No one written off? Welfare, work and problem drug use

Abstract

The welfare ‘reform’ Green Paper, No one written off, outlined a range of proposals related to getting problem drug users into treatment as a first step to getting such people into paid work. This article outlines and critically engages with the contents of No one written off, particularly those aspects associated with the proposed introduction of a new social security benefit–a treatment allowance–for problem drug users. The article locates the proposed changes to income maintenance policy for problem drug users in Labour's concern with the behaviour of those people it defines as deviant and/or irresponsible. The article argues that because of the level of coercion proposed in the changes, they have the potential to impoverish further problem users. This, along with the pathologizing of problem drug users, means the proposals are likely to have little effect in getting problem users into either drug treatment programmes or paid work.

Notes

Notes

[1] Here, rather than reproducing the government's idea of ‘welfare to work’ we follow Grover and Stewart's (2002) suggestion that ‘welfare to work-welfare’ is more appropriate because often people leaving out-of-work benefits remain in receipt of in-work benefits while in paid employment.

[2] There was opposition to the declaration of drug use in responses to No one written off: ‘There were suggestions that this was asking people to incriminate themselves and concerns that the proposals would push drug users further from the benefits system. In particular, there was anxiety that women, in particular, would not declare drug abuse due to fear that their children would be taken into care’ (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 2008b, para. 6.33). Evidence of such concerns comes from the USA (for instance, Young, 1997). In the White Paper, therefore, it was noted that the government would ‘not make all new benefit claimants make a declaration of drug use at the start of their claim’ (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 2008b, para. 6.34). This does, however, leave open the demand for demanding a declaration later in a claim.

[3] The DRR has evolved from the Drug Treatment and Testing Order to bring those Orders within the Criminal Justice Act (2003) provisions. An order can last a minimum of 6 months and up to a maximum of 3 years, within a Community Order with a Supervision Requirement. The treatment requirement included in the order can specify either residential or non-residential treatment, or a combination of the two over the specified period. Recently the option of an added requirement to attend the Offender Substance Abuse Programme run by the Probation Service has been added to it.

[4] Successful completion of treatment is ‘defined as being referred on, completing treatment or completing treatment drug free’ (National Statistics, 2008, p. 19).

[5] So, for instance, Joyce and Whiting (2006, p. 19) found that some lone parents who had their social security benefits sanctioned because they did not attend their work-focused interviews were unaware that they had been sanctioned, thinking instead that ‘their benefit had simply been reduced as a result of a re-assessment as opposed to a sanction’.