Ben Baumberg Geiger

There is limited research evidence on the mental health consequences of self-employment transitions from wage employment. This study fills this gap by investigating this issue using a difference-in-differences design with matching methods employing data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (2009–2021). The results suggest that transitions to self-employment are associated with a small but significant decrease in psychological distress, signalling improvements in mental health. These effects are stronger among workers with poorer initial mental health when compared to their non-self-employed counterparts. Along with the self-employment transitions, workers also experience declines in socio-economic status but improvements in job autonomy, job satisfaction and satisfaction with leisure time. Overall, these findings highlight the potential protective effects of self-employment on workers’ mental health; however, caution is needed in considering the mental health premium of self-employment transitions.

Background: Despite much public debate in England on mental ill-health, yet little distinction is made between different types of mental health measures. This matters because different measures may reflect different processes — rising distress, the labelling of distress as mental illness, or exclusion. We examine trends in all three among the working-age population (aged 16-64) over two decades.Methods: We analyse repeated cross-sectional data from the Health Survey for England (2003–2022; n=109,113). Psychological distress is measured using the GHQ-12 (caseness threshold ≥4); self-reported mental illness using questions on longstanding health conditions; and activity limitations using follow-up questions on how conditions affect day-to-day activities. Survey-weighted logistic regression models estimate trends overall, by age, and conditional on psychological distress.Findings: Psychological distress increased from 13.6% (95% CI 13.2–14.1%) in 2003–2006 to 19.1% (17.6–20.7%) in 2022, with the sharpest rise occurring before the COVID-19 pandemic. Self-reported longstanding mental illness rose more than threefold, from 3.7% (3.5–3.9%) to 12.2% (10.9–13.4%). Among people with high psychological distress, the proportion also self-identifying as having a longstanding mental illness rose substantially 2013–2014 to 2022, from 23.9% (20.6–27.5%) to 32.4% (28.1–37.2%). Mental health-related activity limitations increased more modestly: reports of being limited "a little" rose from 2.1% to 4.0%, whereas severe limitations remained stable.Interpretation: Different measures of mental ill-health have followed divergent trajectories in England. Psychological distress has risen, but self-reported mental illness has increased disproportionately to distress and unmatched by increases in activity limitations. This suggests that some form of medicalisation/exclusion is occurring alongside rising distress.

The benefits system has played a major role in Britain’s COVID-19 response. Yet the situation of those who did not claim UC has been given little attention – particularly those who were eligible for UC but did not claim it. In this report, we present the findings of exploratory research into this group, funded by the Health Foundation. We estimate there are around half a million people – our best estimate is 430,000–560,000 people – who were eligible for UC during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic but did not claim it. This includes a quarter of a million (220,000) people who thought they were eligible for UC (mostly correctly) but didn’t want to claim it. One-third of those who didn’t want to claim said that this was because they did not need benefits. But more commonly, people hadn’t applied for UC because of the perceived hassle of applying (59%), including the challenge of figuring out if they were eligible, the claims process itself, or the threat of sanctions. (Indeed, an outright majority said that conditionality would put them off applying in future). A further sizeable minority (27%) didn’t claim UC because of benefits stigma.We have also estimated survey respondents’ eligibility for UC — something that has never previously been done. Estimating eligibility for UC is complex and there are a number of caveats to the figure. Bearing this in mind, we estimate that 280,000–390,000 people wrongly thought they were ineligible for UC. Some people had actively considered applying for benefits and decided they weren’t eligible, but mostly people just had a ‘sense’ that they were not eligible for anything.In conclusion, we recommend that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) publishes its own ‘benefit take-up strategy’ for the UK. This could include at least four components: publish take-up estimates for UC and new style JSA; ensure that people claim the right benefits as quickly as possible; correct misperceptions about the benefits system; attempt to address benefits stigma.

