Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:25:28.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2012

LINDA BAULD ,
JENNIFER MCKELL ,
COLIN CARROLL ,
GORDON HAY  and
KATHERINE SMITH
LINDA BAULD
Affiliation:
University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA email: [email protected]
JENNIFER MCKELL
Affiliation:
University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA email: [email protected]
COLIN CARROLL
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ email: [email protected], [email protected]
GORDON HAY
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ email: [email protected], [email protected]
KATHERINE SMITH
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9LD email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increasing the conditionality of welfare benefits is a growing trend in many developed countries, particularly in relation to some groups who may be perceived as undeserving of state support. Problem drug users (PDUs) are one such group, and in the UK most PDUs do not work and a high proportion claim benefits. Facilitating the movement of these individuals into employment is a policy aim, because it is believed to improve the circumstances of drug users (and promote future abstinence) and because moving all groups off benefits and into work is a primary purpose of recent welfare reforms. Yet little is known about the interactions of PDUs with the UK benefits system or how recent moves to increase the conditionality of benefits are likely to affect this vulnerable group. This paper begins to address this gap by exploring the perceptions that PDUs and relevant frontline staff have of drug users’ interactions with the welfare system and the factors affecting their prospects for employment. The findings suggest some aspects of recent welfare reforms, notably the simplification of benefits, may help PDUs interact with the system. However, the data also reinforce claims that the increased use of sanctions is unlikely to succeed in improving employment rates amongst this group without intensive support and demand-side interventions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 751 - 768
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allard, P. (2002), Life Sentences: Denying Welfare Benefits to Women Convicted of Drug Offenses, Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.Google Scholar
Bargagli, A. M., Hickman, M., Davoli, M., Perucci, C. A., Schifano, P. et al. (2006), ‘Drug-related mortality and its impact on adult mortality in eight European countries’, European Journal of Public Health, 16: 198–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, H., Sissons, P., Aston, J., Dewson, S., Stevens, H., Williams, C. and Francis, R. (2010), Employment and Support Allowance: Early Implementation Experiences of Customers and Staff, DWP Research Report No. 631, London: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
Bauld, L., Hay, G., Mckell, J. and Carroll, C. (2010), Problem Drug Users Experiences of Employment and the Benefit System, Research Report 640, Department of Work and Pensions, http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2009–2010/rrep640.pdf.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office Strategy Unit (2003), Drugs Report: Phase 1 − Understanding the Issues, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Cebulla, A., Smith, N. and Sutton, L. (2004), ‘Returning to normality: substance users’ work histories and perceptions of work during and after recovery’, British Journal of Social Work, 34: 1045–54.Google Scholar
Cheng, T. C. and Lo, C. C. (2010), ‘Heavy alcohol use, alcohol and drug screening and their relationship to mothers’ welfare participation: a temporal-ordered causal analysis’, Journal of Social Policy, 39: 4, 543–59.Google Scholar
Daguerre, A. (2007), Active Labour Market Policies and Welfare Reform: Europe and the US in Comparative Perspective, Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Dean, H. (2003), ‘Re-conceptualising welfare-to-work for people with multiple problems and needs’, Journal of Social Policy, 32: 3, 441–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degenhardt, L., Hall, W., Warner-Smith, M. and Lynskey, M. (2003), ‘Illicit drug use’, in Ezzati, M., Lopez, A., Rodgers, A. and Murray, C. J. L. (eds.), Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risk Factors, Geneva: World Health Organization, Chapter 13.Google Scholar
Degenhardt, L., Hallam, C. and Bewley-Taylor, D. (2009), Comparing the Drug Situation across Countries: Problems, Pitfalls and Possibilities, Briefing Paper 19, Oxford: The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, http://www.idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/Beckley%20Briefing%2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) (2008), Raising Expectations and Increasing Support: Reforming Welfare for the Future, White Paper Cm 7506, London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) (2010), Universal Credit: Welfare that Works, White Paper Cm 7957, London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Dorling, D. (2009), ‘Editorial: unemployment and health’, British Medical Journal, 338: b829.Google Scholar
Duke, K. (2006), ‘Out of crime and into treatment?: the criminalization of contemporary drug policy since Tackling Drugs Together’, Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 13: 5, 409–15.Google Scholar
Dwyer, P. and Ellison, N. (2009), ‘“We nicked stuff from all over the place”: policy transfer or muddling through?’, Policy and Politics, 37: 3, 389–407.Google Scholar
