Official Statistics

Benefit sanctions statistics to April 2022 (experimental)

Published 16 August 2022

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

The latest release of these statistics can be found in the collection of benefit sanctions statistics.

This quarterly release of statistics on Benefit Sanctions includes data up to April 2022.

Statistics covered in this bulletin include data for sanction decisions during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Although legislative changes to disapply work-search and work availability requirements were effective between 30 March 2020 and 30 June 2020 (in response to the pandemic), some sanction decisions for these types of failures could have been made during this time period. This is because decisions are often made and processed after the date that the claimant failure occurred. This means that it was possible for sanction decisions to be recorded after legislation changes came into effect, in instances where a claimant prior to 30 March 2020 has failed to meet the work requirements set out in their claimant commitment. Additionally, sanction decisions were also possible for some failures which occurred after this date, for example, for leaving a job voluntarily without good reason or for misconduct.

Conditionality was reintroduced from 1 July 2020 on a phased approach and as capacity allowed.

This affects data for Universal Credit (UC) and Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) sanctions.

The next statistics release will be in November 2022.

We are seeking user feedback on this statistical bulletin. Send comments to: epass.team@dwp.gov.uk.

There should be no comparisons made across benefits.

The data sources used to produce these statistics are very different and while we have attempted to use consistent methodology, there are differences in methodological approaches between benefits. Additionally, the benefits themselves are very different and require interpretation based on the rules of the specific benefit.

1. Main stories

The statistics show:

• prior to legislation changes made on 30 March 2020, 2.51% of UC full service claimants subject to conditionality at the point where the sanction was applied had a deduction taken from their UC full service award as a result of a sanction. In May 2022, this proportion was 5.93%. This:

  • is up by 2.04 percentage points from February 2022

  • is up by 5.78 percentage points in the latest 12 months

  • shows the UC sanction rate is continuing to increase above pre-pandemic levels when compared to the 11 months preceding the COVID-19 pandemic

• in the latest quarter, adverse sanction decisions on UC full service have increased. In March 2022, they reached a peak of 59,000, which is the highest across the whole timeseries

• over the course of the roll-out of UC (live and full service), the balance of individuals in conditionality regimes subject to sanction as a proportion of the caseload has changed

• in May 2022, 33.3% of UC claimants were in the conditionality regimes that could be subject to sanction (this includes claimants in the “searching for work”, “planning for work”, “preparing for work” or “unknown” conditionality regimes). This proportion:

  • was 44.7% in March 2020, before increasing temporarily to 50.0% in April 2020, coinciding with an increase to the UC caseload during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, before gradually decreasing to 33.3% in May 2022. May 2022 has the lowest percentage of claimants in conditionality regimes subject to sanction when compared to the timeseries from the 11 months preceding the COVID-19 pandemic

• although the proportion of claimants in conditionality regimes that could be subject to sanction is decreasing, and is at its lowest since April 2019, the increase in the rate reflects the substantial rise in the number of UC full service adverse sanction decisions

For further information regarding how this is calculated, see the “Sanction Rates” section of the background information and methodology document.

UC full service claimants with a sanction deduction, as a proportion of UC full service claimants who are subject to sanction, April 2019 to May 2022

Source: Sanction Decisions Stat-Xplore tables.

At the beginning of the pandemic, conditionality was paused for Universal Credit claimants and face to face appointments were suspended, to enable the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to focus on processing the unprecedented volume of new claims. In July 2020, DWP reintroduced conditionality.

DWP gradually reintroduced face to face appointments for all claimants from April 2021. As the return to face to face appointments was a gradual process, and claimants were only subject to sanction when they failed to meet a mandatory requirement – there is a delay between the start of the return to face to face appointments in April 2021 and the increase in the UC Sanction rate in June 2021. The increase in the UC sanction rate has continued since June 2021 and in May 2022 the rate was 5.93%.

The data shows:

• numbers of claimants on JSA and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) have steadily reduced due to migration to UC (live and full service), and therefore the number of sanctions is now very low for JSA and ESA (WRAG)

• the percentage of JSA claimants with a drop in payment due to a sanction in December 2021 was less than 0.01%. This:

  • is a marginal decrease from September 2021, that is less than 0.01 percentage points

  • shows a 0.01 percentage point decrease in the latest 12 months

• the percentage of ESA (WRAG) claimants with a drop in payment due to a sanction in December 2021 was 0.02%. This is:

  • down 0.01 percentage points from September 2021

  • down 0.02 percentage points in the latest 12 months

2. What you need to know

If you do not meet one or more conditions of your benefit claim without good reason, your benefit could be stopped or reduced. This is a benefit sanction. However, not everyone that is initially referred for failing to meet the conditions of their claim will receive a sanction. Where a claimant’s benefit is reduced, the claimant may be eligible for a hardship payment.

Further information about the sanctions process and source of these statistics can be found in the background information and guidance documents. Figures in this bulletin are rounded in accordance with the DWP rounding policy for statistics, details of which can be found in the “Rounding” section of the background information and methodology document. Unrounded figures from the underlying data available on Stat-Xplore or in accompanying tables may not sum exactly to the rounded totals accordingly.

