Table 3. Overview of the studies for labour market and wider outcomes.
| Study characteristics | Total sample | Labour market outcomes | Wider outcomes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |||
| Alla | 103 | 100 | 68 | 66.0 | 35 | 34.0 | ||
| Period covered by studyb | ||||||||
| 1980s | 3 | 2.9 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 5.7 | ||
| 1990s | 60 | 58.3 | 36 | 52.9 | 24 | 68.6 | ||
| 2000s | 34 | 33.0 | 26 | 38.2 | 8 | 22.9 | ||
| 2010s | 6 | 5.8 | 5 | 7.4 | 1 | 2.8 | ||
| Publication period | ||||||||
| 1990s | 2 | 1.9 | 2 | 2.9 | - | - | ||
| 2000s | 59 | 57.3 | 32 | 47.1 | 27 | 77.1 | ||
| 2010s | 42 | 40.8 | 34 | 50.0 | 8 | 22.9 | ||
| Selected countries/regions | ||||||||
| USA | 65 | 63.1 | 35 | 51.5 | 30 | 85.7 | ||
| Australia | 1 | 1.0 | - | - | 1 | 2.9 | ||
| UK | 8 | 7.7 | 4 | 5.9 | 4 | 11.4 | ||
| Continental Europe | 22 | 21.4 | 22 | 32.3 | - | - | ||
| Nordic countries | 7 | 6.8 | 7 | 10.3 | - | - | ||
| Target populationc | ||||||||
| Low-income families/lone parents | 66 | 63.5 | 36 | 52.2 | 30 | 85.7 | ||
| Unemployed people | 37 | 35.5 | 32 | 46.4 | 5 | 14.3 | ||
| People with a disability | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 1.4 | - | - | ||
| Type of programmec | ||||||||
| TANF/AFDC benefitsd | 64 | 61.5 | 34 | 49.3 | 30 | 85.7 | ||
| Unemployment insurance | 24 | 23.1 | 20 | 29.0 | 4 | 11.4 | ||
| Unemployment assistance | 15 | 14.4 | 14 | 20.3 | 1 | 2.9 | ||
| Disability benefits | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 1.4 | - | - | ||
| Sanction effecte | ||||||||
| Take-up | 3 | 2.9 | 3 | 4.4 | - | - | ||
| Threat | 9 | 8.7 | 8 | 11.8 | 1 | 2.9 | ||
| Warning | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 1.5 | - | - | ||
| Imposed | 83 | 80.6 | 50 | 73.5 | 33 | 94.2 | ||
| Multiple | 5 | 4.9 | 4 | 5.9 | 1 | 2.9 | ||
| Not known | 2 | 1.9 | 2 | 2.9 | - | - | ||
| Exposuref | ||||||||
| Full sanctions | 40 | 38.8 | 29 | 42.7 | 11 | 31.4 | ||
| Partial sanctions | 18 | 17.5 | 16 | 23.5 | 2 | 5.7 | ||
| Full or partial sanctions | 39 | 37.9 | 17 | 25.0 | 22 | 62.9 | ||
| Other | 6 | 5.8 | 6 | 8.8 | - | - | ||
| Type of sanction indicator | ||||||||
| Individual-level | 69 | 67.0 | 51 | 75.0 | 18 | 51.4 | ||
| Area-level | 34 | 33.0 | 17 | 25.0 | 17 | 48.6 | ||
| Unit of analysis | ||||||||
| Individual-level | 90 | 87.4 | 62 | 91.2 | 28 | 80.0 | ||
| Area-level | 13 | 12.6 | 6 | 8.8 | 7 | 20.0 | ||
| Type of data | ||||||||
| Administrative data | 48 | 46.6 | 39 | 57.4 | 9 | 25.7 | ||
| Survey data | 28 | 27.2 | 13 | 19.1 | 15 | 42.8 | ||
| Linked admin-survey data | 23 | 22.3 | 13 | 19.1 | 10 | 28.6 | ||
| Other | 4 | 3.9 | 3 | 4.4 | 1 | 2.9 | ||
The number in each column exceeds the number of studies in the analytical sample (n=94) due to 9 publications reporting both labour market and wider outcomes;
Study period refers to the onset of the period covered by a study when this encompasses more than one decade;
The information for ‘Target population’ and ‘Type of programme’ refers to n=104 due to a study reporting outcomes for two target populations exposed to two policy programmes (National Audit Office, 2016b [61]);
TANF is defined as ‘Temporary Assistance for Needy Family’, means-tested assistance benefits introduced by the US Federal Government in 1996 to replace the prior grant programme ‘Aid to Families with Dependent Children’ (AFDC);
A definition of sanction effect is provided in Section 3;
In the US, full sanctions also include full-family sanctions imposed to low-income/lone-parent households in receipt of TANF benefits for work-related non-compliance reported by the head of the household or other adult members.