The sanctions story naturally generated a lot of interest. This might rile you even more. It's one of those stories that make you wonder, at first, whether it could actually be a wind-up. But no.
Left Foot Forward reports that Hounslow Community FoodBox is a partnership between the local council and tenants' and residents' groups. It's chaired by a Labour councillor, Steve Curran. All well and good, you might think. But specifically excluded from eligibility are those who are "under sanctions from the Jobcentre". They, presumably, are the undeserving poor, who've brought it on themselves and can therefore starve, along with their kids. Oh, and those who are "in constant difficulties due to chaotic lifestyles" are also ineligible. They are undeserving too.
LFF say they have contacted the Foodbox but have not had an answer. It would be interesting to hear the justification.
... i'll never vote labour again. ever.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I have much to add to this other than the observation that it's absolutely appalling. On a practical level, it would be impossible to feed on a permanent basis everyone who has been sanctioned. This is a reflection of the harshness of the regime and the frequency with which it's applied, and most food banks effectively ration provision as a consequence.
ReplyDeleteHowever, to have a blanket ban of this (or practically any) sort is outrageous, as is the establishment of food banks as a de facto part of formal welfare provision - and now that many of them are being supported by local authorities as part of the replacement of crisis loans and CCGs, that is increasingly what they are.
It does smack of concepts of deserving and undeserving poor, with one difference - under the Poor Laws even the "undeserving" could have some entitlement to something - albeit on the principle of less eligibility - it seems that with Hounslow Community Food Box, less eligibility may mean starvation.
Finally, I'd love to know what the definition of "constant difficulties due to chaotic lifestyles" is, who makes that decision, what evidence they use and what right of appeal that is.
For anyone facing difficulty now and trying to navigate the new structures, this from the Children's Society may be of interest - every local scheme in England:
http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/news-views/our-blog/find-your-local-welfare-assistance-scheme
I've looked at a fair few of the places and they all seem to to say the same thing - you must be in receipt of a benefit to claim the grant.
DeleteIf you are sanctioned you are not in receipt of a benefit, so you can't claim the grant. Which is what the organisation quoted in Historian's post was saying, only they spelt it out in full, none of the other places seem to have done so.
Or am I wrong about this?
It seems my Top Priority is no longer finding Employment but avoiding a Sanction
ReplyDeleteWithout wanting to be hysterical about things, it may well be. I was spoke to a job seeker recently - ex-rough sleeper, long term drug user and in recovery, but genuinely keen to get paid employment, although (in my estimation) a long way from actually being competitive in any part of the open job market.
DeleteMe: Have JCP been able to help at all?
Him: I don't talk to them - they're just there to catch you out.
Clearly, this man is not representative of most job seekers, but his perception of what JCP is may be - a place that you try to get out of quickly, before you get sanctioned.
It may turn out to be problematic if, when your policy intent is to get people into work, they're (often justifiably) terrified of the agency that's supposed to help them.
I am a job seeker, who used to work for them. And I am terrified of them, I feel put your head down do your jobsearch and with luck a great deal of luck they will not sanction you. But not even that is guaranteed anymore, It feels like they want to trick people into sanction that all the job centre is is a sanction machine. They are not there to get you a job or help you get a job they are there to punish you for NOT getting a job.
Delete@Badger,I think you are wrong,I have no alcohol or drug issues and use to open up to both the JCP and WP Advisers,now I say as little as possible and try to get out of there as quick as possible with a minimal amount of contact.
DeleteThis seems to suit both of us,as it occurs to me the purpose of the WP has nothing to do with finding anybody,with the exception of the Cream employment and the main purpose is keeping their jobs.
Anonymous - from your post, it looks as though you agree with me. Important to separate things out though - Jobcentre Plus isn't the Work Programme, and the policy intent of getting people closer to or into paid employment is being undermined by people disengaging from the service due to fears of sanctioning.
Delete@Badger,I do agree with you,but I feel that all JSA\WP clients rue having to go and attend (fear)regardless of personal circumstances.
DeleteActually I have no problem with the JC who are far more understanding than the WP, it's the WP people I dislike.
DeleteAnd as Historian has pointed out on here before, the JC staff don't love the WP staff. I have personal experience of this as well. Plenty of derogatory comments about the WP and the provider's staff in general from the JC staff here.
The JC know there are no jobs, the JC say to people (eg the man who was sent on the WP for 1yr before retirement) "keep your head down, do what they say, don't try and cause trouble and just go through it"
But I think there is a definite problem in that the less well educated unemployed seem to run in to problems far more than I do (sounds dreadful, but I don't know how else to phrase it). It's to do with not understanding about appeals, how to fill out forms etc.
And the JC doesn't have the time to help them, so these people develop the idea that they are being talked down to - I overheard a conversation like this while waiting to sign, I left at the same time as the guy with the problem and he was complaining to me about how they were treating him like a child etc etc. I didn't hear it that way, just that the JC staff member was trying to explain to him that forms had to be sent off, that they took time to arrive and that there was nothing the JC could do at the time and the guy concerned was understandably panicking. I also heard another conversation where someone was advised to go to their Dr ASAP and get a second opinion so that they could appeal the fact they were being taken of ESA. And I have heard people being advised not to go to the local citizens advice bureau as "I have heard from lots of people they are not very helpful" and an alternative was suggested.
My opinion of the JC is that they do try to help although there's not a lot they can do; the WP staff don't. Perhaps my local JC is staffed by more understanding people than others.
If you visit the Foodbox website now a message states ''This Account Has Been Suspended''. Whatever that means. When I checked the site yesterday they had published a vague statement in response to critical blogs and press reports.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the article in Left Foot Forward and this blog has forced Foodbox to review their policy regarding sanctioned people and those leading ''chaotic lifestyles''.
I spoke to the Hounslow council keeping it calm and reasoned, made my point how its discriminatory, I stated it is creating deserving/undeserving poor. How if a man is sanctioned for whatever reason it would mean his children could starve.. It appeared to me that they automatically assume sanctioned people did it because they didnt want to seek work when we all know its not that simple. The council did say they made the foodbank aware of that issue. Unfair is unfair the foodbank should be there to help starving people not make judgements about others.
DeleteHow did you speak to Hounslow Council?
DeleteVia tweet, and they replied via that way.
DeleteThe new statement by then has been changed they say they are not connected to the council there,but on the front page they say they are. I think it got through to them that their actions their partnership gave implied agreement to the discrimination against sanctioned people
ReplyDelete