The Universal Credit reforms risk placing too much responsibility on chaotic drug users, warns a civil service substance abuse expert
“My role is to work with JobCentre Plus and Work Programme providers to look at how people with substance misuse issues can get the best support from ‘welfare to work’ schemes. We want to ensure that people with addictions are given the right support to enable them to move into sustainable recovery and, in turn, into sustainable employment. The benefit changes and move to Universal Credit (UC) are going to impact on people with substance misuse issues, and they’ll need support through these changes. There are risks that people could end up in worse situations and put their recovery at risk.
For example, under UC there will be no separate housing benefit payments. They’ll be incorporated into UC, and recipients will be paid monthly rather than weekly – receiving the money themselves, rather than having it paid straight to the landlord. Obviously, if someone has an addiction then putting a whole chunk of money – including their rent – into their bank account is a dangerous thing to do. Some individuals may end up spending the extra cash on drugs and alcohol.
These are people with chaotic lives, and some will struggle to manage everyday administrative tasks such as paying bills. We’re going to see people defaulting on their rent and losing their homes – which will be bad for landlords, too. And people may overdose if they’re spending all that money on drugs in one go.
It’s a huge change for people, and who is going to support them through it? The idea of moving to monthly payments is to get people used to living in the way that you do when you’re in work – managing on a monthly budget – and in that way help prepare people for employment. It’s a great idea, but it isn’t going to work for everyone. We encourage local public bodies to look at which providers in their area could support people, but it’s not clear who would help people to manage their finances.
Local public sector staff are being encouraged to work out themselves who should do that. There is a Local Support Services Framework: this has been published to provide guidance on which claimants might need extra support to cope with the changes, and looks at how local public bodies might support people. But there are questions over whether local authorities think that they’re responsible for doing that work, and whether there is going to be any extra money available to support it. Councils and the voluntary sector are already overstretched.
Meanwhile, the benefits regime is being toughened up to demand more of claimants – and in the case of addicts, these expectations may be unrealistic. Benefits recipients have to draw up ‘claimant commitments’ that specify what they have to do in order to continue receiving benefits. If you’re judged to be healthy enough for work, for example, you have to prove that you’ve been jobsearching for 30 hours a week – and if someone isn’t meeting that target, the job centre can remove their benefits.
The problem is that people with drug and alcohol problems may struggle to put that time in, particularly if they’re undertaking treatment and recovery work. Like jobcentres, private and voluntary sector welfare to work providers can use some form of conditionality – so if you disclose that you have a drug problem, they can take that into account when drawing up claimant commitments. But lots of job centres have no idea who has drug or alcohol problems. The treatment and rehabilitation clinics can’t inform the job centres without consent, because it’s a medical issue and therefore confidential. And when claimants are asked: ‘What are your barriers to work?’, they’re embarrassed to say that they have a drug problem or that they’re an alcoholic. The result is that many sign up to commitments they won’t be able to fulfil, subsequently losing their benefits and falling into crime or more severe poverty.
We’re trying to work with treatment centres to help educate drug users and problem drinkers, so that they know it’s sensible to disclose their problems. We’re also trying to arrange training for frontline job centre staff, so they’re able to have good conversations with people with drug and alcohol issues. They need to be able to talk to people sensitively.
However, no amount of sensitive talking will completely eliminate the challenges created by the move to UC: its objectives are sensible, but many drug and alcohol abusers will struggle to manage the responsibility that comes with direct, monthly benefits payments.”
Interview by Adam Branson