Users can also:

• produce their own tables and access demographic breakdowns using Stat-Xplore

• access the supporting data tables that accompany each release of statistics

The data in this publication is the latest available for statistics on sanctions for UC, JSA, ESA (WRAG) and Income Support (IS). Statistics are available from:

• 22 October 2012 for JSA sanction decisions, which is the date of the JSA regime change (data from before the regime change^{[footnote 1]} – April 2000 to 21 October 2012 – is available on Stat-Xplore)

• 3 December 2012 for ESA (WRAG) sanction decisions, which is the date of the ESA regime change (data from before the regime change^{[footnote 1]} – October 2008 to 2 December 2012 – is available on Stat-Xplore)

• October 2016 for IS sanction decisions (not included in this publication, but available on Stat-Xplore)

• August 2015 to July 2020 for UC live service sanction decisions

• May 2016 to April 2022 for UC full service sanction decisions

• April 2019 to May 2022 for UC full service rate

Definitions

Sanction decisions

A claimant is referred to a sanction Decision Maker when they do not meet a condition of their benefit. The Decision Maker looks at the available information about the claimant and their referral and decides on an outcome. The decision made can be:

• Adverse – they decide to sanction the claimant

• Non-Adverse – they decide not to sanction the claimant

• Cancelled – they decide that the referral was not appropriate and cancel it

• Reserved – a decision to sanction the claimant cannot be made, since the claimant is not currently on benefit, so the sanction cannot be applied. The claimant will be re-referred to a Decision Maker if they begin to claim benefit again

Within this publication, we refer to all of these outcomes as decisions. Many sanction decisions can be made during the course of a claim where the claimant has failed to meet the conditions of their benefit claim more than once.

Sanction stages

Each JSA, ESA (WRAG) or IS sanction decision can have a maximum of four stages, beginning with the Original Decision made by a Decision Maker. If the claimant does not agree that their benefit should be reduced, they may request a Decision Review, Mandatory Reconsideration, and Appeal. UC has a maximum of three stages as there is no Decision Review.

In the statistics, only the latest decision is kept, meaning that any previous decisions for each sanction referral are updated with every publication.

Sanction durations

We count the length of time that each claimant is receiving less benefit because they were being sanctioned and calculate the median duration of all sanctioned claimants.

The median is the middle number when all of the sanction lengths have been arranged from smallest to largest. Durations are counted up to and including the last month in which a deduction is taken. If someone has multiple sanctions which are served without a break in deductions, this will be counted as one sanction in the statistics. The underlying figures can be found in the supporting tables that accompany each release of statistics.

Sanction rates

We calculate the number of people who are receiving less benefit because they were sanctioned as a proportion of the total number of people in receipt of each benefit at a point in time (i.e. on a specific day of the month). For UC, the rate is calculated by dividing the number of claimants with a sanction deduction by the number of UC claimants who are subject to sanction, at a point in time (claimants who are subject to sanction include claimants in the “searching for work”, “planning for work”, “preparing for work” or “unknown” conditionality regimes). These figures are calculated differently to the decisions figures, which are based on the number of decisions made in a full month. The underlying figures can be found in the supporting tables that accompany each release of statistics.

Destinations

We track what happens to claimants after they receive an original, adverse sanction decision. The figures show the amount of time spent on different working age benefits (UC, JSA, ESA (WRAG) and IS) in the 180-day period following the decision. In addition, we have developed statistics to show who has had a period of earnings after their sanction. Further information can be found in the destinations methodology document.

Freezing of destinations measures

Please note that all destinations measures for Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) and Employment Support Allowance (ESA) have been frozen. The data shown remains as it was when originally published in November 2021. As claimants move from legacy benefits to Universal Credit, the numbers of claimants being added to the destinations’ measures are small and as the figures are cumulative, there is no material impact from updating them.

UC full service

At present, we only hold data on original, adverse sanction decisions for claimants on UC full service and cannot differentiate between non-adverse, reserved and cancelled outcomes. Prior to May 2016, UC full service was being implemented as a trial in a small area of the UK only (Sutton, Southwark, Croydon, Hounslow and Musselburgh) so data on original, adverse decisions is included from May 2016 onwards.

UC live service

New claims to UC live service ceased in January 2018, and since then the remaining live service cases have been gradually migrated to UC full service. This has resulted in a gradual decrease in the number of live service sanction decisions. By 1 April 2019, the systems that were used to administer live service cases were shut down. Due to this, data for any original UC live service sanction decisions has been frozen from this point.

3. Universal Credit Full Service

There should be no comparisons made across benefits.

The data sources used to produce these statistics are very different and while we have attempted to use consistent methodology, there are differences in methodological approaches between benefits. Additionally, the benefits themselves are very different and require interpretation based on the rules of the specific benefit.

Statistics covered in this bulletin include data for sanction decisions during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. For more information, see notes in the section on changes, revisions and known issues in this bulletin.

