# data[].attributes.body
Key findings

Warnings and sanctions for single parents arise as a result of unrealistic and rigid job-seeking requirements under benefit rules, which fail to recognise single parents’ barriers to work (eg a lack of childcare or flexible work)

The promise of personalised support with new claimant commitments and Universal Credit has failed to materialise

Single parents end up with debts and have to rely on foodbanks and other emergency support when sanctioned – even if these are later overturned

Single parents are left unable to afford to travel to the jobcentre or interviews after a sanction – leaving them further from work

Sanctions (and warnings) cause considerable distress for parents worried about having the means to look after and care for their children while sanctioned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

Summary

Single parents want to work yet Gingerbread's research shows that sanctions can make it less likely for parents to achieve that goal. This report also shows the first signs that Universal Credit risks making this situation worse, as more single parents - including those with very young children and those who are in work - are subject to conditions that place them at risk of sanctions under the new benefit system.

While a full rethink of the current sanctions system is necessary, Gingerbread calls on urgent action from the government to:

Reduce financial penalties and introduce a 'yellow card' warning system

Suspend unrealistic job-seeking requirements, including for parents of three and four year olds until affordable and good quality childcare and flexible work is available locally

Overhaul claimant commitments so that they are transparent, flexible and appropriate to single parents' needs

Focus on providing support rather than inflicting sanctions to better enable single parents to enter work such as assisting with upfront childcare costs.

Key findings

Warnings and sanctions for single parents arise as a result of unrealistic and rigid job-seeking requirements under benefit rules, which fail to recognise single parents' barriers to work (eg a lack of childcare or flexible work)

The promise of personalised support with new claimant commitments and Universal Credit has failed to materialise

Single parents end up with debts and have to rely on foodbanks and other emergency support when sanctioned - even if these are later overturned

Single parents are left unable to afford to travel to the jobcentre or interviews after a sanction - leaving them further from work

Sanctions (and warnings) cause considerable distress for parents worried about having the means to look after and care for their children while sanctioned.

Find out more about sanctions

You might also be interested in:

This report profiles single parents today, to see how life has changed for the one in four families headed by a single parent in the UK.

Read more

Read more

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information Accept

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
Close

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unhelpful and unfair? The impact of single parent sanctions - Gingerbread

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skip to content Single parents want to work yet Gingerbread's research shows that sanctions can make it less likely for parents to achieve that goal. This report also shows the first signs that Universal Credit risks making this situation worse, as more single parents - including those with very young children and those who are in work - are subject to conditions that place them at risk of sanctions under the new benefit system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Families hit by the Government's "two-child limit" for welfare payments have started a High Court action against the policy.

The rule, introduced in April last year, restricts child tax credits and universal credit to the first two children in a family.

Lawyers acting on behalf of three UK families told London's High Court on Tuesday that the legislation was "detrimental" to children and urged a senior judge to declare it "irrational and unlawfully discriminatory".

Richard Drabble QC said the policy, created by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, is "incompatible" with the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

He told the court: "The rule fails to have regard for the individual rights of children and is predicated on the proposition that those unable to support themselves solely through work should make particular choices about intimate behaviour."

"It marks a very significant reduction in the level of economic support provided by the state to lower-income children," he added.

"It affects children first not last, is discriminatory and is not temporary."

The barrister said the policy also affects more women than men and only tackles the "perceived problem" of lower-income families having more children because of benefits.

The court heard two of the anonymous claimants are single mothers, who each became pregnant "inadvertently" with their third child and are opposed to abortion, and their children.

One has physical and mental disabilities and Mr Drabble said that, in order to avoid any effects of the policy, she would have to earn at least £79,900-a-year - which he described as "fanciful".

He added: "Therefore the two-child rule does not provide any economic incentive to self-improvement, it just makes her family poorer."

A couple affected by the policy are also bringing the legal action, which is supported by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Mr Drabble said the policy "financially incentivises abortion and relationship breakdown" and that the choices facing poorer families were not the same as those for wealthier people.

"While a rich family chooses between surplus income and an extra child, a poor family chooses (to the extent they can actually choose) between meeting basic subsistence needs and an extra child," he added.

"It is irrational to describe that as 'the same choice'."

Lawyers for the DWP are contesting the case, arguing it was "not a policy aim" to influence parents' decisions about having children.

After the hearing a DWP spokesman said: "This reform ensures people on benefits have to make the same choices as those supporting themselves solely through work.

"But we have always been clear it will be delivered in the most effective, compassionate way, with the right exceptions and safeguards are in place."

The spokesman added that the policy includes exemptions for people who are unable to make choices about the number of children in their family and that child benefit will continue to be paid regardless of family size.

The hearing, before Mr Justice Ouseley, continues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High Court challenge over Government's 'two-child limit' for benefits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Families hit by the Government's "two-child limit" for welfare payments have started a High Court action against the policy. The rule, introduced in April last year, restricts child tax credits and universal credit to the first two children in a family.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scottish Community Empowerment: Reconfigured Localism or an Opportunity for Change? | Concept

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Community development and regeneration policy in Scotland employs aspirational language, depicting communities as the empowered drivers of economic and social change. It anticipates that willing, able and highly skilled community groups will come forward and assume responsibility for the delivery of local services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Furious campaigners have accused the government of "cruelty" amid revelations that terminally ill people are assigned "work coaches" under Universal Credit.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been forced to defend the situation, described as "outrageous" and "beyond the pale" by end of life charity Marie Curie.

