Working-age ‘welfare’: who gets it, why, and what it costs

7/30/2019 Working-age welfare: who gets it, why, and what it costs

1/8

Working-age wel are:who gets it, why, andwhat it costsThe June 2010 Budget projected spending on social security benefits and taxcredits of 193 billion in 2010/11 28 per cent of total public expenditure. Giventhe state of public finances, spending on this scale has to expect intense scrutiny.To help inform the debate, this paper provides some basic facts about the five mainbenefits that make up, or add to, the income of workless, working-age adults. Thefive are: Jobseekers Allowance (JSA); Income Support (IS); the Employment andSupport Allowance (ESA); Incapacity Benefit (IB); and Disability Living Allowance(DLA).1

www.jrf.org.uk

October 2010

Key points

Of the approximately five million out-of-work, working-age adults currently receiving an incomereplacement benefit, about 50 per cent do so because of disability or ill-health (ESA or IB/IS), 30 per centbecause of unemployment (JSA) and 20 per cent by virtue of being either a lone parent or a carer (IS).

1.8 million working-age adults (who overlap with this group) also receive a benefit because of their careand/or mobility needs (DLA).

Working-age benefit claimants are disproportionately concentrated in the UKs weakest local economies.

After allowing for inflation, JSA and IS of 65.45 a week are worth what they were in 1997. 65.45 isequivalent to just 41 per cent of the Minimum Income Standard for a single working-age adult.

The projected spending on income-replacement benefits (20.2 billion) and DLA (6.6 billion) in 2010/11,though large, accounts for only one seventh of the total bill for social security and tax credits in that year.

Major reforms have been made to working-age benefits since October 2008, for lone parents andespecially for those who are disabled or ill. There is no doubt that these reforms have tightened theconditions for eligibility: what is unclear is by how much.

The extension of ESA to existing claimants of incapacity benefits from autumn 2010 onwards stronglyrisks causing distress while doing little to increase employment.

There are particular concerns that the health needs of mental health service users are not being takenfully into account under the new eligibility conditions.

Peter Kenway and Tom MacInnes (New Policy Institute), Steve Fothergill (Shef eld Hallam University) andGoretti Horgan (University of Ulster)


2/8

The benefts and who they are or Table 1 summarises the key facts about the vebene ts, with the information arranged accordingto the client group for whom each is intended.In describing these bene ts further, we separateout the rst four, which are income replacementbene ts, from the fth, which adds to income.

Income replacement benefts: JSA, ESA,IS and IBIncome replacement bene ts are for adults whoare either completely without work or who (in somecases) are working just a few hours a week. They fallinto three groups.

Those able to work. Except for the two groupsbelow, Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) is the defaultbene t for workless, working-age adults. Toreceive the bene t, a person must be available

for, and actively seeking, a job (usually a full-timeone). In August 2010, around 1.5 million peoplewere receiving JSA, a gure that has changedlittle since the start of the year.

Those unable to work due to disability or ill- health . Until October 2008, these peoplereceived either Incapacity Bene t (IB) orIncomeSupport (IS). Since then, new claimants receivethe Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).ESA begins with an assessment phase to

determine a persons capability for work. InFebruary 2010, around 2.6 million people werereceiving one of these bene ts. The switch fromIB/IS to ESA is discussed further below.

Lone parents with young children, carers and a small number o miscellaneous othersreceive Income Support (IS) for which there isno requirement to be seeking work. The majorchange here over the past two years has been

the reduction in the age of the youngest childbelow which a lone parent remains eligible forIS (down from the 16th birthday to the 7th). InFebruary 2010, around 0.9 million people ofworking-age were receiving IS.

Since an individual can only receive bene ts underone of these three headings at any one time, thenumbers can be added up to produce the much-publicised gure of ve million people receiving anout-of-work bene t.

