Wednesday, 15 May 2013

Sanctions statistics - they're not going to publish them

Today was supposed to be the day the updated stats for JSA sanctions were published.  But the DWP has decided not to publish them.  In an announcement the DWP said that there were "significant doubts around the quality of the statistics relating to the new regime".  So they're going to work on them and publish them at some point in the future.
The new series of stats is to run from October 2012 to January 2013, and "include a breakdown by Jobcentre Plus office".  So why there's doubt about their "quality" is anybody's guess.  An article in the Scottish Daily Record quoted figures for April 2012 (yes, last year).  4,680 claimants in Scotland had their benefits stopped in that month, compared to 500 in the same month in 2009.  The article quotes the concerns of Citizens Advice Scotland about both the numbers being punished and the "unreasonable or unfair" nature of many of the cases.
So one wonders why the DWP is so concerned not to publish updated figures.


  1. I may be cynical,but IDS has no problem spouting off the wrong statistics. Delaying and manipulating the WP statistics should of been an Olympic event.
    I will be curious to see the results published in June,although they will only cover a 4 Month period will they reflect the actual performance? or just that 4 Month period?

  2. Dear Historian,

    I would like to thank you for writing this excellent blog.

    I hope you realise how helpful you are to people like myself, who feel so very isolated and alone.

    Reading your blog reminds me that at least some people still care.

    Thank you.

  3. The One True Elg15 May 2013 at 11:37

    Hmm, this is confusing. Surely they're just going to show that lots of sanctions are being used and it plays into IDS's tough love narrative. Even if it shows that not ''enough'' sanctions are applied in IDS's view, this wouldn't be much of a problem.

  4. Statistics are Lies, Damn Lies, and government figures

  5. Workfare exploiters can be named
    The DWP attempt to overturn the ICO's ruling that they must disclose the workfare "placement provides" has failed.
    Let's hope this is the beginning of the end for workfare.

  6. My daughter has moved to a new area and the A4E person in the original area is refusing to transfer her - apparently 'cos it's worth a lot of money a year. Instead she has to email / phone every week back to the mothership, a 100 miles away.

    Anyhow, that's my daughter's version. Sound credible?

    1. She's only worth anything to A4e if she gets a job. So I'm not sure which office gets the outcome payment if someone transfers offices while on the WP.


Keep it clean, please. No abusive comments will be approved, so don't indulge in insults. If you wish to contact me, post a comment beginning with "not for publication".