SNP MP Drew Hendry is now leading calls for changes to the way Universal Credit handles the claims of terminally ill people.

It comes as campaigners told HuffPost UK that people with terminal illnesses such as cancer, motor neurone disease and dementia face a raft of "thoughtless" regulations under Universal Credit.
Charities say they've seen those with just weeks to live:

suffer delays in payments so lengthy some claimants have died before receiving their entitlements;

forced to confront distressing details of their medical condition, despite many not wishing to do so;

required to meet officials, dubbed "work coaches", whose role is to "challenge" and "motivate" claimants into work;

and undergo "deeply humiliating and degrading" assessments.

The conditions could end up affecting many thousands of people by the time Universal Credit completes its roll out in 2022, though the number of terminally ill claimants is "relatively low".

Unlike under previous so-called "legacy" benefits, Universal Credit does not have a team dedicated to helping the terminally ill.

The DWP said it ensures terminally ill claimants are handled "as quickly and sensitively as possible" and that work coaches adapt to an individual's circumstances.

But Elaine Donnelly of the Highlands Macmillan Citizens Advice Partnership in Scotland, told HuffPost that she has advised terminally ill cancer patients who have been made to undertake face-to-face visits with a work coach as part of the process of signing up for Universal Credit.

'Everyone has a work coach'

"Anybody undergoing cancer treatment will still be invited in to speak to a work coach because of the way the system is set up," Donnelly said. "Everyone has a work coach."

"The onus is on the client to prove they are clinically ill," she added. "Sometimes they send somebody out to the house to check an ID, but sometimes a work coach will go along with them.

"They tend to, once they know [a claimant is terminally ill], kinda back off a bit."

The main job role of a work coach has been described by MPs as "to support claimants into work by challenging, motivating, providing personalised advice and using knowledge of local labour markets."

"It is remarkable," Donnelly said.

Parliament/HuffPost UK

"It's almost like the government have forgotten that many people claiming Universal Credit are unwell or terminally ill," she added.

"We've not seen one claim go well from start to finish."

Jill Fennell, whose partner, Mark, applied for Universal Credit after a terminal diagnosis, described her encounter with a work coach.

"Mark subsequently found out he has to have a fitness to work telephone interview," she wrote in an open letter which went viral on Facebook this year.

"I called the Universal Credit work coach to ask if she was aware he is terminally ill and has difficulty speaking as he has mouth cancer. She said she did, but said it still had to be done.

"I cannot think of any words that express my contempt for her callous and emotionally bankrupt approach to Mark's predicament."

Disability News Service reported last year on government proposals to force people with debilitating, lifelong conditions, including the terminally ill, into repeated contact with work coaches.
[Do you or someone you know receive Universal Credit? Share your experiences with our reporter at George.Bowden@huffpost.com]
Delays to payments

Donnelly said she has even advised clients who have died before any payments were made through Universal Credit.

"We've not seen anybody fast-tracked through for an earlier payment. In fact we've seen people who are terminally ill dying before their Universal Credit is processed," she said.

"They're in rent arrears and are dying thinking they are in rent arrears and it's through no fault of their own."

Drew Hendry, MP for Inverness who held a Commons debate on the issue this week, told HuffPost several of his own constituents had reported they were forced to understand every detail of their prognosis, even if they preferred not knowing.

A requirement for claimants to "self-certify" means that they must tell the DWP if they have received a terminal diagnosis.

Further rules governing "explicit consent" restrict the ability of relatives and advisors to handle benefits claims on their behalf, a change on previous systems.

Those rules mean a form called the "DS1500", which estimates the likelihood that someone will live for six months or more, cannot be submitted on a claimant's behalf by their doctor, forcing them to confront their own prognosis.

And, if it is likely someone will live beyond six months, their claim is not considered more quickly.

We've seen people who are terminally ill dying before their Universal Credit is processed Elaine Donnelly, Highlands Macmillan Citizens Advice Partnership

'No special help'

"There are no special help facilities for terminally ill people," Hendry said.

"It's still not possible for health professionals to do everything that is required to get a diagnosis through the system," he added. "The person claiming still needs to do something to get it through."

And during his Commons debate on Wednesday, Hendry told MPs: "Those with severe and progressive conditions, including terminal illnesses, are all given work-focused interviews, which is clearly insensitive."

He cited the example of a constituent, John, who was forced to conduct a capability assessment despite having a terminal diagnosis.

"When asked if he could walk 50 yards he said no, so he was asked again if he could do it and asked if it would be possible to do it even if it took a long time," Hendry said.

"When again he said no, he was asked if it was an emergency and he absolutely had to walk 50 yards could he do it, at which point he felt so pressurised he said yes," he added.

... the assessment process is deeply humiliating and degrading Drew Hendry MP during a recent Commons debate

"The overview of the assessment said he could reasonably walk 50 yards, the assessment process is deeply humiliating and degrading, putting claimants in a position were they often feel bad about not being able to carry out certain tasks."

Now Hendry is calling for changes to the system to help those most in need.