It should also be noted that many workless adultsdo not receive bene t: for example, the almost 2.5million people of cially classi ed as unemployedexceed by fully one million the number claimingJSA. Although the latter has stabilised at around1.5 million, in the two years from the start of therecession, an estimated 4.2 million people had beenclaiming JSA at one time or other during that period,

more than 10 per cent of the working-age population(MacInnes T, et al., forthcoming).

Disability benefts: DLA The main difference between DLA and the otherbene ts is that entitlement is based on need: neitherwork status, income nor contributions are relevant. A medical examination by a health care professionalacting on behalf of the DWP may be required. Likethe other four bene ts, however, it does add directlyto a claimants income. Claimants are:

Those who need help with everyday tasks, and/or have mobility di culties. DLA offsetsthe notional additional costs associated withdisability. In February 2010, around 1.8 millionpeople of working age were receiving DLA. Sincea person can receive DLA as well as one of theother four bene ts, this number cannot be addedto the previous total of ve million.

ESA work capability assessmentESA has introduced a tougher medical assessment.Pilots of the new test suggested that about 10per cent of those who previously quali ed forincapacity bene ts would not be eligible for ESA. Yet actual results up to May 2010 show that, of thecompleted initial assessments, 66 per cent werefound t for work, 24 per cent were allocated to theWork Related Activity Group and 10 per cent to theSupport Group. 2

Citizens Advice has reported grave concern at thenumbers found t for work. It concludes that theassessment does not effectively measure tnessfor work and is producing inappropriate outcomes(Citizens Advice, 2010). With 40 per cent of

subsequent appeals against a t for work ndinggoing in favour of the appellant,3 there is clearlysomething wrong.

Failing to qualify for ESA doesnt mean that aclaimant is completely t. IB claims always hadto be rati ed by doctors working for DWP, butclaimants did not have to prove they were incapableof all work in all circumstances. Instead, they hadto demonstrate a suf cient degree of ill-health ordisability to be not required to look for work. Thatstill remains the case, but in effect the medical barhas been raised. In the new system, many men andwomen with lesser health problems will thereforebe pushed onto JSA instead, or out of the bene tssystem altogether if they are denied income-basedJSA because of other household income.


3/8

T a

b l e 1 T h e

f v e

b e n e

f t s

C l i e n t g r o u p

B e n e

t

G r o u n

d s o

e n t i t l e m e n t

P r o

j e c t e d

e x p e n d

i -

t u r e

2 0 1 0 / 1 1

G B 4

C l a i m a n

t s G

B 5

B a s

i c w e e

k l y a m o u n

t o r o n e p e r s o n

R e c e n

t

c h a n g e s

F e b

2 0 1 0

O w

h i c h :

m e n

A p r i

l 2 0 1 0 ( m a i n c a s e s )

% c

h a n g e

s i n c e

A p r i

l

1 9 9 7 a

t e r

i n f a t

i o n 6

A s

% o

M i n i m u m

I n c o m e

S t a n

d a r

d

W o r k l e s s a d u l t s

a c t i v e l y s e e k i n g

a f u l l - t i m e j o b

J o b s e e k e r s

A l l o w a n c e

( J S A )

N a t i o n a l

I n s u r a n c e

c o n t r i b u t i o n s

0 . 8

b n

1 . 5 m

7 3 %

6 5 . 4 5 ( 5 1

. 8 5 u n d e r 2 5 )

- 1 %

4 1 %

L o n e p a r e n t s c l a i m i n g

J S A ( d u e t o r e d u c e d

e n t i t l e m e n t t o I S s i n c e

2 0 0 8 ) a r e n o t r e q u i r e d t o

b e s e e k i n g a f u l l - t i m e j o b

L o w i n c o m

e

3 . 8

b n

W o r k l e s s a d u l t s

u n a b l e t o w o r k

b e c a u s e

o f

i l l - h e a l t h o r

d i s a b i l i t y

I n c a p a c i t y

B e n e t ( I B )

