PART TWO

Effectiveness of the Welfare Reforms Act 2012 in Achieving Aims and Objectives
The Welfare Reform Act 2012 clearly elucidated a full range of goals and objectives that
mirrored the government’s plan for transformative reform in UK welfare landscape. These
objectives included the need for fiscal responsibility, efficient administration of welfare support
and promoting self-sufficiency among beneficiaries. The main purpose was to deal with issues
related to the budget that became rifer after 2008 financial crisis. The policy sought to reduce
government spending on welfare programs, which represented a commitment towards long-term
fiscal viability. The implementation of a universal credit system was intended to bring the
administrative efficiency and lowering overall welfare spending from consolidating various
benefits.
Another primary goal was to divert attention from long-term reliance on welfare and towards
proactive participation in employment opportunities. The policy pursued the implementation of
strict work capability assessment that was aimed at ensuring that benefits were allocated only to
those individuals who could not get jobs, therefore promoting self-sufficiency through
employment. Welfare Reform Act 2012 was also intended to make a balanced model of support
by trying to remove the identified inadequacies including under-occupancy penalty sometimes
referred as bedroom tax. It was based on the need to equitably allocate housing resources and
promote efficient use of social housing as a solution, especially in cases where there were
shortages.
One of the policy’s goals was to streamline welfare administration by putting in place a universal
credit system which was partially attained. A consolidated credit system that tied together
multiple benefits made processes more streamlined, less complicated administratively. However,
difficulties appeared in the implementation period as causes of delaying, errors and suffering for
several claimants. The policy aimed at facilitating self-sufficiency through support for
individuals to identify and participate in employment opportunities. On the one hand, there were
instances when transitions from welfare to work took place successfully; however, their
evaluation in terms of accuracy and effectiveness is still doubtful. Some people who were able to
work received wrong decisions that could have caused hardships. The effects of the policy on
employment levels varied with indications that underlined problems, such as job opportunities
prevented its success.
The goal of containing public spending was another challenge. While the policy was designed to
reduce dependence on welfare, many unexpected outcomes resulted including increased levels of
poverty and reliance on food banks. The success of the policy to have created long-term fiscal
stability, without causing social imbalances raised questions related to economic spending on
vulnerable groups. While the empirical evidence shows that, introducing universal credit was
instrumental in simplifying some aspects of welfare administration implementation and still
faced significant challenges. Claimants were affected by delays, errors and administrative
complexities that occurred thereby making people question the efficiency of this policy in
facilitating quick welfare processes. However, figures on the work capability assessments
showed a picture of both good and bad. Though the assessment intended to make sure that
benefits were directed towards those who did not have a chance of working, there was still some
level of inaccuracy and wrong decisions. Empirical evidence of such consequences comes from
the fact that some people suffer because their assessments were wrong which actually calls into
question whether this policy succeeded in its attempt to treat all fairly and accurately.
Further, the policy was aimed at promoting employment; however, the data seemed to suggest
that systematic challenges such as a lack of suitable employment opportunities undermined
efforts which remained ineffective even when placed against trends for overall rates. The
differing results indicate that the connection between welfare reform and better employment
outcomes is not direct or simple. Empirical studies also shed light on the economic consequences
of Welfare Reform Act 2012. Though the policy aimed at reducing public expenses in welfare
spending, unintended consequences such as levels of poverty increasing and turning to food
banks are clear indications that economic effects mostly affected disadvantaged people.
Human Rights Perspective
To evaluate the Welfare Reform Act 2012 in accordance with consideration of human rights
there is a need to see how this act stands against already developed international articles,
conventions and certain laws. Attention has also been brought to the policy’s effects on right to a
decent standard of living including housing and food. The bedroom tax has also been regarded as
a potential breach of human rights since the hardest pressed groups will perhaps no longer be
able to afford that kind of home whereby they could get sufficient nutrition. This policy should
also be consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights UDHR and International
Covenant on Economic Social Cultural Rights ICESCR as established by UN.
The right to employment is reflected through the policy’s focus on supporting self-reliance
achieved via work. The biggest worry, however is that accuracy of work capability assessment
could challenge this right to working by people whom the system wrongly marked as incapable.