These figures are for full service claimants only and do not include live service data; full service data and live service data come from different sources, which is why this sanction decision data has been reported separately. Note that rates are calculated in a manner that is not affected. For further information, see the UC background information and methodology document.

The migration to UC full service will continue until legacy benefits have ceased. As of April 2019, 100% of UC live service claimants have transferred onto full service.

Data for numbers of original adverse decisions has been included from May 2016, for UC full service. This is because prior to this time, UC full service was being implemented as a trial in a small area of the UK only (Sutton, Southwark, Croydon, Hounslow and Musselburgh). More information about this is available in our UC background information and methodology document.

It should be noted that references to full service adverse decisions describe original, adverse decisions only. We are currently unable to provide statistics on original non-adverse, reserved or cancelled decisions, as this information is not captured on the front end system. We are looking at ways of improving the way we collect sanctions information in UC full service.

3.1 UC full service: Sanction decisions and reasons – Experimental Statistics

At the beginning of the pandemic, conditionality was paused for Universal Credit claimants and face to face appointments were suspended, to enable the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to focus on processing the unprecedented volume of new claims. In July 2020, DWP reintroduced conditionality. DWP gradually reintroduced face to face appointments for all claimants from April 2021.

UCFS claimants in conditionality regimes subject to sanction, April 2019 to May 2022

Source: Benefit Sanction Statistics data tables

The number of UCFS claimants in conditionality regimes subject to sanction increased sharply from March 2020 (1.35 million) to May 2020 (2.65 million). In March 2021 (2.72 million), the number of UCFS claimants in conditionality regimes subject to sanction was over double what it was in March 2020. From March 2021 the number of UCFS claimants in conditionality regimes subject to sanction has steadily decreased to 1.85 million in May 2022.

UC full service adverse sanction decisions by month, May 2016 to April 2022

Source: Benefit Sanction Statistics data tables

The numbers of adverse sanction decisions reached a pre-pandemic peak in July 2019 (23,000) after following an upward trend as UC full service was rolled out and the UC caseload built up. In March 2020 the number of adverse sanction decisions decreased to 11,000. The number of adverse sanction decisions continued to drop following the legislative changes to work requirements on 30 March (in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic), reaching 0 adverse sanction decisions in July 2020.

At the beginning of the pandemic, conditionality was paused for Universal Credit claimants and face to face appointments were suspended, to enable the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to focus on processing the unprecedented volume of new claims. Conditionality was re-introduced from July 2020 (on a phased approach) as operational capacity allowed, and from April 2021 face-to-face interventions resumed in job centres.

In August 2020, the number of UC full service adverse sanction decisions began to slightly increase until May 2021, where they reached 1,700. From June 2021, a much larger increase was observed, continuing until November 2021, where they reached 38,000. Adverse sanction decisions then decreased to 32,000 in December 2021, before continually increasing to 59,000 in March 2022. This is the highest number of adverse sanction decisions on UC full service across the whole timeseries, and 160% larger than it was at its previous pre-pandemic peak in July 2019 (23,000).

Summary of original UC full service adverse decision reasons from May 2021 to April 2022

Original adverse decisions made by reason group	Latest Year	Latest Year (%)	Latest Quarter	Latest Quarter (%)
Work-Focused Interviews	350,720	98.9	146,490	98.8
Availability for Work	1,860	0.5	810	0.5
Employment Programmes	610	0.2	380	0.3
Reasons for Leaving Previous Employment	1220	0.3	580	0.4
Other	170	0.0	80	0.1
Total	354,570	100.0	148,340	100.0

Notes:

1. Note that these are original, adverse decisions, not all decisions as with other benefits.

2. Disclosure control has been applied to this data for confidentiality purposes. Due to this, totals may not be the sum of the individual data breakdown.

3. For a full breakdown of the adverse decision reasons, see the methodology document.

Failure to attend or participate in a Work-Focused Interview accounted for 98.9% of all adverse decisions in the last year. Availability for Work was the next most common sanction reason, accounting for 0.5% of adverse decisions in the last year.

4. Universal Credit Live Service

There should be no comparisons made across benefits.

The data sources used to produce these statistics are very different and while we have attempted to use consistent methodology, there are differences in methodological approaches between benefits. Additionally, the benefits themselves are very different and require interpretation based on the rules of the specific benefit.

Please note that all sanction statistics for UC live service have been frozen, with no further updates being published past the November 2020 release of this bulletin. The frozen UC live service statistics are still available in this publication to enable consideration of the full time series for UC sanction statistics.

4.1 UC live service: Sanction decisions and reasons – Experimental Statistics

UC live service sanction decisions by month, August 2015 to July 2020

Notes:

1. Data from 1 April 2019 includes mandatory reconsiderations and appeals only.

2. UC live service sanction statistics have now been frozen, with the final update having been published in the version of this bulletin released on 10 November 2020.

Source: Sanction Decisions Stat-Xplore tables

The total number of monthly decisions has varied since August 2015, with peaks in December 2016 (50,000) and October 2017 (46,000) and falling to 0 in July 2020.

