Millions of UK welfare recipients must now comply with compulsory duties or face sanctions to keep their benefits, housing, or asylum support—yet the evidence that this actually changes behaviour is largely untested. This project addresses a critical gap: a strong political consensus backs welfare conditionality across unemployment, housing, homelessness, and immigration systems, but no comprehensive study has asked whether it works or whether it is ethically justified. The research will build the first large-scale evidence base by interviewing 40 elite policymakers, running 24 focus groups with frontline practitioners, and conducting 1,200 repeat interviews with 400 welfare recipients over time. If the findings show conditionality fails to change behaviour or causes harm, the research could reshape how the UK designs social security, housing, and criminal justice policies. It may lead to fewer sanctions, more support-based approaches, or clearer ethical limits on when the state can compel behaviour. If conditionality proves effective for some groups but not others, policymakers could target it more precisely. The project compares England and Scotland, where different legal frameworks on housing and homelessness already exist, offering lessons for future policy divergence.
View original technical description
In the UK the use of conditional welfare arrangements that combine elements of sanction and support which aim to 'correct' the 'problematic' behaviour of certain welfare recipients are now an established part of welfare, housing, criminal justice and immigration systems. A strong mainstream political consensus exists in favour of conditionality, whereby many welfare entitlements are increasingly dependent on citizens first agreeing to meet particular compulsory duties or patterns of approved behaviour. Conditionality is currently embedded in a broad range of policy arenas (including unemployment benefit systems, family intervention projects, street homelessness interventions, social housing, and asylum legislation) and its use is being extended to cover previously exempt groups e.g. lone parents and disability benefit recipients. However, assumptions about the benefits and usefulness of conditionality in changing the behaviour of social welfare recipients remain largely untested. This project has two key aims. First, to advance understanding about the role of conditionality in promoting and sustaining behaviour change among a diversity of welfare recipients over time. Second, to consider the circumstances in which the use of conditionality may, or may not, be ethically justified. We aim to address gaps in existing knowledge by establishing an original and comprehensive evidence base on the efficacy and ethicality of conditionality across a range of social policy fields and diverse groups of welfare service users. We will use a range of methods to achieve these aims. Initially, we will review relevant literature, statistical data sources and policy documents. To help inform and critically interrogate our approach, we have secured the involvement of leading international scholars who will participate in a series of expert panel seminars convened in the early stages of the study. We will also conduct 'consultation workshops' with welfare recipients and practitioners to feed into research design (these workshops will be held again towards the end of the study to reflect on emerging findings). Following on from this we will undertake fieldwork with three sets of respondents: 1. semi-structured interviews with 40 'elite' policymakers; 2. 24 focus groups (with 6-10 respondents) with frontline welfare practitioners who implement policy; and 3. repeat qualitative longitudinal interviews with a diverse sample of 400 welfare recipients who are subject to conditionality. Each person will be interviewed three times giving a total of 1200 interviews. The elite interviews will explore the reasons why policymakers introduce conditional welfare policies and their understandings of how they might promote behavioural change. The focus groups will consider both what frontline practitioners think should happen (ethically) and what they think would/does happen (in practice) when conditionality is implemented. The three rounds of repeat qualitative longitudinal interviews with welfare recipients will provide a meaningful way to examine the transitions, adaptations and coping strategies of individuals subject to conditionality, how these may change over time, and why there may be diverse outcomes for different people. Fieldwork will take place in a variety of locations in England and Scotland, including the cities of London, Manchester, Salford, Sheffield, Glasgow and Edinburgh. This will allow for a comparative analysis of the interplay between shared social security law and the different policy and legal frameworks on housing, homelessness and criminal justice that exist in England and Scotland. All interviews will be audio recorded and transcribed (with permission). The new data generated will then be analysed to explore commonalities and differences between the perspectives of policymakers, frontline workers and welfare recipients. Findings will be disseminated to policymaker, practitioner, academic and welfare service user audiences.
Plain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research.
Is something wrong? Let us know