N a t i o n a l

I n s u r a n c e


5 . 5

b n

1 . 1 m

6 2 %

9 1 . 4 0

+ 8 %

5 7 %

C l o s e d t o n e w c l a i m a n t s

i n 2 0 0 8 w h o m u s t a p p l y

f o r E S A i n s t e a d

I n c o m e

S u p p o r t ( I S )

L o w i n c o m

e

4 . 6

b n

1 . 0 m

5 4 %

9 3 . 4 5

- 1 %

5 8 %

E m p l o y m e n t

a n d S u p p o r t

A l l o w a n c e

( E S A )

N a t i o n a l

I n s u r a n c e


1 . 6

b n

0 . 5 m

5 8 %

A s s e s s m e n t p h a s e : a s

J S A

. M a i n p h a s e ( i f

a s s e s s e d h a v i n g l i m i t e d

c a p a b i l i t y f o r w o r k ) : 9 1 . 4 0

( w o r k - r

e l a t e d a c t i v i t y

g r o u p ) o r 9 6

. 8 5 ( s u p p o r t

g r o u p )

N / A

A s s e s s m e n t

p h a s e 4 1 %

. M a i n

p h a s e 5 7 % o r

6 0 %

I n t r o d u c e d i n O c t 2 0 0 8

a s a r e p l a c e m e n t f o r

I n c a p a c i t y B e n e t a n d

I n c o m e S u p p o r t o n t h e

g r o u n d s o f d i s a b i l i t y

L o w i n c o m

e

1 . 2

b n

W o r k l e s s l o n e

p a r e n t s w i t h

y o u n g c h i l d r e n ;

c a r e r s ( u n d e r

6 0 )

I n c o m e

S u p p o r t ( I S )

L o w i n c o m

e

2 . 7

b n

0 . 9 m

1 2 %

A s J S A b u t 6 5

. 4 5 l o n e

p a r e n t o v e r 1 8

- 1 %

4 1 %

B i r t h d a y o f y o u n g e s t

c h i l d b e l o w w h i c h l o n e

p a r e n t e l i g i b l e r e d u c e d

t o : 1 2 t h ( O c t 2 0 0 8 ) ; 1 0 t h

( O c t 2 0 0 9 ) ; 7 t h ( O c t

2 0 1 0 ) .

T h o s e w h o

n e e d c a r e a n d /

o r w i t h m

o b i l i t y

d i f c u l t i e s

D i s a b i l i t y

L i v i n g

A l l o w a n c e

( D L A )

N e e d ( m a y b e

s u b j e c t t o

m e d i c a l

e x a m i n a t i o n )

6 . 6

b n

1 . 8 m

5 4 %

C a r e c o m p o n e n t : 7 1

. 4 0 ,

4 7 . 8 0 o r 1 8 . 9 5

. M o b i l i t y

c o m p o n e n t : 4 9

. 8 5 o r

1 8 . 9 5

+ 4 % t o

+ 6 %

N / A


4/8

The geography o beneft claimsWorking-age bene t claimants are far from evenlyspread across the country. High numbers are aboveall a problem of the older industrial areas and, to alesser extent, of some seaside towns and Londonboroughs.

At one extreme, in Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr

Tyd l in South Wales, 26 per cent of working-ageadults are out of work and on either JSA, IS or IB/ ESA (the last of which is the largest group just abouteverywhere). At the other, there are districts insouthern England outside London where the overallclaimant rate lies between 5 and 6 per cent.

Housing BeneftHousing Bene t (HB) has not been discussedhere because it does not contribute to incomein the way that the bene ts here do. WhenHB takes the form of rent rebate, the claimantdoes not see the money. When it is a rentallowance claimants do get the money (whichdoes help their cash ow) but only to pass itto their landlord. Limits on the amount of HBcertainly reduce the income of bene t claimants,for example, where the rent exceeds the LocalHousing Allowance.