"A cruel condition like this can easily be overturned and replaced with something that gives terminally ill people dignity and respect," he told HuffPost.

"We want to see the waiting time removed for terminally ill people, to make the process simpler for a terminally ill person, to allow implicit consent and to reinstate the severe disability allowance, which is a huge sum across the year."

The additional costs of a terminal illness are estimated to be around £12,000 a year.

Simon Jones, head of policy and public affairs at terminal illness charity Marie Curie, told HuffPost that assigning work coaches to those who are terminally ill "imposes indignity".

"It is clearly not appropriate for someone who has been clinically assessed that they are terminally ill to have a visit from someone who is going to help them back to work," he said.

"You have been given what must be one of the most life-shattering pieces of news you can get, and then to impose the indignity on someone by even suggesting there is a route back to work in those circumstances is quite frankly outrageous, it's beyond the pale.

"In those circumstances, all anyone should be thinking of is 'what can we do to support this person to give them the best quality of life before they die'."

Jones said that any delay to payments for those with less time left can have a real impact on quality of life.

"With motor neurone disease, the time between diagnosis and death is particularly quick and it affects younger people, which means it is more likely that benefits will help support your life, especially if you had been working," he said.

'People cannot afford to wait'

And Macmillan Cancer Support Head of Policy, Tom Cottam, said: "Everyone with cancer should have timely access to support when they need it, and this absolutely applies to Universal Credit.

"We know some people with terminal cancer are having difficulties accessing the benefits they are entitled to, and are concerned that there is a serious problem with the system.

"Many of these people cannot afford to wait and should not be put through any additional and unnecessary stress."

Work and Pensions Minister Damian Hinds responded to Hendry's Commons debate with a defence of the policy, describing individual examples of problems as being "unintended".

A DWP spokesperson said: "We make sure terminally ill people receive support immediately. This includes helping people make their claim and ensuring it is handled as quickly and sensitively as possible."
[Do you or someone you know receive Universal Credit? Share your experiences with our reporter at George.Bowden@huffpost.com]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Revealed: Universal Credit Requires The Terminally Ill To Meet 'Work Coaches'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Furious campaigners have accused the government of "cruelty" amid revelations that terminally ill people are assigned "work coaches" under Universal Credit. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been forced to defend the situation, described as "outrageous" and "beyond the pale" by end of life charity Marie Curie.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Furious campaigners have accused the government of "cruelty" amid revelations that terminally ill people are assigned "work coaches" under Universal Credit.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been forced to defend the situation, described as "outrageous" and "beyond the pale" by end of life charity Marie Curie.

SNP MP Drew Hendry is now leading calls for changes to the way Universal Credit handles the claims of terminally ill people.

It comes as campaigners told HuffPost UK that people with terminal illnesses such as cancer, motor neurone disease and dementia face a raft of "thoughtless" regulations under Universal Credit.
Charities say they've seen those with just weeks to live:

suffer delays in payments so lengthy some claimants have died before receiving their entitlements;

forced to confront distressing details of their medical condition, despite many not wishing to do so;

required to meet officials, dubbed "work coaches", whose role is to "challenge" and "motivate" claimants into work;

and undergo "deeply humiliating and degrading" assessments.

The conditions could end up affecting many thousands of people by the time Universal Credit completes its roll out in 2022, though the number of terminally ill claimants is "relatively low".

Unlike under previous so-called "legacy" benefits, Universal Credit does not have a team dedicated to helping the terminally ill.

The DWP said it ensures terminally ill claimants are handled "as quickly and sensitively as possible" and that work coaches adapt to an individual's circumstances.

But Elaine Donnelly of the Highlands Macmillan Citizens Advice Partnership in Scotland, told HuffPost that she has advised terminally ill cancer patients who have been made to undertake face-to-face visits with a work coach as part of the process of signing up for Universal Credit.

'Everyone has a work coach'

"Anybody undergoing cancer treatment will still be invited in to speak to a work coach because of the way the system is set up," Donnelly said. "Everyone has a work coach."

"The onus is on the client to prove they are clinically ill," she added. "Sometimes they send somebody out to the house to check an ID, but sometimes a work coach will go along with them.

"They tend to, once they know [a claimant is terminally ill], kinda back off a bit."

The main job role of a work coach has been described by MPs as "to support claimants into work by challenging, motivating, providing personalised advice and using knowledge of local labour markets."

"It is remarkable," Donnelly said.

Parliament/HuffPost UK

"It's almost like the government have forgotten that many people claiming Universal Credit are unwell or terminally ill," she added.

"We've not seen one claim go well from start to finish."

Jill Fennell, whose partner, Mark, applied for Universal Credit after a terminal diagnosis, described her encounter with a work coach.

"Mark subsequently found out he has to have a fitness to work telephone interview," she wrote in an open letter which went viral on Facebook this year.

"I called the Universal Credit work coach to ask if she was aware he is terminally ill and has difficulty speaking as he has mouth cancer. She said she did, but said it still had to be done.

"I cannot think of any words that express my contempt for her callous and emotionally bankrupt approach to Mark's predicament."

Disability News Service reported last year on government proposals to force people with debilitating, lifelong conditions, including the terminally ill, into repeated contact with work coaches.
[Do you or someone you know receive Universal Credit? Share your experiences with our reporter at George.Bowden@huffpost.com]
Delays to payments

Donnelly said she has even advised clients who have died before any payments were made through Universal Credit.

