Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:14:41.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Costs and Benefits: A Review of Research on Take-up of Income-Related Benefits*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Peter Craig
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reviews recent research on take-up with a view to identifying the most promising lines of further enquiry. In the late 1970s take-up research seemed to be foundering in the face of the complexity of the factors affecting claiming decisions. Progress came via the development of models of the claiming process. The most influential postulated a series of thresholds which claimants must pass in a set sequence on the way to claiming a benefit. One question for future research is whether this model is still the best starting point or whether there are others which capture the key factors and their interaction more fully and accurately. Another approach is to look at claiming decisions indirectly by applying multivariate techniques to continuous survey data to examine the relationship between variables such as age, income and housing tenure and differing probabilities of claiming. A second question is what the two approaches can offer each other. Overhanging all the issues facing take-up research is the problem of sampling a population—eligible non-recipients—for which, almost by definition, no suitable sampling frame exists. The paper concludes by examining various options for identifying this elusive group.

Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , October 1991 , pp. 537 - 565
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Altman, R.A. (1981), Take-up of Supplementary Benefit by Male Pensioners, SSRC Programme on Taxation, Incentives and the Distribution of Income, Discussion Paper 25, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Ashenfelter, O. (1983), ‘Determining participation in income-tested social programmes’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78, 517–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. (1984), Take-up of Social Security Benefits, ESRC Programme on Taxation, Incentives and the Distribution of Income Discussion Paper 65, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. (1987), ‘Income maintenance and social insurance’, Auerback, A. and Feldstein, M. (eds), A Handbook of Public Economics, North-Holland, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. (1991), The Development of State Pensions in the UK, Welfare State Programme Discussion Paper 58, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. with Champion, B. (1989), ‘Family income supplement and two-parent families, 1971–1980’, in Atkinson, A.B., Poverty and Social Security, Harvester, Hemel HempsteadGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. and Micklewright, J. (1983), ‘On the reliability of income data in the Family Expenditure Survey 1970–1977’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 146, 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blundell, R., Fry, V. and Walker, I. (1987), Modelling the Take-up of Means-Tested Benefits: the Case of Housing Benefits in the UK, Working Paper 87/3, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J. and Beadham, R. (1987), The Take-up of Housing Rebates by Families with Children, Social Policy Research Unit, York.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J. and Millar, J. (1991), Lone Parent Families in the UK, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, M. and Davies, R. (1986), Not a Penny to Call My Own. Poverty Among Residents in Mental Illness and Mental Handicap Hospitals, Disability Alliance/King's Fund, London.Google Scholar
Broad, P. (1977), Pensioners and Their Needs, OPCS, London.Google Scholar
Brown, J. (1987), The Future of Family Income Support, Studies of the Social Security System No. 15, PSI, London.Google Scholar
Brown, J. (1988), Child Benefit. Investing in the Future, CPAG, London.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1985), Money Matters for People with a Mental Handicap, Disablement Income Group, London.Google Scholar
Buckland, S. and Dawson, P. (1989), ‘Household claiming behaviour’, Social Policy and Administration, 23, 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, D. (ed.) (1971), Family Poverty. Programme for the Seventies, CPAG/Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
Corden, A. (1981a), The Process of Claiming Family Income Supplement: Background Paper I, Social Policy Research Unit, York.Google Scholar
Corden, A. (1981b), The Process of Claiming Family Income Supplement: Background Paper II, Social Policy Research Unit, York.Google Scholar
Corden, A. (1983), Taking up a Means Tested Benefit. The Process of Claiming Family Income Supplement, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Corden, A. (1985a), The Process of Claiming Family Income Supplement, Study 3: Increasing Take-Up in Cumbria, Social Policy Research Unit, York.Google Scholar
Corden, A. (1985b), Operational Aspects of the Family Credit Scheme, Social Policy Research Unit, York.Google Scholar
Corden, A. (1985c), The Process of Claiming Family Income Supplement. Proposals for Further Research, Social Policy Research Unit, York.Google Scholar
Corden, A. (1987a), Disappointed Applicants. A Study of Unsuccessful Claims for Family Income Supplement, Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Corden, A. (1987b), ‘Claiming behaviour and take-up: a model for people with mental handicap’, British Journal of Mental Handicap, 33, 57–65.Google Scholar
Corden, A. and Craig, P. (1991), Perceptions of Family Credit, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Cowell, F.A. (1986), Welfare Benefits and the Economics of Take-Up, ESRC Programme on Taxation. Incentives and the Distribution of Income, Discussion Paper 89, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Davies, C. and Ritchie, J. (1988), Tipping the Balance. A Study of Non-Take-Up of Benefits in an Inner City Area, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Dawson, P., Buckland, S. and Gilbert, N. (1990), ‘Expert systems and the public provision of benefit advice’, Policy and Politics, 18, 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, A. and Bradshaw, J. (1983), Reserved for the Poor. The Means Test in British Social Policy, Martin Robertson, Oxford.Google Scholar
