Mr. Philip Finn:

Conditionality and sanctions are a controversial aspect of activation policy. The relatively low levels of sanctions in Ireland do not provide reasons for complacency. In regimes where claimants are fearful of sanctions, one may expect high levels of compliance and low levels of sanctions. Some qualitative data from Ireland suggest that the threat of sanction negatively impacts both claimants' well-being and their relationship to caseworkers and agencies. International evidence highlights that, while claimants are generally aware that sanctions exist within the system, there is a lack of understanding among claimants of when, how and why they are implemented or reversed. Qualitative research here suggests that Ireland is mirroring this trend. It may be the case that claimants are sanctioned for a lack of understanding rather than a deliberate choice to avoid conditions.

Further qualitative evidence suggests variable practice across regions. There is a lack of transparency in this regard, which is probably felt most acutely in respect of the practice of conditionality in the two JobPath services, namely, Turas Nua and Seetec. Transparency requires publication of sanctions across Intreo and JobPath, including reasons for sanctions, gender and age disaggregation, regional analysis and quarterly reports to be included with the Pathways to Work quarterly monitoring report. Policy learning and evaluation require a high-quality qualitative follow-up of sanctioned individuals to understand the impact of conditionality and sanctions on clients' lives, employment prospects, risk of poverty and risk of homelessness.

Current qualitative research suggests that claimants are critical of work-related conditionality, which is often perceived as failing to take account of their interests such as returning to education or personal issues, such as mental or physical health, financial concerns or their housing situation or both. This is probably most acutely felt by unemployed claimants who are experiencing and are required to meet the requirements of multiple conditional regimes such as methadone maintenance programmes. International evidence suggests that the most vulnerable individuals have a particularly poor understanding of sanction regimes.