"We've not seen anybody fast-tracked through for an earlier payment. In fact we've seen people who are terminally ill dying before their Universal Credit is processed," she said.

"They're in rent arrears and are dying thinking they are in rent arrears and it's through no fault of their own."

Drew Hendry, MP for Inverness who held a Commons debate on the issue this week, told HuffPost several of his own constituents had reported they were forced to understand every detail of their prognosis, even if they preferred not knowing.

A requirement for claimants to "self-certify" means that they must tell the DWP if they have received a terminal diagnosis.

Further rules governing "explicit consent" restrict the ability of relatives and advisors to handle benefits claims on their behalf, a change on previous systems.

Those rules mean a form called the "DS1500", which estimates the likelihood that someone will live for six months or more, cannot be submitted on a claimant's behalf by their doctor, forcing them to confront their own prognosis.

And, if it is likely someone will live beyond six months, their claim is not considered more quickly.

We've seen people who are terminally ill dying before their Universal Credit is processed Elaine Donnelly, Highlands Macmillan Citizens Advice Partnership

'No special help'

"There are no special help facilities for terminally ill people," Hendry said.

"It's still not possible for health professionals to do everything that is required to get a diagnosis through the system," he added. "The person claiming still needs to do something to get it through."

And during his Commons debate on Wednesday, Hendry told MPs: "Those with severe and progressive conditions, including terminal illnesses, are all given work-focused interviews, which is clearly insensitive."

He cited the example of a constituent, John, who was forced to conduct a capability assessment despite having a terminal diagnosis.

"When asked if he could walk 50 yards he said no, so he was asked again if he could do it and asked if it would be possible to do it even if it took a long time," Hendry said.

"When again he said no, he was asked if it was an emergency and he absolutely had to walk 50 yards could he do it, at which point he felt so pressurised he said yes," he added.

... the assessment process is deeply humiliating and degrading Drew Hendry MP during a recent Commons debate

"The overview of the assessment said he could reasonably walk 50 yards, the assessment process is deeply humiliating and degrading, putting claimants in a position were they often feel bad about not being able to carry out certain tasks."

Now Hendry is calling for changes to the system to help those most in need.

"A cruel condition like this can easily be overturned and replaced with something that gives terminally ill people dignity and respect," he told HuffPost.

"We want to see the waiting time removed for terminally ill people, to make the process simpler for a terminally ill person, to allow implicit consent and to reinstate the severe disability allowance, which is a huge sum across the year."

The additional costs of a terminal illness are estimated to be around £12,000 a year.

Simon Jones, head of policy and public affairs at terminal illness charity Marie Curie, told HuffPost that assigning work coaches to those who are terminally ill "imposes indignity".

"It is clearly not appropriate for someone who has been clinically assessed that they are terminally ill to have a visit from someone who is going to help them back to work," he said.

"You have been given what must be one of the most life-shattering pieces of news you can get, and then to impose the indignity on someone by even suggesting there is a route back to work in those circumstances is quite frankly outrageous, it's beyond the pale.

"In those circumstances, all anyone should be thinking of is 'what can we do to support this person to give them the best quality of life before they die'."

Jones said that any delay to payments for those with less time left can have a real impact on quality of life.

"With motor neurone disease, the time between diagnosis and death is particularly quick and it affects younger people, which means it is more likely that benefits will help support your life, especially if you had been working," he said.

'People cannot afford to wait'

And Macmillan Cancer Support Head of Policy, Tom Cottam, said: "Everyone with cancer should have timely access to support when they need it, and this absolutely applies to Universal Credit.

"We know some people with terminal cancer are having difficulties accessing the benefits they are entitled to, and are concerned that there is a serious problem with the system.

"Many of these people cannot afford to wait and should not be put through any additional and unnecessary stress."

Work and Pensions Minister Damian Hinds responded to Hendry's Commons debate with a defence of the policy, describing individual examples of problems as being "unintended".

A DWP spokesperson said: "We make sure terminally ill people receive support immediately. This includes helping people make their claim and ensuring it is handled as quickly and sensitively as possible."
[Do you or someone you know receive Universal Credit? Share your experiences with our reporter at George.Bowden@huffpost.com]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Revealed: Universal Credit Requires The Terminally Ill To Meet 'Work Coaches'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Furious campaigners have accused the government of "cruelty" amid revelations that terminally ill people are assigned "work coaches" under Universal Credit. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been forced to defend the situation, described as "outrageous" and "beyond the pale" by end of life charity Marie Curie.

# data[].attributes.headline
Universal Credit : In work, part time claimants sanctioned for taking holidays and …… for working!

# data[].attributes.subject
Universal Credit : In work, part time claimants sanctioned for taking holidays and …… for working!

# data[].attributes.body
She also says: I had a phone call last week saying that there is a new rule coming in and that even though I am working 30hours a week I have to start going to the job centre weekly again to “help” me find a second job to get me off credits altogether  if I don’t attend these meetings I will be sanctioned and penalised again! I have lost around £300 per month since I got swapped over to UC already and just feel like the government just don’t care about the stress they are putting on working families

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Universal Credit : In work, part time claimants sanctioned for taking holidays and ...... for working!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unlike Zac and Sarah, Helen is a real person. A Lone Parent working hard and doing the right thing. This is Helen's Story! She also says: I had a phone call last week saying that there is a new rule coming in and that even though I am working 30hours a week I have to...