COVID-19 arrived in the UK early in March 2020. By 23rd March 2020, the UK experienced the first national lockdown. As businesses and livelihoods stalled, an unprecedented number of applications were made for Universal Credit (UC). Drawing on data from the most comprehensive national study examining working-age benefits — i.e. Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) and Universal Credit (UC) — during the pandemic, this report provides an understanding of the experiences of benefit claimants during the first wave of COVID-19.In this report, we combine data from two data sources:- National survey: between 21st May 2020 and 15th June 2020 we surveyed 6,431 claimants: 3,306 existing claimants (1,419 on UC, 1,887 on ESA/JSA) and 3,125 new claimants (2,616 on UC, 509 on ESA/JSA). The survey captured a range of information including claim details, support used when claiming, employment situation, income and financial strain and demographic information. The first wave survey is available for wider use in the UK Data Archive.-Qualitative interviews: between June 2020 and September 2020 we carried out 74 in-depth interviews with claimants, focusing on their experiences of claiming, receiving and managing their benefit payments. The sample included a diversity of participants in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, household type, geographical location, employment status, as well as both new and existing claimants.Through these two datasets, we are able to present a picture that combines nationally representative findings with in-depth insights into the experiences of individual claimants. This report focuses on two key aspects of people’s experiences: (i) the process of claiming social security benefits; and (ii) financial adequacy as claimants receive and manage their payments.

There were good reasons to think COVID-19 would increase public support for welfare: it was a time of apparent increased solidarity in the face of a collective crisis; of clearly ‘deserving’ claimants; and of increases in direct experiences of the benefits system. And yet, the limited evidence collected so far suggests that attitudes have not changed.In this report, we explain this puzzle in the UK, using two datasets which are uniquely suited to the challenge: (i) bimonthly data collected by YouGov from 2019-2021, and (ii) a nationally representative survey we conducted in June 2021.We found that COVID-19 prompted little change in public welfare attitudes. Attitudes did become slightly more generous during the first wave of the pandemic, only to rebound quickly in the Summer of 2020. The second COVID wave prompted another small increase in generosity. However, this appears unlikely to have endured.Overall, comparing May 2021 with the pre-pandemic period, the public were less anti-welfare than before – but only slightly. In the context of a considerable softening in attitudes 2013-19, however, all of the pandemic-associated changes are small.There are two possible explanations for this muted change: firstly, that the pandemic has not meaningfully changed attitudes; and second, that attitudes have changed, but in ways which bracket COVID claimants away from pre-pandemic claimants, which we term ‘COVID exceptionalism’. We consistently found that the public believes COVID-19 claimants are considerably more deserving of benefits than pre-pandemic claimants. We did not show that pre-pandemic claimants were viewed harshly: pre-pandemic claimants were viewed quite sympathetically, and COVID claimants simply more so. But we find support for ‘COVID exceptionalism’. COVID-19 claimants are considered to be different from ‘normal’ claimants, and welfare attitudes are to some extent insulated from sympathetic perceptions of this new type of claimant.

An expanding range of external actors and organisations have come to mediate the relationship between benefit claimants and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Reflecting on the important role benefits, crisis and employment support play in the lives of claimants, this report looks at two dimensions of navigating social security in the UK today. The first section of this report draws on a large representative survey of working-age benefit claimants (i.e. aged 18–64) to establish the extent to which people access support when making a claim for benefits and how this differs according to key claimant characteristics. The second section of this report explores how COVID-19 has affected the coverage and quality of support that many benefit claimants rely on through case studies of four local areas (Leeds, Newham, Salford and Thanet). Here, we draw on qualitative interviews with 32 local support organisations and meetings with 13 national informants representing key stakeholder groups and service delivery organisations.