Gordon, L., Tinsley, L., Godfrey, C. and Parrott, S. (2006), ‘The economic and social costs of class A drug use in England and Wales, 2003/04’, in Singleton, N., Murray, R. and Tinsley, L. (eds.), Measuring Different Aspects of Problem Drug Use: Methodological Developments, Home Office Online Report 16/06, http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr1606.pdf.Google Scholar
Gregg, P. (2008), Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Hales, J., Hayllar, O., Iyaniwura, C. and Wood, M. (2009), Pathways to Work: The Experiences of Existing Customers, Findings from a Survey of Existing Incapacity Benefits Customers in the First Seven Pilot Areas, DWP Research Report RR527, London: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
Harris, N. (2008), ‘From unemployment to active jobseeking: changes and continuities in social security law in the United Kingdom’, in Stendahl, S., Erhag, T. and Devetzi, S. (eds.), A European Work-First Welfare State, 49–78. http://130.241.16.4/bitstream/2077/20227/1/gupea_2077_20227_1.pdf#page=55.Google Scholar
Harris, N. (2010), ‘Conditional rights, benefit reform, and drug users: reducing dependency?’, Journal of Law and Society, 37: 2, 233–63.Google Scholar
Hay, G. and Bauld, L. (2008), Population Estimates of Problematic Drug Users Who Access DWP Benefits: A Feasibility Report, DWP Working Paper No. 46, Sheffield: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
Hay, G., Gannon, M., MacDougall, J., Millar, T., Williams, K., Eastwood, C. and McKeganey, N. (2008), National and Regional Estimates of the Prevalence of Opiate Use and/or Crack Cocaine Use 2006/07: A Summary of Key Findings, Home Office Research Report 9, London: Home Office.Google ScholarPubMed
Henderson, S., Dohan, D. and Schmidt, L. (2006), ‘Barriers to identifying substance abuse in the reformed welfare system’, Social Service Review, 80: 217–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HM Government (2008), Drugs: Protecting Families and Communities: The 2008 Drug Strategy, London: Central Office of Information (COI).Google Scholar
Hoare, J. and Flatley, J. (2008), ‘Drug misuse declared: findings from the 2007/08 British Crime Survey: England and Wales’, Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 13/08. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Jones, A., Weston, S., Moody, A., Millar, T., Dollin, L., Anderson, T. and Donmall, M. (2007), ‘The drug treatment outcomes research study: baseline report’, Home Office, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, K. E., Smith, K. E., Sullivan, C. and Bambra, C. (2010), ‘Most of industry's shutting down up here . . .: employability initiatives to tackle worklessness in areas of low labour market demand’, Social Policy and Society, 9: 3, 337–63.Google Scholar
Lunt, N., O'Brien, M. and Stephens, B. (2008), ‘New Welfare New Zealand: the context for social security reform’, in Lunt, N., O'Brien, M. and Stephens, R. (eds.), New Welfare New Zealand, Melbourne: Thomson Press, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar
Lymbery, M. (2006), ‘United we stand? Partnership working in health and social care and the role of social work in services for older people’, British Journal of Social Work, 36: 7, 1119–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, J. and Hickman, M. (2010), ‘How ideology shapes the evidence and the policy: what do we know about cannabis use and what should we do?’, Addiction, 105: 8, 1326–30.Google Scholar
McDonald, C. and Marston, G. (2005), ‘Workfare as welfare: governing unemployment in the advanced liberal state’, Critical Social Policy, 25: 3, 374–401.Google Scholar
McLellan, A. T., Lewis, , O'Brien, D. C., Kleber, C. P., , H. D. (2000), ‘Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 284: 13, 1689–95.Google Scholar
Millar, J. (2000), Keeping Track of Welfare Reform: The New Deal Programmes, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Montoya, I. and Atkinson, J. (2002), ‘A synthesis of welfare reform policy and its impact on substance users’, Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 28: 133–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platt, J. (1995), ‘Vocational rehabilitation of drug abusers’, Psychology Bulletin, 117: 416–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, G. and Sillars, K. (2003), Employers’ Attitudes to Hard-to-Employ Groups, Glasgow: Scottish Poverty Information Unit.Google Scholar
Singleton, N. and Lynam, B. (2009), ‘Policy forum: the other half of the equation − employers’ readiness to recruit problem drug users’, Drugs and Alcohol Today, 9: 1, 7–11.Google Scholar
Singleton, N., Murray, R. and Tinsley, L. (2006), Measuring Different Aspects of Problem Drug Use: Methodological Developments (2nd edn), Home Office Online Report 16/06, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.148.1659&rep=rep1&type=pdfGoogle Scholar
Social Security Advisory Committee (2002), ‘Fifteenth Report April 2001–March 2002’, SSAC, London.Google Scholar
Spencer, J., Deakin, J., Seddon, T. and Ralphs, R. (2008), Getting Problem Drug Users (Back) Into Employment: Part Two, London: UKDPC.Google Scholar
Sutton, L., Cebulla, A., Heaver, C. and Smith, N. (2004), ‘Drug and alcohol use as barriers to employment: a review of the literature’, Loughborough University for Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC) (2008), Working Towards Recovery: Getting Problem Drug Users Into Jobs, London: UKDPC.Google Scholar
UNDCP (2000), ‘Global illicit drug trends 2000’, United Nations International Drug Control Programme, Vienna.Google Scholar
UNODC (2012), World Drug Report 2011, http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/WDR2011/WDR2011-ExSum.pdfGoogle Scholar