It follows that finely textured analysis is required to determine what is needed in order to ensure
implementation of this policy, paying due respects to the principles outlined in UDHR and
ICESCR. However, in addition to just evaluating if the policy is consistent with this non-
discrimination principle, it also has to be seen if its implementation would disproportionately
affect certain types of groups who may have their own rights violated based on UDHR, ICCPR
or even The Equality Act 2010. The policy is also susceptible to negative effects for vulnerable
groups, such as people with disabilities and therefore requires an in-depth reviewing to ensure
equal treatment. The policy aims to decrease welfare dependency in general, but the argument of
potential infringements on right social security are brought up. This policy should be in
accordance with UDHR and ICESCR, therefore it’s necessary to find a balance between the
promotion of self-sufficiency as an adult citizen while providing them social security.
On the contrary, conforming to dignity and respect is a critical component in evaluating human
rights according to this policy. The concept of encouraging self-supportive motivation is in
principle respecting individuals’ agency. It however questions the actualisation of this principle
especially in work capability assessments. Incorrect evaluations which might lead to
undermining dignities of individuals considered those who are not suitable for the job.
Principally, the policy has justifiable grounds for allocating welfare. However, such actions in
real life practice lead to situations with questions of possible discriminatory effects against
mostly vulnerable groups. For instance, the bedroom tax affects individuals with disabilities and
raises questions as to whether it complies with right against discrimination.
Welfare Reform Act 2012 has a profound impact on the realization of human rights both as they
may be positive and negative. As a principle, this policy is aimed at contributing to the right of
employment by motivating self-sufficiency through usefulness in paid job. It would be achieved
if proper implementation followed the human rights principles, empowering individuals
economically and recognizing people’s right to work and to eliminate bureaucratic inefficiency
as the policy aims to provide those who need social security benefits with access to needed
income only.
However, the bedroom tax appears to present a possible obstacle for this human right. It raises
concerns regarding its consistency with human rights standards as it has a disproportionate
impact on vulnerable populations, including those having signs of disability. The policy may also
negatively affect the right to non-discrimination due to unintended consequences, such as
potential adverse effects arising from discrimination on certain groups. Compliance with human
rights requires equal outcomes for all the citizens irrespective of their socio-economic status.
Finding the right balance between fiscal responsibility and respecting human rights principles of
dignity is also crucial. Instances of incorrect work capability assessments may test the practical
realization about this principle and demonstrate that it is necessary to make a thorough analysis
of policy effects on individual dignity.
Effects of the Welfare Reforms Act 2012 to citizenship
Welfare Reform Act 2012 plays a vital role in the chance and ability of individuals to engage as
full citizens of society, while signaling both positive features and worrying elements. Essentially,
the policy seeks to enable people by promoting self – sufficiency through work. Positive
implementation may allow people to become contributing members of society, offering them a
sense of belonging and participation. Or that the policy’s aim for reforming welfare management
will succeed in making it easier to get at social security benefits. This may help them to come in
terms with the system better and hence contribute more productively in social activities.
Moreover, the work capability assessments contribute directly to this. Such wrongful
assessments can negatively influence the skills of certain individuals thus may even lead to their
ousting from any involvement in society. There are also issues surrounding the policy’s unequal
impact on more vulnerable society segments, which might affect their capability to fully engage.
For instance, the under-occupancy penalty may have a negative impact on those disabled to find
proper housing and their level of participation in society.
The Welfare Reform Act 2012 has sweeping implications for the operation of civil, political and
social rights because it denotes a complex interplay between policy objectives and socio
economic outcomes. It is conceivable that the under- occupation penalty impacts on people’s
civil right to sufficient housing. Poorly carried out work capability assessments may also infringe
upon an individual’s right to privacy. Citizens have the right to privacy when citing personal
health information during these assessments. In other instances, people might not have a position
to hold such offices due to either economic hard times brought about by the side effects of this
policy without intending for instance whereby if poverty levels increased then. Due to socio-
economic barriers that can negatively impact marginalized communities, political rights are often
compromised. The policy’s aims at making welfare administration manageable has an
implication for individuals’ social rights. Fair distribution of social support and promoting the
usage of rights regarding economic welfare and social security could possibly stem from
effective delivery. There are also concerns about the consequences on vulnerable groups such as
people with disabilities regarding social inclusion and participation. The policy outcomes may
impact on social rights associated with inclusion.