Figure 1 Out-of-work claimants of JSA, IS, IB or ESA (English and Welsh localauthorities), 2009

% of working age

17.5+

15 to 17.5

12.5 to 15

10 to 12.5


5/8

What lies behind the variation across thecountry? These differences are rooted in the pat tern ofemployment change over the last 30 years. In thedays when the industries of older industrial Britainwere still working, the numbers on bene ts werefar lower. It was only after the coalmines closed,for example, that the IB claimant rate in mining

areas took off (see for example Beatty, et al. , 2007).In effect, incapacity bene ts hid unemployment.But in the parts of Britain where the economy hasconsistently been strongest, few have needed toclaim bene ts (Beatty and Fothergill, 2005). In theseplaces, even many of those with health problems ordisabilities have been able to nd work.

In older industrial Britain it is no longer the ex-miners, ex-steelworkers and the like who dominatethe bene t gures. They are now rapidly passing

into retirement. But where an imbalance persistsin the local labour market a new generation hasbeen squeezed out the men and (increasingly)women who nd it hardest to keep a foothold in acompetitive labour market (Beatty and Fothergill,2007).

The need or a buoyant labour market

These geographical differences mean thatassumptions based on the labour markets of theprosperous South cant be applied to large partsof the Midlands, the North, Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland. Leaning on bene t claimants to

nd work may deliver results where there are plentyof jobs. Where jobs are harder to come by, enforced job search is less likely to be fruitful. Furthermore, inthe weaker local economies of the UK many of thebene t claimants who nd work will simply do soat the expense of other jobseekers, pushing theminstead onto bene ts.

In the areas with particularly high numbers ofworking-age bene t claimants, the solution lies withhelp for individuals, especially those marooned forlong periods on incapacity bene ts, combined withsustained local economic regeneration. Economicgrowth does work: the long economic boom to2008 did reduce bene t numbers in older industrialBritain, including even IB numbers from around2003 onwards (see for example Webster, et al.,2010).

Disability, illness and beneftrecipiency While jobseekers with a limiting illness or disabilityneed a buoyant labour market, surveys of currentIB claimants have shown that they see their healthcondition or disability as the major obstacle to theirengaging in paid employment. There are a rangeof reasons for this: some feel they are too ill towork; others report widespread discrimination byemployers; others have caring responsibilities which,

taken together with their own condition, mean theycannot manage paid employment. For many peoplewho have mental health issues and want to work,the poor-quality work, which is the only employmentavailable to those at the bottom of the labour market,is detrimental to the management of their condition(DWP and DH, 2009).

Trans er o current IB claimants toESAESA has been in operation for all new claimantssince October 2008, but because most ofthese have recent work experience they standa ghting chance, if t, of returning to thelabour market. Existing IB claimants will onlybegin to be called in for the new medical testfrom autumn 2010 onwards, with the intentionof calling in all of them by 2013. These menand women mostly face multiple obstacles toworking. Their work experience is primarily inlow-grade jobs, 60 per cent have no formalquali cations, more than half are over 45 andmore than half have not worked for ve years ormore hardly factors likely to endear them topotential employers (Beatty, et al., 2009).

Given that IB claimants face health problemsor disabilities of some kind, often live in theweaker local economies, and will nd intense

competition from other jobseekers in thewake of recession, the realistic chances ofexisting claimants nding work are slim. Inthese circumstances, the requirement that theyshould undergo the new test is likely to causeconsiderable distress and for little tangible gainin terms of employment.


6/8

The importance o mental ill-health: the special case o Northern Ireland The importance of mental ill-health as an obstacle topaid employment has grown across the UK over thepast decade (Anyadike-Danes, 2010). In February2010, 43 per cent of working-age claimants ofIncapacity Bene t quali ed for reasons of mental ill-health; in Northern Ireland, the proportion is slightly

higher. 7

Where Northern Ireland stands out is in the severityof such illness, with the NI Department of Healthestimating a 25 per cent greater incidence of mentaldisorders in the region than in England, Scotland,Wales or the Republic of Ireland (Bamford Review ofMental Health and Learning Disability, 2006). Almost3 per cent of the entire population in the region wereawarded the bene t because of severe mental ill-health. In order to be awarded DLA, ones illness hasto disable one to the extent that simple tasks, suchas shopping, cooking and personal care, requireassistance.