# data[].attributes.headline
CPAG's response to annual poverty statistics 

# data[].attributes.subject
CPAG's response to annual poverty statistics 

# data[].attributes.body
Responding to today’s annual poverty statistics, Chief Executive of Child Poverty Action Group Alison Garnham said:

“It's bad enough that for a second year running our child poverty rate is at 30%, largely driven by social security cuts, but for hard-pressed families there is worse to come. We are only half way into a four-year freeze on children’s benefits that is hitting family budgets very hard. Child benefit alone will lose 23% of its value over the decade so low-income families are losing core support as prices rise.
“All serious academics and economists, including the IFS, project that child poverty will rise by a further 1 million by 2021/22. A serious policy response is required to fill the current policy vacuum on child poverty and children’s life chances.
“Today’s figures should sound a warning bell that if we fail to invest in children we will damage the life chances of a generation and the long-term prosperity of the country.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
30% of children in poverty for second year running after housing costs (AHC) - increase from 4 million to 4.1 million

67% of poor children in working families (AHC)

Risk of poverty for self-employed couples with children up from 30% to 33% (AHC)

Risk of poverty for children in lone parent families up from 47% to 49% (AHC)

Risk of poverty for children in families with 3 or more children up from 39% to 42% (AHC)

Responding to today's annual poverty statistics, Chief Executive of Child Poverty Action Group Alison Garnham said:

"It's bad enough that for a second year running our child poverty rate is at 30%, largely driven by social security cuts, but for hard-pressed families there is worse to come. We are only half way into a four-year freeze on children's benefits that is hitting family budgets very hard. Child benefit alone will lose 23% of its value over the decade so low-income families are losing core support as prices rise.

"Four million children are below the official poverty line in 2016-2017, 67% of them in working families. How many more children will follow before the Government accepts that cuts to vital financial support are leaving families with too little to live on?

"The Prime Minister entered Downing Street with a pledge to protect the living standards of ordinary families. Today's official child poverty figures show the Government is in denial on child poverty. If the Government is to make good on its pledge of support for struggling families, ending the punitive freeze on benefits for working and non-working families must be a priority.

"Absolute poverty measures show what people today are living on in relation to a fixed median income in the past - currently pegged to 2010-2011. It should always fall as we move away from that point in time, that's the bare minimum we can expect. Focusing on absolute poverty tells us nothing about how many people are drifting further away from the middle today. The problem we have is that 4 million children are in poverty, and some of the children due to be hit hardest by cuts - those in single parent families or families with more than two children - are seeing their risk of poverty rise.

"All serious academics and economists, including the IFS, project that child poverty will rise by a further 1 million by 2021/22. A serious policy response is required to fill the current policy vacuum on child poverty and children's life chances.

"Today's figures should sound a warning bell that if we fail to invest in children we will damage the life chances of a generation and the long-term prosperity of the country."

Notes to Editors:

Today's Households Below Average Income statistics.

Poverty figures quoted in this release are for relative child poverty, measured as children living in households below 60% of median income, adjusted for family size, after housing costs.

Further information from CPAG media contact Jane Ahrends on 020 7812 5216 or 07816 909302

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
30% of children in poverty for second year running after housing costs (AHC) - increase from 4 million to 4.1 million 67% of poor children in working families (AHC) Risk of poverty for self-employed couples with children up from 30% to 33% (AHC) Risk of poverty for children in lone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Court of Appeal today overturned a High Court ruling that the lower benefit cap unlawfully discriminates against lone parents with children aged under two but left the door open for a wider challenge to the lawfulness of the cap as it applies to all lone parents. The Court ruled that the case had not demonstrated that lone parents of children aged under two were substantially more disadvantaged by the cap than lone parents in general.

Commenting on the judgment, Child Poverty Action Group solicitor Carla Clarke said:

"The judgement is extremely disappointing for lone parents with children aged under two who have a heightened risk of being capped. There is an absurdity about a Government policy which on the one hand recognises that lone parents of young children should not be expected to work but on the other punishes them and their children with the cap if they don't have a paid job.

"Over 70% of capped families are headed by a lone parent, the large majority of whom are women. Our own upcoming High Court case on behalf of two lone mothers and their families takes a wider approach than today's case, challenging the lawfulness of the cap as it applies to lone parents irrespective of the age of their youngest child. The cap is leaving so many lone parents stranded - unable to cut their outgoings any further yet unable to escape the cap by finding a paid job which they can combine with their multiple caring responsibilities, precisely because they are caring for children alone, something the Court of Appeal recognised. Despite today's judgment, we hope that the end of this irrational policy is not too far away."

__

Notes to Editors:

In November 2016 the threshold at which the benefit cap is applied was lowered to £23,000 for Greater London and £20,000 for the rest of the UK.

Child Poverty Action Group's (CPAG) forthcoming case is listed for a High Court hearing on 26 and 27 March 2018. It argues that the revised (lower) cap unlawfully discriminates against lone parents and their children. The lowered cap disproportionately impacts on lone parents and their children, who are far more likely to be capped and are least likely to be able to avoid its effects due to their caring responsibilities. Evidence shows that the lowered cap is already having a stark adverse effect on vulnerable non-working families.

