« Heffernan on science blogging, culture and deconstruction in NYT | Main | A vicious circle: Science So What, BIS and the mainstream media »
August 15, 2010
Housing benefit, statistics, policy-based evidence and an unclear situation
There has recently been a lot of discussion about changes to the UK's Local Housing Allowance (LHA): a benefit which pays or contributes to the rent of low-income households. The plan is to, among other changes, reduce the maximum monthly LHA payments and to decrease payments "from the median to the 30th percentile of local rents" (see PDF summary). This post will look at some of the ways in which statistics have been used in order to justify these changes and at how these changes have been represented: I have been surprised and disappointed by how statistics and media discussion have served more to support particular policy positions than to test whether or not these policies are a good idea.
The Government justified these changes in part through emphasising that "there are some families receiving £104,000 a year in housing benefit". However, they have been criticised for failing to consider the evidence relating to such statements:
The rates Osborne used show that prior to yesterday's reforms, anyone granted housing benefit on a five bedroom house in Kensington and Chelsea, one of London's most upmarket boroughs, would have got £2,000 a week."It is what the rate would be," said a spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions [DWP]. "We don't have any figures on how many people are claiming that rate."
However, she added that a search of the Daily Mail and the Sun newspaper websites would throw up stories of people being paid the same if not more.
To follow up on this, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Treasury (George Osborne is Britain's Chancellor) asking how many households were known to claim over £104,000/year or £2,000 per week in housing benefit. I was told that the Treasury "does not hold the information that [I] requested". It was suggested that I contact the DWP; however, it was the DWP which referred a journalist to the tabloid press when asked for figures. This suggests that the Government did not have a strong grasp of (and perhaps had not even looked up) the statistics used to promote a key policy.
After these changes were announced, the Evening Standard reported that "Westminster council said it may have to house poor families outside central London." I therefore asked Westminster some questions under the Freedom of Information Act.
A first thing to note is that only 2 households in Westminster (out of 28,000 claiming LHA) were claiming £2,000/week of this benefit; 81 households were claiming £1,000/week or more. Westminster is one of the more expensive places in the UK to live. While other parts of the country may have more high-level claimants, these figures do suggest that rather few people may be claiming at the 'headline' levels which Osborne used when trying to justify his planned changes.
Worried by the Standard story, I also asked Westminster for any documents relating to the possibility that the Government's proposed housing benefit reforms will lead claimants to leave the borough or which discuss encouraging and/or assisting housing benefits claimants to leave the borough. However, Westminster informed me that "no such documents exist". Councillor Phillipa Roe (Westminster's cabinet for housing) told me that
Council policy is that all households are very welcome to find accommodation in the centre of London if they can find these within the housing benefit caps.
The intention has not been to force claimants from the borough but to support the reduction of the national housing benefit bill and restrain a system which was driving up and distorting private sector rents.
I was therefore commenting on what may occur in some cases as a result of the new caps. The local authority will be providing whatever support is possible to mitigate against this, but both tenants and private sector landlords will have to adjust their sights according to the new rates.
Until the detailed legislation is developed and accompanying regulations, it is however not possible to say exactly now many households will be affected.
This is commendably clear; it is unfortunate that the Standard article did not represent Westminster's position so clearly.
These responses to my enquiries suggest that we may be facing some policy- and media-related problems. A benefit on which many of the most vulnerable members of our society depend is being cut. While particular statistics are used to promote policy changes, the Government does not appear to have researched these figures as well as one might have hoped. Some media representations of these policy changes have also been problematic: often (with honourable exceptions) adding to the spinning of these policy plans rather than effectively questioning the ideas and beliefs which may or may not underlie them. Osborne's use of statistics here appears to have been a rather unfortunate case of policy-based evidence; what is equally unfortunate is that many media outlets have uncritically reported this policy-based evidence or even managed to add to the confusion and to the (understandable) alarm which many feel about these changes. Assuming that these tactics will continue to be used, it is increasingly important to find ways to critically engage with Government ab/uses of research and statistics.
Thanks to @jdc325 for pointing out that I said £140,000 when I meant £104,000; now corrected.
Posted by jon_mendel at August 15, 2010 02:01 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.watsonblogs.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1784
Comments
Unfortunately, it's rather difficult to find out how much the 30th percentile will be in a given area. This makes forward planning very difficult - I know I need to move by Christmas, but no-one can tell me what my HB will be by then, so I can't look for a place with appropriate rent.
Posted by: Ceri at August 18, 2010 01:56 AM
I take it that many councils haven't calculated what the allowance will be in their areas, then? That is disappointing.
Posted by: JMendel at August 18, 2010 06:27 PM
