule which work to demarcate between civility/savagery, the developable/undevelopable. In examining the postcolonial dimension of neoliberal social policy, the article stresses how the Troubled Families Programme relies on racialising and sexualised logics of socio-biological control borrowed from imperial eugenics. Reading the Troubled Families Programme in this way contributes to our understanding of neoliberal rule. That the troubled family can be either domesticated or destroyed (through benefit sanctions and eviction) equally reveals the extent to which domesticity works as a key site for the production of both ‘worthy’ and ‘surplus’ life.

scholarly journals Utilising Benefit-Risk Assessments within Clinical Trials – A Protocol for the BRAINS project

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikki Totton ◽  
Steven Julious ◽  
Dyfrig Hughes ◽  
Jonathan Cook ◽  
Katie Biggs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Control Treatment ◽  
Guidance Document ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
Treatment Benefit ◽  
Web Based ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background Depending on the treatment to be investigated, a clinical trial could be designed to assess objectives of: superiority; equivalence or non-inferiority. The design of the study is affected by many different elements including: the control treatment, the primary outcome and associated relationships. In some studies, there could be more than one outcome of interest. In these situations, benefit-risk methodologies could be used to assess the outcomes simultaneously and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks of a treatment. Benefit-risk is used within the regulatory industry but seldom included within publicly funded clinical trials within the UK. This project aims to gain an expert consensus on how to select the appropriate trial design (e.g. superiority) and when to consider including benefit-risk methods. Methods The project will consist of four work packages: 1. A web-based survey to elicit current experiences and opinions, 2. A rapid literature review to assess any current recommendations, 3. A two-day consensus workshop to gain agreement on the recommendations, 4. Production of a guidance document. Discussion The aim of the project is to provide a guideline for clinical researchers, grant funding bodies and reviewers for grant bodies for how to select the most appropriate trial design and when it is appropriate to consider using benefit-risk methods. The focus of the guideline will be on publicly funded trials, however, the vision is the work will be applicable across research settings and we will connect with other organisations and committees as appropriate.

scholarly journals Utilising Benefit-Risk Assessments within Clinical Trials – A Protocol for the BRAINS project

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikki Totton ◽  
Steven Julious ◽  
Dyfrig Hughes ◽  
Jonathan Cook ◽  
Katie Biggs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Control Treatment ◽  
Guidance Document ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
Treatment Benefit ◽  
Web Based ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background: Depending on the treatment to be investigated, a clinical trial could be designed to assess objectives of: superiority; equivalence or non-inferiority. The design of the study is affected by many different elements including: the control treatment, the primary outcome and associated relationships. In some studies, there could be more than one outcome of interest. In these situations, benefit-risk methodologies could be used to assess the outcomes simultaneously and consider the trade-off between the benefits against the risks of a treatment. Benefit-risk is used within the regulatory industry but seldom included within publicly funded clinical trials within the UK. This project aims to gain an expert consensus on how to select the appropriate trial design (e.g. superiority) and when to consider including benefit-risk methods.Methods: The project will consist of four work packages:1. A web-based survey to elicit current experiences and opinions,2. A rapid literature review to assess any current recommendations,3. A two-day consensus workshop to gain agreement on the recommendations,4. Production of a guidance document.Discussion: The aim of the project is to provide a guideline for clinical researchers, grant funding bodies and reviewers for grant bodies for how to select the most appropriate trial design and when it is appropriate to consider using benefit-risk methods. The focus of the guideline will be on publicly funded trials, however, the vision is that the work will be applicable across research settings and we will connect with other organisations and committees as appropriate.

What Kind of Transfer State?

2019 ◽  
pp. 249-258
Author(s):  
Peter Sloman
Keyword(s):  
Economic Security ◽  
Basic Income ◽  
Subsistence Level ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
System P ◽  
Working Age ◽  
Benefit Sanctions ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Transfer State

This final chapter draws together the arguments developed in previous chapters and examines the prospects for the UK’s ‘transfer state’ in the twenty-first century. It argues that Universal Credit marks the culmination of a particular line of development: the expansion and rationalization of income-tested support for the working poor, driven forward by policy-makers in Whitehall and backed up by conditionality requirements. The combination of benefit sanctions and cuts means that, despite its scale, the UK social security system does not provide a guaranteed income for working-age citizens in any meaningful sense. Although a subsistence-level Universal Basic Income is likely to be prohibitively expensive, even a low-level basic income could give individuals greater economic security by placing a stable income floor beneath the means-tested benefit system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document