The link between depression and living on lowincomes has been well established, with studiesshowing that people living in poverty and with lowerlevels of educational quali cations are at a higher

risk of depression (Lorant, et al., 2003; Weich,et al., 2001). Thus, the reduced real levels ofworking-age bene ts over the last 30 years havecontributed to levels of mental ill-health in regionswhere there are few jobs available. However, inNorthern Ireland, there is an additional factor.

The evidence indicates that the decades of con ictwhich beset Northern Ireland since 1969 are thekey to understanding both the higher incidenceand greater severity of mental illness in the region.International studies have found that political con ict,particularly community-based con ict, producespsychological distress in those who are exposedto the violence (Ajdukovic, 2004; Campbell, et al. ,2004). Both internationally and within the region,people in poorer households were found to bemore likely to suffer signi cant health stresses andalso more likely to have borne the brunt of the Troubles (Ahern and Galea, 2006; OReilly and

Browne, 2001). The areas that suffered most of thepolitical violence are also the poorest areas (Fay, et

al., 1998). Thus, it is the interaction of con ict withchronic poverty in particular parts of the region thatcauses a higher incidence of severe mental ill-healthin Northern Ireland.

Case study: obstacles to employment among disabled people 8Mary is in her early 40s. She is a graduate, withtwo Masters degrees. After her marriage brokedown, she tried to work but, with young childrenand no car, found it too stressful and had to rely onbene ts. After six years struggling to make endsmeet, she became very ill and was hospitalisedwith severe depression. Hospital staff and hercommunity psychiatric nurse helped ll out thenecessary forms and she was awarded DLA. Shesays: Having the cushion of the additional money

from DLA took off loads of stress and really helpedme manage my condition. After about a year, I feltsemi-stable enough to go out and do something.She re-trained but there were no jobs available.Eventually, she started volunteering which helpedwith her condition and, when a suitable job becameavailable, she applied and got it.

What seemed like the perfect job was a disaster,

with poor management and excessive pressure.She became ill again and had to leave. Whileshe was able to invoke the 104-week rule whichallows anyone with a long-term illness who triespaid work to return to the same bene ts withintwo years if the job doesnt work out, the delaysin administering her bene ts she lived for twomonths on child tax credits, DLA and borrowingfrom friends meant yet more stress and greaterill-health. In the course of sorting out her return tobene ts, she failed to attend an appointment about

her bene ts. I was so ill and my medication messesmy memory anyway, so I just forgot. Because shehad received Severe Disablement Allowance, shewas not penalised for forgetting her appointment. Iworry about other mental health service users whoare facing these reforms, she says. If they forgettheir appointments, or are maybe too depressed toopen their appointment letter, they could lose theirbene ts.


7/8

What are the benefts worth andwhat do they cost?

How much are these benefts worth? The value of the income replacement bene ts in Table 1 range from 65.45 per week for JSA and ISto 96.85 for those in the ESA support group. Inpractice, the actual amounts paid range more widelythan that, with those under 25 usually entitled to lessand those under 18 usually entitled to nothing, whilepeople with greater levels of disability can receivemore (via the low-income/means-tested versionsof the bene t). Some people will also be receivingsome DLA, while the family income of the quarteror so of adults in workless households living withdependent children will include Child Bene t andChild Tax Credit.

Nevertheless, a single person who is able to work

and who has no dependent children will be livingon 65.45 a week. This money will have to coverall items of expenditure apart from housing costs,including food, clothing, water, heating, light andtravel. It is therefore reasonable to ask how adequatethis is as a basis on which to live.

