Zentrale Befunde aus Studien zu Sanktionen im SGB II mit einem Fokus auf Sanktionswirkungen und Sanktionswahrscheinlichkeit

Abstract

"In German public discourse, benefit sanctions of the Social Code II (SC II) are a controversial topic. If recipients of unemployment benefit (UB) II would not comply with the benefit rules of the SC II anyway, benefit sanctions provide an incentive to comply with these rules. Broadly speaking, two types of benefit sanctions exist: 1) Mild sanctions due to missing appointments with the job centre or appointments for medical or psychological examinations; 2) relatively strong sanctions for other infringements such as refusing a job offer or to participate in an active labour market programme (ALMP) or terminating an ALMP participation before the programme is supposed to end. In case of a mild sanction a UB II recipient’s benefit is reduced by 10 percent of the full basic cash benefit for three months. The cut was 30 percent of the full basic cash benefit for three months for strong sanctions (due to other infringements than missing an appointment) in the period between the court decision on November 2019 of the German Federal Constitutional Court and June 2022. From July 2022 onwards, this type of sanction can no longer be applied (sanction moratorium). Since November 2019 the sanction duration can be reduced, if a sanctioned person starts to comply with the rules. Before the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled in November 2019 that strong sanctions were partly unconstitutional, these sanctions could lead to substantially higher benefit reductions than 30 percent of the full basic cash benefit. This was true already for the first infringement within one year for UB II recipients aged less than 25 and in case of repeated infringements within one year also for older UB II recipients. This report first discusses potential effects of benefit sanctions. It then sums up key results of research on effects of benefit sanctions of the SC II. Moreover, it discusses which socio-demographic groups are frequently sanctioned and which socio-demographic groups are not so frequently affected by benefit sanctions. Finally, against the background of these results, the report delineates possibilities to reform the sanction rules of the SC II. Almost all studies discussed in this report analysed periods prior to the court decision of November 2019 of the German Federal Constitutional Court. A number of causal studies analysed surveys and/or administrative data of the Department of Statistics of the German Federal Employment Agency that the Institute for Employment Research processes to conduct research. The analyses of individual data show that, as a consequence of being sanctioned, UB II recipients more rapidly transition from non-employment to employment. One study though shows that strong sanctions negatively affect the likelihood of being employed in the long run. For strong sanctions two studies also report negative effects on the quality of employment of those sanctioned. Apart from causal studies, important hints on effects of benefit sanctions were found in qualitative and quantitative surveys. In particular, side effects were highlighted by these studies. Studies on sanctioned respondents indicate that their quality of life and financial situation is negatively affected and the effects tend to be worse the higher the benefit sanction. Sanctioned respondents also report a worsening of their mental health due to sanctions. Moreover, they partly report to stop being in contact with their job centre or that they no longer trust their caseworker at the job centre, which can harm the process of integrating them into work. Some studies analysed which socio-demographic groups are less or more frequently affected by benefit sanctions. From the results it becomes clear that women are sanctioned far less frequently than men. UB II recipients aged less than 25 years are more frequently subject to a benefit sanction than UB II recipients who are older. UB II recipients who are foreigners are sanctioned less often than UB II recipients of German nationality. There are many reasons that contribute to explaining such differences. Childcare responsibilities are for example among the reasons why UB II recipients do not have to comply with benefit rules, which to some extent explains the above-mentioned differences between men and women. Against the background of these studies, the report discusses how sanctions and the related benefit rules could be reformed to avoid strong adverse effects on living conditions of UB II recipients, while keeping an incentive to comply with rules and thereby enhancing the process of integrating UB II recipients into work and strengthening their potential to achieve sufficient earnings." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))

Cite article

Knize, V., Wolf, M. & Wolff, J. (2022): Zentrale Befunde aus Studien zu Sanktionen im SGB II mit einem Fokus auf Sanktionswirkungen und Sanktionswahrscheinlichkeit. (IAB-Forschungsbericht 17/2022), Nürnberg, 27 p. DOI:10.48720/IAB.FB.2217