The volume of decisions processed has fallen based on the fact that UC live service has closed to new claims, and that the entire caseload has migrated to UC full service.

Summary of UC live service decision outcomes at each stage, August 2015 to July 2020

Notes:

1. UC live service sanction statistics have now been frozen, with the final update having been published in the version of this bulletin released on 10 November 2020.

2. Percentages presented for one or more categories on this graph may not total 100% because data is not included for reserved and cancelled decisions.

Source: Sanction Decisions Stat-Xplore tables

53.1% of original decisions have resulted in a sanction being applied and 69.1% of mandatory reconsiderations resulted in a sanction being upheld since August 2015.

Summary of UC live service decision reasons from August 2019 to July 2020 (Frozen Data)

All decisions made by reason group	Latest year for which data is available (August 2019 to July 2020)	Latest year for which data is available (%) (August 2019 to July 2020)	Latest quarter for which data is available (May 2020 to July 2020)
Work-Focused Interviews	30	53.3	0
Availability for Work	10	18.3	0
Employment Programmes	10	20.0	0
Reason for Leaving Previous Employment	0	0.0	0
Other	0	0.0	0
Total	60	100.0	0

Notes:

1. Disclosure control has been applied to this data for confidentiality purposes. Due to this, totals may not be the sum of the individual data breakdowns.

2. 100% of UC live service claimants were transferred onto UC full service by April 2019. There are no original decisions on UC live service past this point, hence any changes beyond this point refer to mandatory reconsiderations and appeals only.

3. Proportions are not given for the latest quarter, where the overall number of sanction decisions is low. This has been done because the disclosure control applied to the data could cause a misleading representation when calculating percentages.

4. For a full breakdown of the adverse decision reasons see the methodology document.

5. UC live service sanction statistics have now been frozen, with the final update having been published in the version of this bulletin released on 10 November 2020.

Failure to attend or participate in a Work-Focused Interview accounted for 53.3% of all UC live service sanction decisions from August 2019 to July 2020.

4.2 UC live service: Destinations of claimants receiving a benefit sanction - Experimental Statistics

Distribution of number of months spent by UC claimants earning or on working age benefits in the 180 days (6 months) following a sanction decision from 1 August 2015 to 28 February 2019

Notes:

1. Decisions made from 1 August 2015 to 28 February 2019 for UC live service are included. There were no original adverse sanction decisions made on UC live service after 28 February 2019.

2. UC live service sanction statistics have now been frozen, with the final update having been published in the version of this bulletin released on 10 November 2020.

Source: Benefit Sanction Statistics data tables

After receiving a UC live service sanction decision, claimants spent an average (mean) of 153 days out of the following 180 days in receipt of benefit (UC, JSA, ESA (WRAG) or IS). On average (mean), only 2 of the 180 days were spent on a benefit that was not UC.

In the 180 days following a UC live service sanction decision, 4.9% of claimants were not in receipt of any of the tracked benefits (UC, JSA, ESA (WRAG) or IS). 76.2% of claimants spent over 150 days (5 months) in receipt of benefit and 70.3% of claimants spent the full 180 days in receipt of benefit.

After receiving a benefit sanction decision, UC live service claimants spent an average (mean) of 51 days out of the following 180 days earning, with 9.0% of claimants earning for the full 180 days after they had been sanctioned. See the methodology document for further information on how earnings are calculated.

5. Universal Credit Live and Full Service

There should be no comparisons made across benefits.

The data sources used to produce these statistics are very different and while we have attempted to use consistent methodology, there are differences in methodological approaches between benefits. Additionally, the benefits themselves are very different and require interpretation based on the rules of the specific benefit.

Statistics covered in this bulletin include data for sanction decisions during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. For more information, see the notes in the section on changes, revisions and known issues in this bulletin.

Updates on suspension of measures

While carrying out a detailed investigation of the sanctions data to improve the methodology, it has been identified that the complex code used to process the data for UC sanction durations statistics was not performing as expected. This was complicated further by the combination and substantially different methods of processing data from the separate UC full service and UC live service systems. The measures affected are the sanction duration and median sanction length. While we consult with data engineers and architects to understand the complex data, and conduct further in depth investigations into the code, both of these series have been suspended for UC live service and UC full service as of the November 2020 release.

We are carrying out further investigative work on sanction durations, and aim to revise the complete series for sanction duration and median sanction length statistics on the basis of the improved methodology as soon as possible.

Investigations into the UC full service rate code and methodology have highlighted that the methodology currently used to calculate the UC rate differs from that described in versions of the release published before November 2020, with open sanctions already being included in the measure for UC full service. Investigations to establish if this is also the case for UC live service are ongoing, so we are continuing to suspend UC live service data from the rate and are publishing sanction rates for UC full service from April 2019. We will reinstate the UC live service rate as soon as possible, following the finalisation of investigations and successful completion of quality assurance processes.

Figures for UC full service adverse decisions, UC live service decisions and destinations and all legacy benefit measures are unaffected by this.