CPAG's case was originally stayed behind DA but the stay was lifted on 14 September 2017. A High Court hearing was listed for 16 and 17 January 2018 but was adjourned until 26 and 27 March 2018 to allow further time for judgment in DA to be given. More information on CPAG's forthcoming case is here http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/revised-benefit-cap-cpag-ds-and-others-v-secretary-state-work-and-pensions

Today's case - DA & Others v SSWP CO/379/2017 - was brought by Hopkin Murray Beskine (HMB) in February 2017. HMB's challenge to the revised (lowered) benefit cap argued that the Revised Cap unlawfully discriminates against the lone parents and their children albeit that their argument is confined to lone parents with children under two. The case was heard before Justice Collins in the High Court on 18 and 19 May 2017 and the judgment in DA & Others v SSWP CO/379/2017 was given on 22 June 2017 in favour of the claimants. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions appealed this decision and the matter was heard by the Court of Appeal on 24 October 2017.

FURTHER INFORMATION FROM CPAG PRESS CONTACT JANE AHRENDS ON 0207 812 5216 or 07816 909302

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Court of Appeal today overturned a High Court ruling that the lower benefit cap unlawfully discriminates against lone parents with children aged under two but left the door open for a wider challenge to the lawfulness of the cap as it applies to all lone parents.

# data[].attributes.body
Fourteen million people live in poverty in the UK, more than one in five of the population. But people already struggling face a poverty premium – having to pay more for essential goods and services, such as their energy bills, for credit or their food.

On average, these extra costs add up to £490 a year and can total up to £1,190 for some households.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Progress has already been made. At an event to launch the fund on November 8, the partnership has unveiled five start-ups from an accelerator programme, run by Wayra UK, which will all benefit from funding and mentoring while they develop innovative solutions to the premium:

1. GLOBAL-365 - Decreasing the cost of pre-payments for gas, electricity and heating and in doing so simplifying the process and methods of top-up making. SMARTprepay is the first system with the technology and sophistication to finally offer price parity between prepayment and credit customers.

2. JobSkilla - A tool that helps unemployed people find free skills training, and connect training organisations to candidates in deprived areas.

3. We Are Digital - A project to help people to manage their finances, find the best deals and provide training for financial management.

4. Bean - A platform for consumers to understand their spending on recurring payments. Helping people save money and cancel unwanted subscriptions or re-negotiate lower fees on everyday bills.

5. Credit Kudos - Credit Kudos gathers information using your online banking to determine your suitability when applying for financial products. Credit Kudos aims to make credit scoring fair and transparent.

The Fund has £9 million to deploy and is seeking to increase this to £20 million over the next 12 months.

It will invest in solutions to four key areas of the premium:

1. Energy - Low-income households often pay more for the energy they use, for example, through pay-as-you-go meters or by not switching suppliers. 5.8 million low income households pay an extra £317 a year for gas and electricity because they are stuck on pay-as-you-go tariffs or not switching to a cheaper provider.

2. Finance - Unable to get credit elsewhere, low income households often rely on payday loans - which are much more expensive than mainstream alternatives, such as paying £540 over the odds for a doorstep loan because they cannot access mainstream credit, or an additional £120 for a payday loan.

3. Insurance - This area is focused on the problem lower-income consumers have accessing insurance. For example, there are few 'no-frills' insurance products suitable for low-income consumers. These consumers often also live in deprived areas, which may also be higher crime areas, and therefore might incur higher insurance premiums.

4. Geo-based premiums - Almost three in four low income households pay extra because of where they live. For example, not having easy access to a supermarket costs an estimated £266 per year. Digital Exclusion can be included in this category: low-income consumers may not have access to the Internet, or be confident using it, making them unable to access online services to reduce household costs. This could range from shopping online to comparing insurance products.

Campbell Robb, chief executive of the independent Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said:
"Households in poverty are four times more likely to be behind with at least one household bill and are more exposed to the rising cost of living. The poverty premium is costly and unjust penalty for living on a low income. It's a sign of market failure, which we need to end urgently. Investors, businesses and social enterprise have a huge part to play in solving poverty in the UK. It's time to make life affordable for everyone."
Cliff Prior, chief executive of Big Society Capital, said:
"It's simply wrong that people on low incomes pay more for basic goods and services. It shouldn't cost more to pay your bills as you go, it shouldn't cost more to heat your home. But it does for so many people. We know that there are many social businesses which are looking to find solutions to some of the UK's toughest challenges, and this Fund can help them make a real difference to the lives of people living on low incomes and their families. Together, we can eliminate the poverty premium and help millions of people."
Vicki Hearn, Director of Nominet Trust, which today announced £1m investment in the Fair By Design Fund over three years, commented:
"Nominet Trust is committed to transforming lives with tech and we know that by working with other mission-led partners to leverage skills, insight and capital we all have a greater chance of achieving social impact. Our investment in the Fair By Design Fund will challenge us all to think differently about the relationship between tech and society, encouraging the growth of innovative, disruptive digital solutions to the unjust consequences of living on a low income."
Tina Hallett, Government and Public Services leader at PwC, commented:
"PwC has been working for over three years now with business, Whitehall and the third sector to encourage new ways to tackle the Poverty Premium and we have found a genuine desire from these organisations to do the right thing. But translating this into tangible measures has been more difficult.

