Apparently not.
The national government in England set out to reform its existing social assistance programs under the banner “Universal Credit” in 2013. It planned a phased implementation over four years. The government promised a “test and learn” approach.
The program is designed to “encourage” people to work, backstopping low wage jobs with assistance. “Testing” revealed that this creates a huge problem. Benefit payments are not consistent, even when pay levels are constant. Despite the evidence, there was no “learning.” The government refused to change the program1.
The issue moved to the courts, where the government continued to defend its uneven and inflexible payment system.
The court challenge was led by Danielle Johnson, a mom and a school catering assistant who is paid monthly. The amount she received from employment did not change from one year to the next. Meanwhile, the amount she received from Universal Credit varied by as much as £500 a year. That made it difficult to pay for her housing, food and other essentials.
The court ultimately sided with Johnson, a decision offering a small measure of housing stability to Johnson and some 85,000 other households2.
See the full story in The Guardian: Universal credit rules irrational and unlawful, judge says
Update — Since publishing this post on July 6, the English Court system has handed down another decision in favour of a mom whose earning pattern didn’t fit the Universal Credit rules. Here’s the account of the case at The Guardian: Universal credit earnings calculations unlawful, judge says
Footnotes
- For a discussion of how clients are affected by such decisions, see this report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation: Destitution in the UK 2018
- For a discussion of other ways that Universal Credit is undermining housing stability, try: Universal Credit = Less Housing Security
