Sanktionierbarkeit und Sanktionen aus Sicht von Leistungsberechtigten

"Sanctions in the basic income support scheme (e.g., due to missing an appointment with the Jobcentre or refusing suitable job offers) have been the subject of controversial debate. Welfare claimants rarely have a say in these discussions. However, if we want to understand the impact of sanctions, we need to analyse and understand the perspective of welfare claimants. In this research report, we therefore examine how welfare claimants experience sanctionability – i.e. the possibility of being sanctioned – and sanctions in their interaction with the Jobcentre. The empirical basis are interviews with welfare claimants that were carried out between 2021 and 2024. The interviews focused on interactions with the Jobcentre, experiences of activation and support from the Jobcentre and – where relevant – experiences of sanctions. Welfare claimants are generally aware of the possibility of a sanction, although the interviews suggest that detailed knowledge of sanction rules and procedures is the exception rather than the rule. The awareness that the Jobcentre makes certain demands and that there are negative consequences if they do not comply with these demands is widespread among the interviewees. Welfare claimants acquire this knowledge not only at the Jobcentre, but also from friends and acquaintances or from the media. For them, the possibility of sanctions can shape their interaction with the Jobcentre, even if sanctions are not explicitly discussed. Based on this knowledge, welfare claimants deal with sanctionability in different ways. One way of dealing with it is to distance themselves from their own sanctionability in the interview and to ascribe it little relevance to their own dealings with the Jobcentre. Another way is to confront sanctionability by presenting one's own experiences as unjustified. And another pattern of behaviour is to accept one's own sanctionability, which goes hand in hand with attributing blame. The effects of sanctionability are equally varied. Awareness of sanctionability is associated with a sense of obligation to the Jobcentre and can contribute to the development of routines for avoiding sanctions. However, it is also regularly associated with feelings of incomprehension, defiance, fear and mistrust. These feelings can make it difficult to develop a trusting relationship with Jobcentre staff. Interviewees also interpret experiences that go beyond what is legally defined as sanctions as such, for example demands for repayment, delays in the approval of applications or suspension of benefits due to unannounced absences. Dealing with sanctions always involves some form of coping, ranging from passive tolerance to active resistance. Efforts to avoid a sanction remain the exception. The use of hearing and appeal procedures is costly for beneficiaries and can increase feelings of powerlessness if unsuccessful. The research report calls for the emotional and highly controversial debate on sanctions to be broadened. The debate focuses primarily on the pros and cons of certain sanction levels and durations, and the argument is repeatedly put forward that sanctions are only relevant for a small proportion of welfare claimants. However, from the perspective of welfare claimants themselves, the very possibility of being sanctioned is relevant. Santionability affects all welfare claimants." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))