Intensity, moderation, and the pressures of expectation: Calculation and coercion in the street‐level practice of welfare conditionality

Abstract

This article offers a street‐level perspective on welfare conditionality as it was practiced in contracted‐out UK activation programs between 2008 and 2015. Drawing on observation and in‐depth interviews, the article illustrates the ways that behavioral conditionality provided street‐level workers with the means to intensify or moderate activation for particular claimants. Responding to arguments about the curtailment of street‐level discretion, the article argues that in the particular context of target‐driven, work‐first, and otherwise highly constrained services, discretion resided in the ability to intensify or moderate conditionality and its coercive potential—in decisions about how, on whom, and to what extent it would be applied. The article argues that attending to this form of discretion provides an alternative frame through which to view the differentiated treatment typically understood as “creaming” and “parking.” In so doing, the article problematizes accounts that draw clear lines between calculative, normative, and dispositional forms of street‐level reason and practice. It shows how advisors' responses to the “street‐level calculus of choice” were articulated in terms of expectation, where attempts at future‐oriented calculation necessarily entailed making other forms of speculative and normative judgement about claimants and their situations. The article thus contributes to an understanding of both the causes and meaning of differentiated treatment in conditional welfare services.

Using candidacy theory to explore unemployed over‐50s perceptions of suitability of a welfare to work programme: A longitudinal qualitative study

“…Turning to healthcare providers to support the rejection of the result of the WCA creates a conflict between employability services and primary healthcare, with the tension residing on the question “who is fit for work, and what does this mean.” For others, the key institutional actor was the WP advisor they worked with, who was sometimes seen as being sympathetic and agreeing with their contested candidacy. This is similar to Kaufman's (2019) description of some advisors “parking” clients to protect them from unwanted or unhelpful interference.…”

‘Chatting Shit’ in the Jobcentre: Navigating Workfare Policy at the Street-Level

“…For some, use of various everyday weapons with and against employment service workers was diachronically consistent throughout the study, whereas for others there were periods of relative quiescence. This was likely determined by the differing nature/agency of frontline staff (see Kaufman, 2020) and/or the terms of personalised claimant commitments: 'my new work coach is sick . .…”

Universal Credit, Lone Mothers and Poverty: Some Ethical Challenges for Social Work with Children and Families

“…dynamics are either understated as priority or largely ignored (White 2003;Whitworth and Griggs 2013;Watts and Fitzpatrick 2018). Contractualism has been strongly associated with neo-liberal policies since the 1980s, including its related focus upon expanding free markets and the limiting of state support (Kaufman 2020).…”