"The work of the start-ups supported by Fair By Design Fund presents a ground-breaking opportunity to lead us all in thinking differently about how we solve this problem. No one organisation can do this alone. We all need to work together to build on their contribution - and make a material difference."

Gary Stewart, Director of Wayra UK and Telefónica Open Future_ UK, which manages the acceleration programme in Oldham, said:

"It's no longer good enough to expect government or charities to solve all of our problems. The UK's future will depend on finding partnerships like this one that empower start-ups to do good, while doing well."
Jean de Fougerolles, chief executive of Ascension Ventures, said:
"The Fair By Design Fund gives Ascension Ventures a tool to combine financial and social return for our partners and to play our part in eradicating the Poverty Premium. It should not cost more to buy everyday products and services just because you have a low-income. The team at Ascension is passionate about helping to eradicate the Poverty Premium, by investing in businesses that will disrupt unfair markets."
Angela Clements, Founder, Fair for You, a not-for-profit online lending company based in Birmingham, that provides affordable finance to those who need it the most, said:
"Fair for You provides small loans to facilitate the purchase of essential household items, and in our first 22 months we have already loaned £4m which at an average of £300 each time, means that thousands of families have been able to avoid the poverty premium attached to fridges, cookers, cots, bunk beds. Independent research from Centre for Responsible Credit has estimated an average saving of around £500 per item. Essentially, it also found that over a third of customers believed their children's health and wellbeing had improved directly as a result of taking finance from Fair for You instead of their previous high cost credit provider."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Poverty premium: New Fair By Design Fund aims to raise £20m and disrupt markets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Progress has already been made. At an event to launch the fund on November 8, the partnership has unveiled five start-ups from an accelerator programme, run by Wayra UK, which will all benefit from funding and mentoring while they develop innovative solutions to the premium: GLOBAL-365 - Decreasing the cost of pre-payments for gas, electricity and heating and in doing so simplifying the process and methods of top-up making.

# data[].attributes.headline
Equality and Human Rights CommissionUpdate report on Great Britain’s implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, March 2018

# data[].attributes.subject
Equality and Human Rights CommissionUpdate report on Great Britain’s implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, March 2018

# data[].attributes.body
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has assessed the progress on socio-economic rights in Great Britain1 since 2016, focusing on four key areas:  the status of socio-economic rights in domestic law and policy  the rights to an adequate standard of living and social security  the rights to and at work, and  access to justice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK has had a policy of competitive tendering for public services since the 1980s. There is no evidence to support this policy - but plenty of evidence that it has a severe negative impact on social care and human rights.

At the heart of this policy is a set of policy rules, set by central government, forcing local government to tender for public services - effectively selling off disabled people and their support workers at the lowest possible cost. Every few years people are put out to tender, relationships torn up and people's security and rights overturned.

Government calls these rules EU Procurement Rules, however this is misleading. Almost every European country excludes social care from competitive tendering; but the UK Government falsely blames the EU for its own policy.

Competitive tendering became central to all social care (support for people with disabilities and the elderly) after the 1992 NHS & Community Care Act. After this local government had to become a 'purchaser' of services, while the private and non-profit sectors became 'providers'. This policy has created many problems - each of which are getting worse:

1. Lowering costs by cutting frontline salaries - When competing for funding the easiest way to win a contract is to reduce the salaries of frontline staff. However salaries for senior managers have rapidly increased, so the level of income inequality inside organisations is now extreme. For example, the CEO of a charity might be earning £175,000, whilst frontline staff are on minimum wages. Social care has also seen rapid growth in precarious work: zero-hours or short-term contracts. Things have got so bad that many charities can no longer afford to meet minimum legal standards for pay and have been lobbying government to be exempted from these standards.

2. Increased compliance and reduced advocacy - In the past charities acted as advocates for people and for important causes; however today they are too reliant on government funding and most provide no meaningful advocacy. This failure has contributed to deep cuts in social care - 700,000 people have lost support since 2009, a cut of over 40%. This was one of the major reasons why the United Nations recently called the UK Government for using its austerity programme a "human catastrophe" for disabled people.

3. Toxic culture of mistrust and regulation - This process has also created a bureaucratic systems that erodes the quality of the relationships within and between organisations. Anything too warm or human now seems suspicious and contrary to the principles of tendering; only bureaucratic processes are trusted. The spirit of social care is now entirely hostile to its purpose.

4. The death of creativity - Before the era of competitive tendering most innovative work was carried out in the voluntary sector and it was common for charities to cooperate with each other and with government. But today's charities compete with each other for work, just like businesses, and they fear cooperation. Competitive tendering creates organisational chaos, but it is fundamentally conservative.

After 30 years this system is now approaching collapse. There is a return to institutional practices and the collapse of meaningful choice and control as organisations fold or merge.

But the biggest cost of this system is the opportunity cost: for 30 years we have missed the opportunity to do the right thing, to focus on creating inclusive and welcoming communities. Instead of seeing people with disabilities as leaders in the transformation of our communities we have wasted our time: wrapping some people in over-regulated and under-funded services while leaving many others isolated and unsupported.