Welfare Reform Act 2012 has differential effects, so it greatly affects the relative disadvantaged
or marginalized citizens. Marginalized citizens often face the adverse side effects, including
higher poverty levels. Such far reaching commitment of this policy towards social equity
challenged economic inequalities that caused the vulnerable populations to bear a heavier burden
particularly. Relatively disadvantaged people and those who are facing systemic barriers, as well
as those whose number of job opportunities is limited depend on the policy that strongly diverges
toward self-sufficiency which could unfortunately contribute to the increase of economic
disparities by not addressing structural issues present within the labor market. Otherwise, the
policy affects social rights where access to basic services differs and in doing so could widen
these divisions. Additionally, marginalized citizens can suffer additional stress and mental health
related problems due to the economic issues that occur with such a policy. These access gaps
increase, hinting at an unhealthy effect on these groups of people in terms of healthcare and
mental health support.
The Welfare Reform Act 2012 attributable Side Effects
2013 was the year of various serious side effects and unintended consequences caused by
Welfare Reform Act 2012 but also showed how complicated social policy reforms were in their
nature. The policy focused on fiscal prudence inadvertently contributing to higher poverty levels.
People who lived in a low-income setting had to face economic challenges as food scarcity was
thus high and many of them relied on the utilization of homeless shelters. This unintended effect
undermined the first goal of the policy promoting self-sufficiency. Change towards incorporation
has also been moved, even stretching support services with a noble intention of being
administrative efficiency move touching universal credit system. The concealed side effects of
overloaded support structures show up as delays, mistakes and fast growing request for help that
leaves people denied important advantages at the right time.
The policy has also created some adverse effects on mental health as a result of economic
uncertainties. Listed problems such as an augment of stressor on people, especially
representatives of marginalized groups indicate that a policy is needed not only from the
standpoint it served fiscal goals but also regarding other social consequences. The negative
consequences of the policy has further frustrated existing disparities. This also stains the policy
of fairness and social equity because vulnerable groups including the disabled are mostly
affected. Additionally, poor work capability assessments have mistakenly acquitted people who
are capable of working. The policy is seen as problematic since it questions its ability to target
the right people ethically and issues of human rights are practiced if implemented.
The Welfare Reform Act 212 implies serious implications for the concepts of human rights and
citizenship. Since the conundrum has occurred, it referred to an intricate interplay between
policy results on one hand while assimilating basic societal values. Economic problems such as
poverty and hunger become a challenging factor to the right of an adequate standard. It has also
damaged the right to social security in terms of strain on support services and delays while
accessing benefits. This does not only place questions on the economic activities associated with
citizenship rights, but also creates problems in relation to fair use of civil right society. Hit more
directly on those least able to withstand it and so imperfect full membership of our society as
active participants, aggravate the social inequality. Unintended consequences create
marginalization that reverses the right to equal citizenship and challenges policy in terms of
democratic compatible.
Psychosocially, economic uncertainties can affect mental health and have effects in citizenships.
People, whose life is filled with troubles concerning stress and mental health issues have the
minimal capability of being active citizens from civic to political as well as social lifestyles.
Conclusion
At the evaluation, the notable understandings include understanding a difficult domain with
intended outcomes, unintended impacts and how such consequences influence human rights and
citizenship in UK. Like many policies, the benefits of straightforwardness in welfare
management and focus on employment can be negated by unexpected outcomes such as greater
poverty and disparities. These are the unwanted consequences coming from primarily
marginalised citizens who not only challenge human rights principles but also affect full
enjoyment of countries’ citizenships. The relationship between economic, social and health
issues shows that the problems might be as complicated; however they could benefit from
qualified care to enhance further policy thoughts. Such welfare policy is in line with fiscal
objectives; nonetheless, the socio-economic impact of this plan merits a comprehensive and
rights oriented approach to social security. Human rights, and social wellbeing may be the
proximate arguments for future reforms to decrease such disparities. If one wants to be able to
not only create policies that will promote economic well-being but also everything around
citizenship then it is very much necessary for the individual advocating on behalf of fiscal
responsibility while supporting social justice in order to enjoy an overall community support
from a holistic perspective.