Food banks: benefit sanctions leave clients hungry for months

A new study finds that vulnerable people who fall foul of benefit rules can be plunged into reliance on food parcels for up to half a year



Benefit sanctions can plunge families into financial crisis, hunger, and dependency on food banks for up to half a year, far longer than the period for which they have had payments stopped, according to a new study.

The study, Cheshire Hunger looked in detail at the reasons why people had been given food bank vouchers and estimated the length of time they would be dependent on food aid.

It adds to a growing body of evidence directly linking welfare reforms with food bank use, and comes as a coalition of major churches call for an overhaul of the “inhumane” sanctions system.

Overall, it found problems with social security benefit payments accounted for nearly half (47%) of referrals. The bulk of these problems related to administrative delays, benefit sanctions and incapacity benefit stoppages.

The length of client crisis triggered by negative interactions with the benefits system typically ranged between seven and 28 days, but in extreme cases up to 26 weeks. Crisis is defined as the estimated period for which a food bank client would be reliant on food aid.

The study, carried out by West Cheshire food bank along with the Trussell trust and the University of Chester, examined 1,711 referrals to West Cheshire food bank over a seven month period last year. It found:

Administrative and other delays accounted for 23% of referrals and typically caused a crisis lasting between one and four weeks.
Sanctions accounted for 11% of referrals and usually placed households in a crisis situation for between one and 13 weeks.
Benefit Changes accounted for 9% of referrals and crisis typically lasted between one and four weeks.
Employment Support Allowance stoppages accounted for 4% of referrals and typically lasted between two and 13 weeks.
The biggest crisis category other than benefit delays and sanctions was low income and debt (31%) caused typically by high utility bills and housing costs, with crises lasting one to four weeks.

Of those food bank clients whose primary crisis was caused by sanctions, half were pushed into financial difficulty for two to three weeks, while a fifth were expected to be in crisis for 13-26 weeks.

Unlike benefit delays, where in theory claimants can receive backdated payments to cover the period when they were without income, sanctions left already vulnerable recipients struggling with a massive hole in their finances which they had often filled with expensive credit, trapping them in a cycle of debt.

The report notes:

The abrupt loss of income that results [from sanction] is likely to destabilise household finances for a greater period than the duration of the sanction itself.

Sanctions are imposed for breaches of benefit conditions, typically missing appointments or failing to carry out enough job searches. The majority result in benefits being stopped for four weeks, although they can in extreme cases be imposed for three years.

The report adds:

Sanctions clearly place significant numbers of individuals and families in a position where they cannot afford food. This is alarming because it suggests that... there appear to be few, if any, safeguards for vulnerable people.

The West Cheshire food banks serves an area with a population of over 200,000 people, spanning affluent areas such as Chester and pockets of deprivation like Ellesmere Port. Food bank referrals for May-November period of the study were up by 14% on the previous year.

The study adds an extra layer of detail to the standard Trussell Trust data collection approach, which cannot easily disaggregate referrals caused by administrative delays and those relating to problems caused directly by specific government policy changes, such as tighter benefit conditionality, or mandatory reconsideration of appeals against work capability assessments.

Although the overwhelming anecdotal and qualitative evidence accumulated by food banks (and other academic studies) supports a strong connection between the Coalition’s welfare reforms and food bank use, Trussell data has been vulnerable to claims by the Department of Work and Pensions that it is not “robust” enough to make this link. The West Cheshire study hopes to tighten the food banks’ argument.

The findings around the estimated length of time benefit claimants face crisis also has implications for food bank policy. The Trussell trust currently operates a threshold whereby clients receive up to three food parcels per “crisis”. The study suggests that a hefty proportion of clients are going hungry for longer than the nine-to-15 days that three Trussell food parcels would be expected to last.

Alec Spencer, West Cheshire food bank development officer, told me:

The study does not undermine the Trussell trust model, which provides a very good response to people in crisis. But its findings [on the length of time people are likely to spend in food poverty] highlight a growing tension within, and challenge to, that model.

The Reverend Christine Jones, chair of West Cheshire food bank, said:

Behind these statistics are real people who are struggling... Whatever the reason for emergency food use, any hunger is unacceptable and we are concerned that there is a level of need which is being systematically ignored. We are calling on the government to publicly accept that food poverty is a growing problem and to take responsibility for protecting the poorest people in society.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2015/mar/02/food-banks-benefit-sanctions-leave-clients-hungry-for-months

This Government should be locked up for what they have done to thousands of citizens of this country.