{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018442622950819672, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00819672131147541, 'mean_word_length': 5.068322981366459, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sanctions: mixed messages from the USA

In 1996 the United States embarked on a radical welfare-to-work experiment. A key element of this was the use of sanctions against welfare recipients who did not participate in work-related activities, yet the actual use of enforcement has been relatively under-reported. This article charts how sanctions have been implemented. It shows that there has not been a one-dimensional approach, with significant differences in the rules applied by different states. Furthermore, increased discretion at caseworker level has serious potential consequences for individual families. The article also notes that the overall drop in welfare rolls since the mid-1990s means that an increasing proportion of remaining recipients are those with significant obstacles to work, which raises concerns about the future use of sanctions. These issues are examined with an eye on possible lessons for the UK as the government extends the use of sanctions.