DHSS Statistics and Research Division (1987), Family Income Supplement Take-Up, 1983–4—Technical Note, DHSS, London.Google Scholar
DHSS Statistics and Research Division (nd). Supplementary Benefit Take-Up, 1983, DHSS, London.Google Scholar
DSS (1991), Social Security 1990, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
DSS Analytical Services Division (1989a), Family Income Supplement Take-Up 1985–86. Technical Note, DSS, London.Google Scholar
DSS Analytical Services Division (1989b), Housing Benefit Take-Up 1985. Technical Note, DSS, London.Google Scholar
DSS Analytical Services Division (1989c), Supplementary Benefit Take-Up 1985. Technical Note, DSS, London.Google Scholar
Dilnot, A.W., Kay, J.A. and Morris, C.N. (1984), The Reform of Social Security, OUP, Oxford.Google Scholar
Falkingham, F. (1985a), Local Authority Approaches to Take-Up, Benefits Research Unit, Nottingham University.Google Scholar
Falkingham, F. (1985b), Take-Up of Benefits: A Literature Review, Benefits Research Unit, Review paper 1:85, Nottingham University.Google Scholar
Falkingham, F. (1986), ‘Local authority initiatives on increasing take-up of benefits’, Municipal Review, 665, 211.Google Scholar
Ferguson, D.G. (1985), Take-Up of Family Income Supplement, Msc Thesis, Ulster University.Google Scholar
Ferguson, D.G. (1986), Take-Up of Family Income Supplement, DHSS, Stormont.Google Scholar
Fry, V. and Stark, G. (1987), ‘The take-up of supplementary benefit: gaps in the safety net’, Fiscal Studies, 8, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, N. (1986), Merseyside County Council 1983 ‘Claim it Now’ Campaign, Final Report, Merseyside County Council, Liverpool.Google Scholar
Graham, J. (1984), Take-Up of FIS. Knowledge, Attitudes and Experience—Claimants and Non-Claimants, PPRU Occasional Paper 2, PPRU, Stormont.Google Scholar
Harris, A.I., Smith, C.R.W. and Head, E. (1972), Income and Entitlement to Supplementary Benefit of Impaired People in Great Britain, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Henwood, M. and Wicks, M. (1986), Benefit or Burden? The Objectives and Impact of Child Support, Occasional Paper 3, Family Policy Studies Centre, London.Google Scholar
Kerr, S. (1982a), Differential Take-Up of Supplementary Pensions. Final Report, Department of Psychology, Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
Kerr, S. (1982b), ‘Deciding about supplementary pensions: a provisional model’, Journal of Social Policy, 11, 505–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, S. (1983), Making Ends Meet: An Investigation Into the Non-Claiming of Supplementary Pensions, Bedford Square Press, London.Google Scholar
Knight, I. (1981), Family Finances, OPCS Occasional Paper 26, OPCS, London.Google Scholar
Lister, R. (1974), Take-Up of Means Tested Benefits, Poverty Pamphlet 18, CPAG, London.Google Scholar
McClements, L. (1978), The Economics of Social Security, Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
Manchester City Council Welfare Rights Service (1985), Claim It Now. Take-Up Campaigns in Manchester 1982–4, Manchester City Council.Google Scholar
Millar, J. (1983), Take-Up of Means Tested Benefits in Work, Working Paper 3, DHSS Cohort Study of Unemployed Men, DHSS, London.Google Scholar
Millar, J. and Cooke, K. (1984), A Study of the Take-Up of One Parent Benefit in Hackney, Social Policy Research Unit, York.Google Scholar
Millar, J., Cooke, K. and McLaughlin, E. (1988), The Employment Lottery. Risk and Social Security Benefits, paper presented to Employment and Unemployment Workshop, Department of Employment, 20 May.Google Scholar
Millar, J., Cooke, K. and McLaughlin, E. (1989), Work and Welfare Benefits, Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Moffitt, R. (1980), ‘Participation in the AFDC programme and the stigma of welfare receipt’, Southern Economic Journal, 47, 753–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffitt, R. (1983), ‘An economic model of welfare stigma’, American Economic Review, 73, 1023–35.Google Scholar
National Audit Office (1985), DHSS: Arrangements For Delivering Social Security Benefits, HC 235, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
National Consumer Council (1976), Means Tested Benefits. A Discussion Paper, National Consumer Council, London.Google Scholar
van Oorschott, W. (1990), Non-Take-Up of Social Security Benefits in Europe, paper presented to the Social Policy Association Conference, University of Bath.Google Scholar
Page, D. and Weinberger, B. (1975), Birmingham Rent Rebate and Allowance Study, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Research Memorandum 44, Birmingham University.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. and Naidoo, J. (1978), The Take-Up of Supplementary Benefits: A Report on a Survey of Claimants, DHSS, London/London University.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. (1989), The Take-Up of Income-Related Benefits. A Review of Recent Research Evidence on Factors Affecting the Take-Up of Income-Related Benefits, unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. and Matthews, A. (1982), Take-Up of Rent Allowances. An In Depth Study, Social and Community Planning Research, London.Google Scholar
Social Security Advisory Committee (1988), Sixth Report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Strauss, R.P. (1977), ‘Information and participation in a public transfer programme’, Journal of Public Economics, 8, 385–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary Benefits Commission (1978), Take-Up of Supplementary Benefits, Supplementary Benefits Administration Paper 7, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1976), ‘Rent benefits and tenants’ attitudes. The Batley rent rebate and allowance study’, Journal of Social Policy, 5, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. (1980), ‘Temporal aspects of claiming behaviour: renewal of rent allowances’, Journal of Social Policy, 9, 207–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisbrod, B.A. (1970), On the Stigma Effect and the Demand for Welfare Programmes—a Theoretical Note, Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion paper 82–70, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar