Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36000019›Full record

ArticleJournal of social policy2022

The Impacts of Benefit Sanctions: A Scoping Review of the Quantitative Research Evidence.

Serena Pattaro, Nick Bailey, Evan Williams, Marcia Gibson, Valerie Wells, Mark Tranmer, Chris Dibben

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of social policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Serena PattaroScottish Centre for Administrative Data Research, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow; Urban Big Data Centre, 7 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3422-4443
Nick BaileyScottish Centre for Administrative Data Research, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow; Urban Big Data Centre, 7 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1618-5949
Evan WilliamsScottish Centre for Administrative Data Research, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow; Urban Big Data Centre, 7 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3673-5714
Marcia GibsonMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Berkeley Square, 99 Berkeley Street, Glasgow G3 7HR, UK.
Valerie WellsMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Berkeley Square, 99 Berkeley Street, Glasgow G3 7HR, UK.
Mark TranmerSchool of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow; Urban Big Data Centre, 7 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK.
Chris DibbenScottish Centre for Administrative Data Research, Institute of Geography and the Lived Environment, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent decades, the use of conditionality backed by benefit sanctions for those claiming unemployment and related benefits has become widespread in the social security systems of high-income countries. Critics argue that sanctions may be ineffective in bringing people back to employment or indeed harmful in a range of ways. Existing reviews largely assess the labour market impacts of sanctions but our understanding of the wider impacts is more limited. We report results from a scoping review of the international quantitative research evidence on both labour market and wider impacts of benefit sanctions. Following systematic search and screening, we extract data for 94 studies reporting on 253 outcome measures. We provide a narrative summary, paying attention to the ability of the studies to support causal inference. Despite variation in the evidence base and study designs, we found that labour market studies, covering two thirds of our sample, consistently reported positive impacts for employment but negative impacts for job quality and stability in the longer term, along with increased transitions to non-employment or economic inactivity. Although largely relying on non-experimental designs, wider-outcome studies reported significant associations with increased material hardship and health problems. There was also some evidence that sanctions were associated with increased child maltreatment and poorer child well-being. Lastly, the review highlights the generally poor quality of the evidence base in this area, with few studies employing research methods designed to identify the causal impact of sanctions, especially in relation to wider impacts.

Indexed as

Benefit sanctionsJob searchScoping reviewSocial and health impactsUnemploymentWelfare conditionality

Identifiers

PMID36000019
PMCPMC7613403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.