The Minimum Income Standard (see box) providesa yardstick by which to answer this: 161.45 perweek for a single adult of working-age (Davis,et

al., 2010). As Table 1 shows, compared with this

amount, bene ts for workless adults range from just over 40 per cent of this amount (for IS, JSAand the assessment phase of ESA) to 60 per centof it for those unable to work by reason of disabilityand ill-health. Since MIS takes no account of theextra costs of disability, the higher level of bene twill not represent as much as 60 per cent of thetotal amount of money that is actually needed. Whilethere is no suggestion here that bene ts ought tobe at the level of the MIS, the sheer scale of theshortfall is indicative of the fundamental inadequacyof current levels.

Why are benefts so low? The main reason why the value of these bene ts isso low is that while they have gone up each year inline with in ation, average living standards (exceptduring recession years) have gone up faster. Thishas been the policy since at least the late 1970s.While the last government put both child andpensioner bene ts up by much more than in ation, it

stuck rmly to the in ation level for IS and JSA. As aresult, after allowing for in ation, they are still worththe same as in 1997. IB and DLA rose slightly, bybetween 4.5 per cent and 8 per cent above in ation,over the 13-year period.

How much money is at stake? Although the projected spending on income-replacement bene ts of 20.2 billion and 6.6billion on DLA add up to a considerable sum, itstill only accounts for 13.8 per cent (one seventh)

of the total bill for social security and tax credits in2010/11 of 193bn. 9 As a share of public spending,it represents 3.8 per cent and as a share of grossdisposable household income, 2.7 per cent.

ConclusionMajor reforms have been introduced for working-age bene ts since October 2008, with most loneparents now required to meet the conditions for JSAonce their youngest child turns seven, and with theintroduction of a whole new regime for those unableto work through disability or illness. That thesereforms represent a tightening of the conditions foreligibility is not in doubt: the only question is by howmuch. While the buoyancy of the labour marketwill be the crucial determinant of how many peoplerequire out-of-work bene ts, there can also be nodoubt that these reforms, introduced by the lastgovernment, will reduce bene t expenditure belowwhat it would otherwise have been.

About the paper This paper was commissioned as part of ourresponse to the debate on forthcoming publicspending cuts. Join the debate atwww.jrf.org.uk/public-spending

The Minimum Income Standard (MIS) The MIS is based on research into what itemsmembers of the public, informed where relevantby expert knowledge, think should be coveredby a household budget in order to achieve aminimum socially acceptable standard of livingin the UK today. Updated every two years, thelatest report, by the Centre for Research in

Social Policy at Loughborough University, waspublished in July 2010. Seewww.minimumincomestandard.org


8/8

End notes1 This discussion, and especially Table 1, cannot include

all the regulations for bene t entitlement. Advice aboutentitlement to bene t is available from Citizens Advice.

2 Source: DWP (July 2010),Employment and Support Allowance: Work Capabil ity Assessment: O cial Statistics , table 4.

3 Source: DWP (2010), Employment and Support

Allowance: Work Capabil ity Assessment: Of cialStatistics, table 5.

4 Source: DWP Expenditure tables, summer 2010, tables2 and 3. Available at: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/ asd4/index.php?page=medium_term (Accessed on 7September 2010).

5 Source: DWP tabulation tool. Available at http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd /index.php?page=tabtool (Accessed on 7 September 2010)

6 The measure of in ation is the Retail Prices Index forall items excluding housing. The reason why thevalues of JSA and IS have gone down slightly is thatthey are uprated by the slightly different Rossi index.

7 Source: DWP tabulation tool. Available at: ht tp:// research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=tabtool(Accessed on 15 September 2010). In November 2009,the proportion of all IB claimants receiving it on thegrounds of mental and behavioural disorders was 47per cent (Department for Social Development).