5.1 UC live and full service: Benefit sanction rates – Experimental Statistics

The sanction rate is calculated as the proportion of people on each benefit at a point in time (meaning on the same day that the claimant count is recorded) with a deduction from their benefit due to a sanction. This is different to the data on sanction decisions, which uses the total number of decisions across a whole month. UC live service data has been temporarily suspended from this section, and statistics have been provided from April 2019 for full service only. For further information, see the updates on suspension of measures.

UC full service claimants with a sanction deduction, as a proportion of UC full service claimants who are subject to sanction, April 2019 to May 2022

Source: Sanction Decisions Stat-Xplore tables

Prior to legislation changes made on 30 March 2020, 2.51% of UC full service claimants subject to conditionality at the point where the sanction was applied had a deduction taken from their UC full service award as a result of a sanction. In May 2022, this proportion was 5.93%, this is up by 2.04 percentage points from February 2022 and is up by 5.78 percentage points in the latest 12 months.

The experimental monthly rate of UC full service claimants with a sanction deduction remained largely stable from April 2019 until March 2020. At this time there was a sharp downwards trend, which coincided with an increase to the UC caseload during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

At the beginning of the pandemic, conditionality was paused for Universal Credit claimants and face to face appointments were suspended, to enable the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to focus on processing the unprecedented volume of new claims. In July 2020, DWP reintroduced conditionality.

DWP gradually reintroduced face to face appointments for all claimants from April 2021. The volume of claimants subject to conditionality, and therefore subject to sanctions, increased. As the return to face to face appointments was a gradual process, and claimants were only subject to sanction when they failed to meet a mandatory requirement – there is a delay between the start of the return to face to face appointments in April 2021 and the increase in the UC Sanction rate in June 2021. The increase in the UC sanction rate has continued since June 2021 and in May 2022 the rate was 5.93%.

Over the course of the roll-out of UC, the balance of individuals subject to sanction as a proportion of the caseload has changed. In May 2022, 33.3% of the UC caseload were in the conditionality regimes that could be subject to sanction, compared to 45.3% in February 2020, just prior to changes made to work requirements as a result of COVID-19. May 2022 has the lowest percentage of claimants in conditionality regimes subject to sanction when compared to the timeseries from the 11 months preceding the COVID-19 pandemic. Claimants who are subject to sanction include claimants in the “searching for work”, “planning for work”, “preparing for work” or “unknown” conditionality regimes.

Although the proportion of claimants in conditionality regimes that could be subject to sanction is decreasing, and is at its lowest since April 2019, the increase in the rate reflects the substantial rise in the number of UC full service adverse sanction decisions.

5.2 UC live and full service: Benefit sanction durations – Experimental Statistics

UC durations data has been temporarily suspended from this bulletin. For further information, see the updates on suspension of measures.

6. Jobseeker’s Allowance

Freezing of destinations measures

Please note that all destinations measures for Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) have been frozen. The data shown remains as it was when originally published in November 2021. As claimants move from legacy benefits to Universal Credit, the numbers of claimants being added to the destinations’ measures are small and as the figures are cumulative, there is no material impact from updating them.

There should be no comparisons made across benefits.

The data sources used to produce these statistics are very different and while we have attempted to use consistent methodology, there are differences in methodological approaches between benefits. Additionally, the benefits themselves are very different and require interpretation based on the rules of the specific benefit.

Statistics covered in this bulletin include data for sanction decisions during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. For more information, see the notes in the section on changes, revisions and known issues.

6.1 JSA: Benefit sanction rates – Experimental Statistics

The sanction rate is calculated as the proportion of people on each benefit at a point in time (meaning on the same day that the claimant count is recorded) with a deduction from their benefit due to a sanction. This is different to the data on sanction decisions, which uses the total number of decisions across a whole month.

JSA claimants with a sanction deduction, as a proportion of JSA claimants, November 2012 to December 2021

Note:

1. JSA rate contains sanctions which have ended by the latest point at which data is available.

Source: Benefit Sanction Statistics data tables

In December 2021, less than 0.01% of people on JSA had a deduction taken from their payment as a result of a sanction.

The experimental monthly rate of JSA claimants with a sanction deduction decreased steadily from a peak of 1.78% in October 2013 to less than 0.01% in December 2021.

6.2 JSA: Sanction decisions and reasons – Official Statistics

Sanctions decisions, October 2012 to April 2022

Source: Sanction Decisions Stat-Xplore tables

The fall in decisions is in part due to the fall in JSA claimants as more people move to UC. There was an increase in JSA sanction decisions in the first quarter of 2020 and also in August 2020. This resulted from processing backlogs of sanction decisions relating to referrals made under the reason of “failure to attend a place on a training scheme or employment programme without good reason”. The total number of decisions per month has declined from a peak of 200,000 in October 2013. Following the legislative changes in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic that occurred on 30 March 2020 the number of sanction decisions have decreased further and remained low, with 20 decisions in April 2022.

Summary of decision outcomes at each stage, October 2012 to April 2022

Note:

1. Percentages presented for one or more categories on this graph may not total 100% because data is not included for reserved and cancelled decisions.

