Conditional Rights, Benefit Reform, and Drug Users: Reducing Dependency?

Abstract

United Kingdom government policy to increase social security claimants' entry to the labour market through conditions attached to unemployed, sickness and incapacity benefits now includes additional measures to activate particular groups such as lone parents and drug users. The latter are a prime target because of their high level of dependency on benefits and because social security rules are seen as having the potential to modify the behaviour of individuals with a lifestyle regarded as being at odds with the moral obligations of citizenship and incompatible with the government's realization of its wider economic and social goals. There are strict procedures for the identification of drug-user claimants, enabling additional conditions to be attached to their benefit rights. This article discusses the general trend in benefit reform towards increased conditionality and evaluates the reforms affecting drug users, considering human rights and other implications. It concludes by reflecting on the status of conditional rights to social security as social rights.

Benefits and Employment: How Problem Drug Users Experience Welfare and Routes into Work

“…The situation is far too complex, and the barriers to employment too many, for sanctions alone to work in facilitating the movement of PDUs from benefits into employment. This is reflected in evidence from other countries, including the USA, where increased screening for alcohol and drug use has not reduced benefit uptake (Cheng and Lo, 2010) or the prevalence of drug misuse (see Harris, 2010). It is possible that increasing benefit sanctions in the UK, which are based on a different rationale to the USA and which are being implemented differently (see Harris, 2010), may reduce the number of PDUs claiming on welfare.…”

“…This is reflected in evidence from other countries, including the USA, where increased screening for alcohol and drug use has not reduced benefit uptake (Cheng and Lo, 2010) or the prevalence of drug misuse (see Harris, 2010). It is possible that increasing benefit sanctions in the UK, which are based on a different rationale to the USA and which are being implemented differently (see Harris, 2010), may reduce the number of PDUs claiming on welfare. However, it is important to note that this may happen without necessarily increasing levels of employment amongst PDUs (and this may, in turn, lead to increased offending – see UKDPC, 2008).…”

“…Lymbery, 2006). This is particularly important given that recent UK welfare reforms mean that non-attendance at agreed appointments is being increasingly linked to sanctions (Harris, 2010). In addition, both PDU and professional interviewees noted strains in the relationship with benefit staff resulting from the behaviour of some PDUs and a perception that staff tended to stigmatise drug users.…”

“…In addition, both PDU and professional interviewees noted strains in the relationship with benefit staff resulting from the behaviour of some PDUs and a perception that staff tended to stigmatise drug users. This is important from the perspective of recent welfare reforms as claimants who are perceived to undermine their prospects of employment through their behaviour are also becoming increasingly subject to sanctions (Harris, 2010). As others have suggested, this is likely to make it difficult for employment support professionals to build a rapport with PDU clients (Sutton et al ., 2004).…”

“…For example, one US study found evidence that substance abuse treatment was effective in increasing employment rates but also noted that government mandated drug testing may drive drug-using employees to ‘abandon the search for legitimate work activities’ (Montoya and Atkinson, 2002: 140). Other US studies indicate that screening for drugs and alcohol may not reduce welfare participation (Cheng and Lo, 2010), that increased conditionality may not reduce drug use (see Harris, 2010) and that it may impact negatively on drug users’ families (e.g. Allard, 2002; Montoya and Atkinson, 2002).…”