19-02-2024, 05:58 PM
And again.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/...olicy.html
Former members of the group, which produced its final report in February 2019, told RNZ National's claims did not match up with the report's findings.
This included social policy researcher Charles Waldegrave, who said what Upston was referring to was a summary of evidence - and the support for sanctions was a small minority.
"What she's referring to was definitely a minority of the views that were put forward. By far the majority of research on sanctions has shown that it's counterproductive when you use it with low-income families."
**Waldegrave said sanctions "humiliated" people on benefits, and often meant they could not get work.
"Especially if you have stand-down period, I mean, it basically means people go, and children go without income in that household.
"There's a lot of costs in actually getting a job and people need that opportunity, and most of the families that we see actually, really, really struggle - want to work and really struggle."
Another group member, Child Poverty Action Group's Innes Asher, said National's policy was "an awful thing to be doing, because it'll harm children".
She said Upston had taken a single line out of context, and most of the report disagreed with National's approach.
The WEAG report mentions sanctions dozens of times, saying:
That the "empirical literature provides no single, overarching answer to whether obligations and sanctions in welfare systems bring about the desired forms of behavioural change" (page 41)
There was "even less evidence that non-work-related obligations and associated sanctions achieve the stated aims of intended behavioural modification" (p41)
The "application of obligations and sanctions in New Zealand (and elsewhere) is problematic" (p41)
That it did "not support the continued use of a financial sanctioning regime" beyond 10 percent financial loss
That there was "little evidence in support of using obligations and sanctions (as in the current system) to change behaviour; rather, there is research indicating that they compound social harm and disconnectedness"
Sanctions over time had "contributed to the hardship faced by many in the welfare system".
"A high number of obligation failures are disputed (46 percent) and almost all (98 percent) of these disputes are upheld with the failure being overturned," the report said."
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/...olicy.html
Former members of the group, which produced its final report in February 2019, told RNZ National's claims did not match up with the report's findings.
This included social policy researcher Charles Waldegrave, who said what Upston was referring to was a summary of evidence - and the support for sanctions was a small minority.
"What she's referring to was definitely a minority of the views that were put forward. By far the majority of research on sanctions has shown that it's counterproductive when you use it with low-income families."
**Waldegrave said sanctions "humiliated" people on benefits, and often meant they could not get work.
"Especially if you have stand-down period, I mean, it basically means people go, and children go without income in that household.
"There's a lot of costs in actually getting a job and people need that opportunity, and most of the families that we see actually, really, really struggle - want to work and really struggle."
Another group member, Child Poverty Action Group's Innes Asher, said National's policy was "an awful thing to be doing, because it'll harm children".
She said Upston had taken a single line out of context, and most of the report disagreed with National's approach.
The WEAG report mentions sanctions dozens of times, saying:
That the "empirical literature provides no single, overarching answer to whether obligations and sanctions in welfare systems bring about the desired forms of behavioural change" (page 41)
There was "even less evidence that non-work-related obligations and associated sanctions achieve the stated aims of intended behavioural modification" (p41)
The "application of obligations and sanctions in New Zealand (and elsewhere) is problematic" (p41)
That it did "not support the continued use of a financial sanctioning regime" beyond 10 percent financial loss
That there was "little evidence in support of using obligations and sanctions (as in the current system) to change behaviour; rather, there is research indicating that they compound social harm and disconnectedness"
Sanctions over time had "contributed to the hardship faced by many in the welfare system".
"A high number of obligation failures are disputed (46 percent) and almost all (98 percent) of these disputes are upheld with the failure being overturned," the report said."
in order to be old & wise, you must first be young & stupid. (I'm still working on that.)