Source: Sanction Decisions Stat-Xplore tables

Original decisions currently account for 85.8% of all decisions made since October 2012. Since October 2012, 47.2% of original decisions have resulted in a sanction being applied. Since the introduction of the Mandatory Reconsideration in November 2013, appeals have dropped from a peak of 4,600 in October 2013 to 0 in the last 12 months.

Summary of decision reasons, May 2021 to April 2022

All decisions made by reason group	Latest Year	Latest Year (%)	Latest Quarter	Latest Quarter (%)
Work Programme	0	0.0	0	0.0
Work Search Review	70	48.6	30	92.6
Availability for Work	70	45.8	0	0.0
Reason for Leaving Previous Employment	0	0.0	0	0.0
Other Employment Programmes	0	0.0	0	0.0
Other	0	0.0	0	0.0
Total	140	100.0	30	100.0

Notes:

1. Disclosure control has been applied to this data for confidentiality purposes. Due to this, totals may not be the sum of the individual data breakdowns.

2. The “Other Employment Programmes” category includes sanction referral reasons relating to training schemes or employment programmes other than the Work Programme. For a full breakdown of the adverse decision reasons, see the methodology document.

3. In previous published statistics, JSA Work Search Reviews were referred to as Work Focused Interviews. Please take this into account when referring to previous published statistics.

In the last year 45.8% of the sanction decisions were due to Availability for Work, another 48.6% were for reasons relating to Work Search Reviews.

6.3 JSA: Benefit sanction durations – Experimental Statistics

The figures for benefit sanction durations are calculated based on sanctions that have ended, using the number of weeks that a claimant has a drop in their benefit payments to determine the length of the sanction. This means that if someone has multiple sanctions which are served without a break in deductions, this will be counted as one sanction in the statistics.

JSA sanctions completed by length of sanction (thousands), October 2012 to December 2021

Note:

1. Please note that percentages may not sum due to rounding.

Source: Benefit Sanction Statistics data tables

Since October 2012, 94.7% of ended JSA sanctions lasted 13 weeks or less. The average (median) JSA sanction lasted 28 days. See the methodology document for further information on why a median has been used.

Since October 2012, 62.9% of all sanctions that ended lasted 4 weeks or less, a further 31.8% lasted between 5 and 13 weeks. 5.3% lasted over 13 weeks. In the period from October 2012 to April 2022, 21.2% of all decisions were made on the referral reason group Availability for Work. A further 18.8% of all decisions in the same time period were made on the referral reason group Work Search Review. For a first-time failure, sanctions issued under the referral reason group Work Search Review last 4 weeks. This helps to explain why such a large proportion of sanctions last 4 weeks and under.

6.4 JSA: Destinations of claimants receiving a benefit sanction – Experimental Statistics

Freezing of destinations measures

Please note that all destinations measures for Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) have been frozen. The data shown remains as it was when originally published in November 2021. As claimants move from legacy benefits to Universal Credit, the numbers of claimants being added to the destinations’ measures are small and as the figures are cumulative, there is no material impact from updating them.

Distribution of number of months spent by JSA claimants on working age benefits or earning in the 180 days (6 months) following a sanction decision from 22 October 2012 to 31 December 2020

Note:

1. Decisions made from 22 October 2012 to 31 December 2020 for JSA are included.

Source: Benefit Sanction Statistics data tables

After receiving a JSA sanction decision, claimants spent an average (mean) of 111 days out of the following 180 days in receipt of benefit (JSA, UC, ESA (WRAG) or IS). On average (mean), 14 of the 180 days were spent on a benefit that was not JSA.

In the 180 days following a JSA sanction decision, 5.9% of claimants were not in receipt of any of the tracked benefits (JSA, UC, ESA (WRAG) or IS). 42.1% of claimants spent over 150 days (5 months) in receipt of tracked benefits and 26.9% of claimants spent the full 180 days in receipt of tracked benefits.

After receiving a benefit sanction decision, JSA claimants spent an average (mean) of 28 days out of the following 180 days earning, with 2.6% of JSA claimants earning for the full 180 days after they had been sanctioned. See the methodology document for further information on how earnings are calculated.

7. Employment and Support Allowance (Work Related Activity Group)

Freezing of destinations measures

Please note that all destinations measures for Employment Support Allowance (ESA) have been frozen. The data shown remains as it was when originally published in November 2021. As claimants move from legacy benefits to Universal Credit, the numbers of claimants being added to the destinations’ measures are small and as the figures are cumulative, there is no material impact from updating them.

There should be no comparisons made across benefits.

The data sources used to produce these statistics are very different and while we have attempted to use consistent methodology, there are differences in methodological approaches between benefits. Additionally, the benefits themselves are very different and require interpretation based on the rules of the specific benefit.

As part of a claim to ESA, a Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is carried out. If the claimant’s capability for work is limited by their health condition or disability, and they are eligible to remain on ESA, the claimant is placed in one of two groups:

• the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG)

• the Support Group

Those in the Support Group do not have to attend interviews and are not subject to sanctions.