The benefits system has played a major role in Britain’s COVID-19 response. However, there is a political question about whether more people should be eligible for benefits. In this report, we present the findings of exploratory research funded by the Health Foundation focusing on people who are ineligible for benefits but who may be in financial need.PEOPLE INELIGIBLE FOR UC: Among people who may have been financially struggling, we estimate that in July–August 2020 there were: 200,000 people ineligible for UC solely due to their partner’s earnings; 200,000 people ineligible for UC solely due to their savings; and at least 50,000 people ineligible for UC solely due to migration status. In total, among people who may have been financially struggling, there were 470,000-480,000 people ineligible for UC for a single reason.More broadly, we estimate that there were about half a million (480,000–540,000) people who had lost 10% or more of their income during the pandemic and may have been financially struggling, but were ineligible for both UC and contributory benefits (new style JSA). Half of this group overlaps with the three previous groups, but half of this group were ineligible for UC for more than one reason.UNSUCCESSFUL UC/JSA/ESA CLAIMANTS:We estimate that 290,000 people unsuccessfully tried to claim UC, JSA or ESA during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (and a further 350,000 people considered making a claim without beginning an application).Some of those who had tried and failed to claim were confused about their eligibility, were worried about the ‘hassle’ of claiming, or had experienced problems in claiming. But it was rare for this to stop them claiming (only 43,000 people). The most common reasons people reported for their claims being rejected were that they/their partner were still earning too much money (45.4%) or had too much in savings (23.9%). Often these were because of people’s partner rather than the respondent themselves, again raising issues around the household means test. There were also those who never understood why their claim was rejected (12.4%), showing the confusion that some people faced in navigating the benefits system.CONCLUSIONS:We have shown that among people who may have been financially struggling, there is significant financial strain amongst those who are ineligible for benefits (UC and new style JSA); much more than amongst the general public, although usually not quite as high as among successful claimants. This was particularly amongst those who were ineligible for UC due to partner earnings, and amongst those experiencing income shocks who were ineligible for both UC and contributory benefits. Many (though not all) also felt it was unfair that they were not eligible.

This report looks in detail at food insecurity among benefit claimants using YouGov surveys of the general public (n=2,600) and of claimants (n=6,300) in May/June 2021. We come to seven conclusions about benefits and food insecurity:1. It is not possible to talk about food insecurity in the UK without talking about benefits. 2. The just-announced Household Support Fund will not compensate for the end of the £20/week UC uplift. 3. While keeping the £20/week UC would help, a significant fall in food insecurity would require a broader increase in the level of benefits. 4. To reduce food insecurity, the under-occupancy penalty and the benefits cap should be abolished. 5. To reduce food insecurity, less money should be deducted from people’s benefits, and the five-week assessment period for payment in UC should be abolished. 6. To reduce food insecurity, the DWP needs to better help people deal with their wider debts. 7. To reduce food insecurity, policymakers need to make sure that disabled people receive adequate benefits.

Improving employment outcomes for disabled people is essential not just for raising living standards across Britain, but for supporting economic growth, reducing inactivity due to ill health, and curbing health-related benefit spending. While policy attention has mostly focused on benefit reform and employment support for individuals, less emphasis has been placed on the role of employers. This report addresses that gap, setting out policy proposals on how the Government can effectively incentivise and support businesses to hire and retain disabled workers.

The Covid-19 pandemic created extraordinary conditions for social protection systems globally, with both material and discursive implications. In the UK, these unprecedented circumstances led to an influx of (first-time) social security claims, expectations of increased social solidarity and more positive public discussion around benefits. One might expect this to affect attitudes towards claiming. This article focuses on the accounts of claimants themselves , and how they conceived of their own claims during the pandemic. We analyse in-depth interviews conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic with a large, diverse sample of social security benefit claimants, and draw on concepts of deservingness to show how social security claimants negated stigma through appealing to specific deservingness frames. We show how frames relating to the normative criteria of need, control, contribution and identity were deployed by those who began claiming during the pandemic, as well as those whose claim began pre-pandemic. Despite important points of variation, especially in relation to the categories of control and identity, we find that these deservingness frames did not appear to be disrupted in a major way by the pandemic context, suggesting their notable durability in extraordinary circumstances, with implications for the conditions that can (and cannot) precipitate discursive change or rupture.