Size matters: experiences of larger families on a low income during COVID-19

This working paper highlights the findings of the research on impacts of the 2012 UK welfare reforms on refugee families living in London and argues that the perception of a fair and equal society is being seriously undermined by the policies of the UK government that are meant to cultivate these ideals. Systematic failures from public services are leaving many new refugee families destitute, without or with nsufficient support to meet their basic living needs. The most serious threat comes from recent changes to the UK welfare system, combined with tougher sanctions and conditionality, which creates a more complex and inaccessible system. The introduction of the Benefit Cap and the abolishing of means tested benefits are of particular significance, as a large number of new refugee households experience unemployment and are highly dependent on the welfare system. Loss of this income in households interviewed for the research has increased the levels of deprivation and poverty, in some households with devastating consequences. Homelessness is on the increase, and the unaffordability of housing in London is resulting in the forced removal of large refugee households to other (often deprived) areas of the UK. Besides the economic suffering, this research finds serious health impacts as well, including increased levels of distress and anxiety, severe depression and suicidal thoughts. Furthermore, changes to the welfare system do not take into account the needs of refugee families and their children and is damaging their prospects for successful future integration.

Social Policy & AdministrationVolume 10, Issue 1 p. 32-50 Charity and Public Policy in the UK—The Law and the Economics* A. J. Culyer, A. J. Culyer Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of YorkSearch for more papers by this authorJ. Wiseman, J. Wiseman Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of YorkSearch for more papers by this authorJ. W. Posnett, J. W. Posnett Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of YorkSearch for more papers by this author A. J. Culyer, A. J. Culyer Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of YorkSearch for more papers by this authorJ. Wiseman, J. Wiseman Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of YorkSearch for more papers by this authorJ. W. Posnett, J. W. Posnett Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of YorkSearch for more papers by this author First published: March 1976 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.1976.tb00629.xCitations: 3 * Acknowledgment is made to the Social Science Research Council for a programme research grant to the Department of Economics and Related Studies and the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of York for research in public sector studies. Needless to say, only the authors are responsible for the views expressed in this paper. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume10, Issue1March 1976Pages 32-50 RelatedInformation

In R (DA and Others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] UKSC 21 (hereinafter DA and Others) the Supreme Court considered whether the revised benefit cap under the Welfare Reform and ...

BackgroundThe last three parliamentary terms have marked a period of unprecedented change for the UK welfare system. Alongside reducing public spending, boosting behavioural incentives has represented the overarching drive behind the majority of reforms introduced.
 ObjectivesPolicy in Practice has pooled benefits data across nineteen of thirty-two London boroughs to track changes in living standards and the impact of welfare reforms on low-income Londoners over a period of two years. This paper models and assesses the impact of two flagship welfare reforms on households’ behavioural responses. The policies analysed are the benefit cap and the impact of Universal Credit on selfemployed households.
 MethodsThe project has gathered a sample of over 570,000 real households. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support data has been collected from participating local authorities on a monthly basis for two years. The study combines complex policy modelling to forecast the future impact of Universal Credit on the living standards of self-employed households, with a Difference-in-Difference regression to understand the impact of the benefit cap on the employment outcomes of households affected.
 FindingsThe findings of the analysis indicate a positive impact of the benefit cap on employment outcomes, with a difference in employment rates of 3.5 percentage points in favour of households affected by the cap, compared to the control group. At the same time, the model forecasts significant income losses for self-employed households as the result of the application of a Minimum Income Floor under Universal Credit, with an average income reduction of £341 p/m.
 ConclusionThe research highlights the potential of locally held administrative data in systematically tracking the impact of policies and the effectiveness of government interventions. This work fits within the broader mission of Policy in Practice to promote an outcome-based approach to the design and delivery of social policy.

THE appeal in R. (on the application of SG) (previously JS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Child Poverty Action Group and another intervening) [2015] UKSC 16 concerned a challenge to the cap on welfare benefits, one of the measures introduced as part of the Government's austerity-driven economic and social policy. The “benefit cap” operates to limit the amount of welfare benefits that can be received by non-working households, to the equivalent net median earnings of a working household. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 contains provisions allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for a “benefit cap” scheme. It is implemented through the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012 and operates by a reduction in housing benefit once a specified maximum amount is reached. Benefits covered by the cap include housing benefit, child benefit, and child tax credit. Once the cap is reached, no account is taken of the number of children in the family. The lawfulness of the Act itself was not challenged. The appellants’ argument was that the implementation of the scheme was discriminatory and contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998.