Those in the WRAG group may be expected to attend regular interviews with their work coach. They may also be expected to undertake Work Related Activity (WRA) to give them the best prospects of moving into work when they are able. Any WRA should be reasonable and appropriate for the claimant, based on their health condition or disability.

7.1 ESA (WRAG): Benefit sanction rates – Experimental Statistics

The sanction rate is calculated as the proportion of people on each benefit at a point in time (this means on the same day that the claimant count is recorded) with a deduction from their benefit due to a sanction. This is different to the data on sanction decisions, which uses the total number of decisions across a whole month.

ESA (WRAG) claimants with a sanction deduction, as a proportion of all ESA (WRAG) claimants, December 2012 to December 2021

Note:

1. ESA (WRAG) rate contains sanctions which have ended by the latest point at which data is available.

Source: Benefit Sanction Statistics data tables

In December 2021, 0.02% of people in the ESA (WRAG) had a deduction taken from their personal allowance as a result of a sanction. This is down 0.01 percentage points from September 2021 and down 0.02 percentage points in the latest 12 months.

The experimental monthly rate of ESA (WRAG) claimants with a sanction deduction has fallen steadily from its peak of 1.05% in April 2014.

7.2 ESA (WRAG): Sanction decisions and reasons – Official Statistics

Sanction decisions, December 2012 to April 2022

Source: Sanction Decisions Stat-Xplore tables

The total number of ESA (WRAG) sanction decisions has continued to fall since May 2017, to 0 in April 2020 where it has remained since. It is expected that as UC full service continues to roll out and claimants move from ESA (WRAG) to UC, the ESA (WRAG) sanctions will remain low (in-line with the fall in the number of ESA (WRAG) claimants).

Summary of decision outcomes at each stage, December 2012 to April 2022

Note:

1. Percentages presented for one or more categories on this graph may not total 100% because data is not included for cancelled decisions.

Source: Sanction Decisions Stat-Xplore tables

Since December 2012, 19.3% of original decisions have resulted in a sanction being applied.

Summary of decision reasons, May 2021 to April 2022

All decisions made by reason group	Latest Year	Latest Quarter
Failure to Participate in Work-Related Activity	0	0
Failure to Attend Mandatory Interview	10	0
Total	10	0

Notes:

1. Disclosure control has been applied to this data for confidentiality purposes. Due to this, totals may not be the sum of the individual data breakdowns.

2. For a full breakdown of the adverse decision reasons, see the methodology document.

In the latest year, there were 10 sanction decisions made on ESA (WRAG).

7.3 ESA (WRAG): Benefit sanction durations – Experimental Statistics

The figures for benefit sanction durations are calculated based on sanctions that have ended, using the number of weeks that a claimant has a drop in their benefit payments to determine the length of the sanction. This means that if someone has multiple sanctions which are served without a break in deductions, this will be counted as one sanction in the statistics.

ESA sanctions completed by length of sanction (thousands), December 2012 to December 2021

Note:

1. Please note that percentages may not sum due to rounding.

Source: Benefit Sanction Statistics data tables

Since December 2012, 80.6% of ended ESA (WRAG) sanctions lasted 13 weeks or less. In the same period, over half (55.6%) of all sanctions that ended lasted 4 weeks or less, a further 25.0% lasted between 5 and 13 weeks and 19.4% lasted over 13 weeks. The average (median) ESA (WRAG) sanction lasted 28 days.

See the methodology document for further information on why a median has been used.

ESA (WRAG) sanctions are open-ended until the claimant complies with the interview requirement or work related activity that they failed to attend or participate in.

Once the claimant re-complies, a fixed-length sanction is imposed of 1, 2 or 4 weeks. This means that a sanction of longer than 4 weeks will be due to a claimant failing to re-comply, or where an individual has multiple sanctions which are served without a break in deductions.

7.4 ESA (WRAG): Destinations of claimants receiving a benefit sanction – Experimental Statistics

Freezing of destinations measures

Please note that all destinations measures for Employment Support Allowance (ESA) have been frozen. The data shown remains as it was when originally published in November 2021. As claimants move from legacy benefits to Universal Credit, the numbers of claimants being added to the destinations’ measures are small and as the figures are cumulative, there is no material impact from updating them.

Distribution of number of months spent by ESA (WRAG) claimants on working age benefits in the 180 days (6 months) following a sanction decision from 3 December 2012 to 31 December 2020

Note:

1. Decisions made from 3 December 2012 to 31 December 2020 for ESA (WRAG) are included.

Source: Benefit Sanction Statistics data tables

After receiving an ESA (WRAG) sanction decision, claimants spent an average (mean) of 171 days out of the following 180 days in receipt of benefit (ESA (WRAG), UC, JSA or IS). On average (mean), only 5 of the 180 days were spent on a benefit that was not ESA (WRAG).

In the 180 days following an ESA (WRAG) sanction decision, 0.2% of claimants were not in receipt of any of the tracked benefits (ESA (WRAG), UC, JSA or IS). 90.8% of claimants spent over 150 days (5 months) in receipt of tracked benefits and 85.0% of claimants spent the full 180 days in receipt of tracked benefits.

