Universal Credit ‘Caused Hardship’ And ‘Not Value For Money’
The National Audit Office (NAO) published a report last week (June 15th) that assesses the value for money of the Department for Work and Pensions’ introduction of Universal Credit (UC). The report considers how the Department’s plans have evolved, whether the approach works for claimants and the organisations supporting them, and the likelihood of Universal Credit achieving its aims
The NAO concludes that Universal Credit has taken significantly longer to roll-out than intended, and that UC has not delivered value for money and it is uncertain that it ever will: “We think that there is no practical alternative to continuing with Universal Credit. We recognise the determination and single-mindedness with which the Department has driven the programme forward to date, through many problems. However, throughout the introduction of Universal Credit local and national organisations that represent and support claimants have raised a number of issues about the way Universal Credit works in practice.”
“The Department has responded to simple ideas to improve the digital system but defended itself from those that it viewed as being opposed to the policy in principle. It does not accept that Universal Credit has caused hardship among claimants, because it makes advances available, and believes that if claimants take up these opportunities hardship should not occur. This has led it to often dismiss evidence of claimants’ difficulties and hardship instead of working with these bodies to establish an evidence base for what is actually happening. The result has been a dialogue of claim and counter-claim and gives the unhelpful impression of a Department that is unsympathetic to claimants.”
“The Department has now got a better grip of the programme in many areas. However, we cannot judge the value for money on the current state of programme management alone. Both we, and the Department, doubt it will ever be possible for the Department to measure whether the economic goal of increasing employment has been achieved. This, the extended timescales and the cost of running Universal Credit compared to the benefits it replaces cause us to conclude that the project is not value for money now, and that its future value for money is unproven.”
Jacqui McCluskey, Director of Policy and Communications at Homeless Link, said: “This new evidence highlights many of the same issues with Universal Credit that our members have experienced, and that we have been working with them to alleviate. That claimants have suffered financial difficulties and hardship is particularly concerning. People experiencing homelessness are unlikely to have the financial resources to support them while waiting for their first UC payment, and our members tell us that people in this situation have become reliant on foodbanks, run up huge arrears, or been served with eviction notices. Hardship payments, which must be paid back, are not suitable as they push people further into debt.”
“While there are local examples of good working practices, we are also concerned that homelessness services are coming under increasing strain. Staff spend time helping individuals with UC claims, taking them away from supporting individuals to make important progress in other areas of their lives.
Clearly improvements are needed if Universal Credit is to properly support the national strategy to end rough sleeping and the response to the Homelessness Reduction Act. As a starting point, we recommend reviewing hardship payments.”
To download the National Audit Office’s full report, go to https://www.nao.org.uk/report/rolling-out-universal-credit/