8 Based on an interview for a qualitative study onobstacles to employment among disabled people inNorthern Ireland.

9 Source: HM Treasury, Budget June 2010, table C13.

Re erences Ahern, J. and Galea, S. (2006) Social context and

depression after a disaster: the role of incomeinequality. J Epidemiol Community Health , Vol. 60, pp.766770.

Ajdukovic, D. (2004) Social contexts of trauma andhealing. Medicine , Confict and Survival , Vol. 20, No. 2,pp. 120135.

Anyadike-Danes, M. (2010), What is the problem exactly? The distribution of Incapacity Bene t claimants

conditions across British regions. Policy Studies, Vol.31, No. 2, pp. 187202.

Bamford Review of Mental Ill-Health and LearningDisability (Northern Ireland). (2006). Mental HealthImprovement And Well-Being A Personal, Public And Political Issue. Available at: www.rmhldni.gov.uk/ mentalhealth-promotion-report.pdf (Accessed on 7September 2010).

Beatty, C. and Fothergill, S. (2005) The diversion fromunemployment to sickness across British regionsand districts. Regional Studies , Vol. 39, No. 7, pp.837854.

Beatty, C. and Fothergill, S. (2007) Changes in the pro leof men claiming Incapacity Bene t. People, Place and Policy Online , Vol.1, No.3.

Beatty, C., Fothergill, S. and Powell, R. (2007) Twentyyears on: has the economy of the UK coal eldsrecovered? Environment and Planning A , Vol. 39, No 7,pp. 16541675.

Beatty, C., Fothergill, S., Houston, D., Powell, R. andSissons, P. (2009) Women on Incapacity Bene ts .Shef eld: CRESR, Shef eld Hallam University. (Thisstudy also included comparative data on men.)

Campbell, A., Cairns, E. and Mallett, J. (2004) NorthernIreland: the psychological impact of The Troubles.

Journal o Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma , Vol.9, No. 1 & 2, pp. 175184.

Citizens Advice (2010) Not Working: CAB Evidence on the

ESA Work Capability Assessment . London: Citizens Advice.

Davis, A., Hirsch, D. and Smith, N. (2010) A MinimumIncome Standard or the UK in 2010 , table 4. York:Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

DWP and Department of Health (2009), Working Our Way to Better Mental Health: A Framework or Action .London: TSO.

Fay, M., Morrissey, T.M. and Smyth, M. (1998) Mapping Troubles-related Deaths in Nor thern Ireland 19691998. Derry-Londonderry: INCORE.

Lorant V., Delige, D., Eaton, W., Robert, A., Philippot,P. and Ansseau, M. (2003). Socio-economicinequalities in depression: a meta-analysis. American

Jn Epidemiology, Vol. 157, No, 2, pp. 98112.MacInnes, T., Kenway, P. and Parekh, A. (forthcoming).

Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion 2010 . York:Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

OReilly, D. and Browne, S. (2001). Health and healthservice use in Northern Ireland: social variations.Belfast: Department of Health, Social Services andPublic Safety.

Webster, D., Arnott, J., Brown, J., Turok, I., Mitchell, R.

and Macdonald, E. (2010) Falling Incapacity Bene tclaims in a former industrial city: policy impacts orlabour market improvement?, Policy Studies , Vol .31,No. 32, pp. 163185.

Weich S., Lewis, F., and Jenkins, S.P. (2001), Incomeinequality and the prevalence of common mentaldisorders in Britain. British Jn Psychiatry, Vol. 178, No.3, pp. 2227.

www.jrf.org.uk

Published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Homestead,40 Water End, York YO30 6WP. This project is part of the JRFs research

and development programme. These views, however, are those of theauthors and not necessarily those of the Foundation. ISSN 0958-3084

Read more at www.jrf.org.uk

Other formats available.Tel: 01904 615905 email: info @jrf.org.uk

2559Please recyclethis when you havefinished with it.

Documents

Working-age ‘welfare’: who gets it, why, and what it costs