8. About these statistics

The statistics in this publication are for Great Britain. We also publish a number of background and methodology documents.

Other National and Official Statistics

Read about other National and Official Statistics produced by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Users can also:

• produce their own tables and access demographic breakdowns using Stat-Xplore

• access the supporting data tables that accompany each release of statistics

• find further information about the sanctions process, source of these statistics and the publication rounding policy in the background information and methodology documents

Changes, revisions and known issues

The following information is about changes, revisions and known issues with the statistics.

Statistics covered in this bulletin include data for sanction decisions during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Although legislative changes to disapply work-search and work availability requirements were effective between 30 March 2020 and 30 June 2020 (in response to the pandemic), some sanction decisions for these types of failures could have been made during this time period. This is because decisions are often made and processed after the date that the claimant failure occurred. This means that it was possible for sanction decisions to be recorded after legislation changes came into effect, in instances where a claimant prior to 30 March 2020 has failed to meet the work requirements set out in their claimant commitment. Additionally, sanction decisions were also possible for some failures which occurred after this date, for example, for leaving a job voluntarily without good reason or for misconduct.

Conditionality was reintroduced from 1 July 2020 on a phased approach and as capacity allowed.

This impacts data for Universal Credit (UC) and Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) sanctions.

Freezing of destinations measures

Please note that all destinations measures for Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) and Employment Support Allowance (ESA) have been frozen. The data shown remains as it was when originally published in November 2021. As claimants move from legacy benefits to Universal Credit, the numbers of claimants being added to the destinations’ measures are small and as the figures are cumulative, there is no material impact from updating them.

Suspension of UC sanction durations and median statistics

While carrying out a detailed investigation of the sanctions data to improve the methodology, it has been identified that the complex code used to process the data for UC sanction durations statistics was not performing as expected. This was complicated further by the combination and substantially different methods of processing data from the separate UC full service and UC live service systems. The measures affected are the sanction duration and median sanction length. While we consult with data engineers and architects to understand the complex data, and conduct further in depth investigations into the code, both of these series have been suspended for UC live service and UC full service as of the November 2020 release.

We are carrying out further investigative work on sanction durations, and aim to revise the complete series for sanction duration and median sanction length statistics on the basis of the improved methodology as soon as possible.

Figures for UC full service adverse decisions, UC live service decisions and destinations and all legacy benefit measures are unaffected.

Partial suspension of UC sanction rate statistics

Investigations into the UC full service rate code and methodology have highlighted that the methodology currently used to calculate the UC rate differs from that described in versions of the release published before November 2020, with open sanctions already being included in the measure for UC full service. Investigations to establish if this is also the case for UC live service are ongoing, so we are continuing to suspend UC live service data from the rate and are publishing sanction rates for UC full service from April 2019. We will reinstate the UC live service rate as soon as possible, following the finalisation of investigations and successful completion of quality assurance processes.

Figures for UC full service adverse decisions, UC live service decisions and destinations and all legacy benefit measures are unaffected.

Comparison across different benefits

Users should be aware that there are differences between sanctions policy across benefits that will affect comparisons. Whilst the same methodology has been used to produce these statistics the benefits themselves are very different and require interpretation based on the rules of the specific benefit. The sanctions process means that the outcome of a sanction is subject to retrospective changes which should be considered when using the decision data.

Interpretation of data and the sanction process

Care must be taken when interpreting the duration charts and figures as, for fair comparisons, sufficient time must have passed before longer duration categories can be achieved, for example, sanctions lasting 27 weeks or more starting in January 2016 would not begin to be cleared until July 2016. Deductions can end for a number of reasons, such as the claimant leaves benefit, transfers to a different conditionality regime, or the claimant is earning enough on UC that they no longer have any standard allowance from which a deduction can be taken. These statistics include those sanctions which subsequently go on to be overturned. Claimants whose sanction is overturned will be repaid any deduction. When a claimant leaves benefit following a sanction start, but before the sanction is served, the claim end date is taken to be the sanction end date. In the cases where a sanction end date is the same date as the sanction start (the claimant serves zero days of sanction), the cases are not counted as a sanction served and are excluded from the data.

Contact information and feedback

Authors: Harry Phasey, Luke Boyce, Craig Mejury, Anna Dyson, and Hannah Palmer

Lead Statistician: Tracy Hills

For more information on sanction statistics, contact the Employment Programmes and Sanction Statistics team at epass.team@dwp.gov.uk.

DWP would like to hear your views on our statistical publications. If you use any of our statistics publications, we would be interested in hearing what you use them for and how well they meet your requirements. Please email DWP at stats-consultation@dwp.gov.uk.

Users can also join the “Welfare and Benefit Statistics” community at StatsUserNet. DWP announces items of interest to users via this forum, as well as replying to users’ questions.

ISBN: 978-1-78659-373-3

1. Further information on the regime change can be found in the background information and methodology document. ↩ ↩²