The insider–outsider theses suggest that trade unions have usually had strong incentives to represent the interests of the insiders. However, we argue that unions’ position on welfare state reforms will be affected by insiders and outsiders, depending on their level of membership and activity within the union. We combine macro-level data (content analysis of press releases) on six different unions in Germany with individual-level data (German Internet Panel), including information regarding differently skilled insider and outsider. We use a mix-method approach, and the results show that the attitudes of the low-skilled insiders (blue-collar workers) and low-skilled outsiders (low service functionaries) play a significant role in shaping unions’ positions. Both groups exhibit a high level of union membership and activity within unions. We conclude that this represents an important mechanism for understanding the influence of insiders and outsiders on unions’ position towards welfare state reforms.

Covid-19 has put social security systems under immense pressure. Governments saw demand for social security rise dramatically whilst attempting to support those whose employment had temporarily stopped once severe economic restrictions were put in place. Drawing on a range of evidence (including original interviews), this chapter focuses on the experience of larger families (households with three or more children) during the pandemic as a way of illuminating how these pandemic-induced policy responses often failed to reach those groups who have been subject to austerity measures over the previous decade. We explore this in three ways. First, we unpack how the government’s response to Covid-19 left larger families in a precarious position. Secondly, we situate the experience of larger families in the context of a wider set of reforms to social security—such as the benefit cap, the two-child limit, and the benefits freeze—which have already pushed even more larger families into poverty over the last decade. The final section of the chapter draws out how these policy decisions exacerbate inequalities between groups, while alluding to implications for protected characteristics as enshrined in the Equality Act 2010. This analysis not only illuminates how the pandemic has increased gender and ethnic inequalities but also suggests that the degree to which the pandemic was inequality-generating is rooted in policy decisions made before the pandemic even began. Avoiding exponential inequalities in response to future crises requires that policies—and the discourses which surround them—are sensitive to the potential for other kinds of societal shock.

At the heart of the Tory campaign to reduce the budget deficit has been a wide-reaching welfare reform agenda, the centrepiece of which is the benefit cap. The cap, implemented under the Welfare Re...

This article describes the conversion of the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) to a computer aided personal interviewing (CAPI) mode of data collection. The BHPS is a panel survey, now in its 10th year of data collection, carried out by the Institute for Social and Economic Research based at the University of Essex. Moving to CAPI midway in the life of a panel survey presents particular challenges, and the article discusses the implications of the move and details the staged strategy by which it was accomplished within a very tight timescale. The authors show how this approach has provided many of the benefits of a CAPI mode of data collection while posing little risk to the integrity of the panel sample as a whole, generating, nevertheless, challenges of its own.

The aim of this paper is to identify the factors that determine the prevalence of private medical insurance (PMI) in England. Secondary data sources are the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) 1997-2000, Laing's Healthcare Market Review 1999-2000, the United Kingdom (U.K.) Department of Health's National Health Service Waiting Times Team, and the Work Force Statistics Branch of the Department of Health. Logistic regression models for panel data were used to compare non-PMI subscribers with individual subscribers and those with employer-provided PMI. The BHPS data are collected by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex. Other data used were collected by Laing and Buisson and the U.K. Department of Health. Individual PMI is more prevalent among the well-educated and healthy. Income, age, sex, and political preference are key determinants of PMI prevalence for both individual and employer paid PMI. Individuals are also likely to reflect on information with regard to waiting times in deciding whether or not to purchase PMI cover. The withdrawal of the tax subsidy in 1997 to PMI subscribers over 60 years of age did not impact on their rate of withdrawal from PMI coverage relative to the rate among all PMI subscribers, but may have discouraged potential new subscribers. Current trends in the PMI market suggest that, over time, individually purchased PMI is likely to be partially displaced by PMI purchased as part of a company-based plan. However, having PMI is linked to economic factors in both groups, suggesting a similar segment of the population valuing the responsiveness that PMI provides. Geographic factors relating to waiting times and supply-side factors are associated with both individual and company-based PMI. The withdrawal of the tax subsidy to individual subscribers older than age of 60 resulted in a significant decline in the demand for PMI. In particular, the number of new subscribers in this group declined substantially.

Labor Demand and the Structure of Adjustment Costs in Japan

Using panel data introduces the reader to the analysis of panel data. It is based upon post graduate courses taught at the Institute of Social and Economic Research (University of Essex). In this r...

"Grundy, Prof. Emily Marjata Dorothea, (born 24 July 1955), Professor of Population Science, Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, since 2018" published on by Oxford University Press.

WITHDRAWN: Assessing cortisol from hair samples in a large observational cohort: Whitehall II

"Grundy, Prof. Emily Marjata Dorothea, (born 24 July 1955), Professor of Population Science, Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, since 2018" published on by Oxford University Press.