UK JSA Claimant Off-flows for March 2014 by Type


Found work or increased work to more than 16 hours a week: 110,555 or 44.0%

Claimed benefit other than JSA: 8,545 or 3.4%

Government supported training: 2,455 or 1.0%

Education or approved training: 1,190 or 0.5%

Gone abroad: 5,815 or 2.3%

Ceased claiming: 8,250 or 3.3%

Failed to sign: 74,395 or 30.0%

Other reasons: 4,840 or 2.2%

Not known: 34,875 or 13.9%

Total: 250,920

A. Data rounded to nearest 5.

B. Claimant count figures do not yet include claimants of Universal Credit.  Further information is available at

C. The percentage of off-flows with a “not known” or “failed to sign” destination has increased since the start of the series (representing 44% of total UK off-flows in July 2009).  This is because the completion levels of the forms filled in by JSA leavers have decreased.  Many of these unknown leavers will have moved into employment. (Editor’s comment; “will have” would seem to be very contentious given current high level of sanctions)

13 thoughts on “UK JSA Claimant Off-flows for March 2014 by Type

    • Good question! I expect they would for zero hours contracts, but not workfare where people continue to sign on. You will note these two separate off flow categories, Government supported training: 3,250 or 1.0% and education or approved training: 2,545 or 0.8%.

      The 42% comes primarily from information provided in returned ES40s; UB40s in old money.


      • My problem with that answer is that people on Workfare are considered to be in work and are therefore not counted in unemployment statistics. Government supported training or the other training you list is not the same.


      • I think this issue arises from the fact that the Labour Force Survey counts people on Workfare as being in work.

        The figures I have quoted are from the JSA claimant count for February 2014. Claimants do not, as a rule off flow from JSA on to Workfare as they continue to sign on.

        LFS says people are in work whilst on Workfare, whilst JSA count says they are claiming and so unemployed. They are also expected to continue seeking work whilst on Workfare which would put them in the LFS definition of unemployment.

        Why does LFS treat people on Workfare in this way? I think it is because they are productive members of the workforce, despite only receiving JSA.


      • In one sense, yes.

        The LFS is, if I remember correctly undertaken by complying with an internationally agreed set of standards laid down by, I believe the International Labour Organisation. Therefore, how the UK LFS accounts for Workfare would seem to be a matter of compliance not choice. I would assume that, if it is the matter of output from labour that determines how Workfare is counted then somewhere in the LFS should be data for pukka volunteers. The person in the Oxfam shop or working on a preserved railway line is producing something, even if they only receive thanks, expenses and the satisfaction that comes from a job well done. Were that the latter flowed from Workfare.

        The JSA claimant count is a UK measure and even statistically consistent nationwide measures are usually very hard to use for comparative purposes across national boundaries. The LFS makes such comparisons relatively easy, although there are always caveats when assessing the value of such data. Incidentally, has anyone told Gove and the media this with regards to the international educational achievement league tables?


      • I think there is an exemption within the NMW legislation regarding Workfare type activities. However, confusingly, Health and Safety rules and the like do apply to people on Workfare, both in the work place and else where.


  1. I find it interesting that Found work and increased work to more than 16 hours a week are in the same category, as I don’t think that found work part of that differentiates full and part time work. This I feel is important as those who put down ‘found work’ but not distinguished whether it’s full or part time work may still by liable for working tax credit. Or have I misread the statistics on that?


    • I do not think they should be lumped together. Someone lawfully undertaking part time work then beginning to work for more than 16 hours per week in the same job should surely be shown separately?

      The difficulty here is that the data is mainly reliant on what is written on an ES40 by the now ex claimant.

      I am afraid that I will need to look up your query about Tax Credits over the weekend. I am not up to date on that In Work Benefit.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s