The alternative is clear enough:

1. Independent living - Treat people as citizens and ensure they have the entitlement to support, which is their human right.

2. Community sourcing - Encourage inclusive communities by respecting and supporting community groups and citizens.

3. Local support - Ensure that local communities have the necessary structures, expertise and information to develop local solutions.

Finland can show us the way. It is one of the few countries who, like the UK, had included social care in the competitive tendering system. But now a mass campaign - Not For Sale - led by disabled people - is forcing the Government to rethink its policy. Disabled people should not be put up for sale, and be sold off for the lowest price. It is time to resist this toxic policy.

A longer version of this article can be found on the Centre for Welfare Reform's website and you can join the group discussing the possibility of launching a UK campaign on Facebook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK has had a policy of competitive tendering for public services since the 1980s. There is no evidence to support this policy - but plenty of evidence that it has a severe negative impact on social care and human rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
SWA Universal Credit (Application Advice & Assistance) Bill | 7th March 2018

# data[].attributes.subject
SWA Universal Credit (Application Advice & Assistance) Bill | 7th March 2018

# data[].attributes.body
Financial abuse: Research suggests that 89% of women experience financial abuse1 as part of their experience of domestic abuse. Some perpetrators stop their partner from working. Some monitor and control her spending, take her earnings, steal her bank cards and run up debt in her name. The evidence shows that limited or no independent income  puts women at increased risk of financial abuse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For most of last year, price rises outpaced wages, especially in sectors such as retail and hospitality which employ many low-income workers. The financial pressure is even worse for low-income families receiving working-age benefits and tax credits, frozen since April 2016, and they are paying more in five key areas:

1 Paying more for public transport

Train price rises have received a great deal of media attention, but bus and coach transport are often more important for low-income households, especially outside London and the South East. The cost of bus and coach travel has increased by a huge 13.9% in the last year. Low-income households that regularly use buses will pay an average additional £116.15 per year for their fares in 2018. Transport costs or availability can have knock-on effects if they restrict people's ability to reach better-value shops, jobs or services. Keeping bus travel affordable is vital to enable people on low incomes to buy low-price food, get and keep jobs and access health and other services.

2 Paying more for food and energy

In addition the cost of some essential goods and services has been rising even faster than average inflation. Energy bills have increased by 6.4% since last year, with electricity alone increasing by a massive 11.4%. Typical households in the bottom fifth of incomes will now be paying £61.86 more compared to last year for the same energy use. Food prices have also been rising faster than average, at 4.3% over the past year. It will cost an additional £67.81 per year for a family in the poorest fifth for the same weekly shop in 2018.

These price rises hit poorer households especially hard. Households in the bottom fifth of income spend twice as much of their income on food and fuel compared with households in the top fifth. Just to cover those food and energy basics, families will need to find an extra £130 this year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The rising cost of living will hit low-income households hard in 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For most of last year, price rises outpaced wages, especially in sectors such as retail and hospitality which employ many low-income workers.

# data[].attributes.body
586,907 three day emergency food supplies given to people in crisis in first half of this year, a 13% increase on the same period last year – 208,956 to children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Call for urgent cut to six-week Universal Credit wait as foodbank demand soars across the UK.

586,907 three day emergency food supplies given to people in crisis in first half of this year, a 13% increase on the same period last year - 208,956 to children

Foodbanks in areas of full Universal Credit rollout for six months or more have seen a 30% average increase six months after rollout compared to a year before

Foodbanks report serious effects of six-plus week waiting period, poor administration and inability of current advance payment system to support everyone on no income

The Trussell Trust unveils five point plan for decision-makers and calls on public for donations to stop people going hungry this Christmas

Between 1st April and 30 th September 2017, The Trussell Trust's foodbank network distributed 586,907 three day emergency food supplies to people in crisis compared to 519,342 during the same period last year, 208,956 of these went to children. This is a measure of volume rather than unique users, and on average people needed around two foodbank referrals in the last year.* [see notes to editor] The figure, distributed before full Universal Credit rollout accelerated in October 2017, means the foodbank network is already on course to distribute a new record number of food parcels in 2017-18.

The charity is concerned the situation will worsen in the months leading to Christmas when demand for food traditionally spikes, and when the number of foodbanks in areas of full Universal Credit service will triple. New analysis of Trussell Trust foodbanks in areas of full Universal Credit rollout shows that foodbanks in areas of full rollout for six months or more have seen a 30% average increase six months after rollout compared to a year before. Comparative analysis of foodbanks not in full Universal Credit rollout areas showed an average increase of 12%.**

Trussell Trust data reveals that issues with a benefit payment remain the biggest cause of referral to a foodbank across the UK, accounting for 43 percent of all referrals (25 percent benefit delay; 18 percent benefit change). New analysis of foodbank data*** also shows that:

Of people referred due to a benefit delay, 45% of referrals made due to a wait for a first payment were related to Universal Credit and 36% of referrals made because a new claim had not yet been awarded were related to Universal Credit.

Of people referred due to a benefit change, 38% of referrals made due to a change to a different benefit were related to Universal Credit.

Low income, which refers to anyone in work or on benefits struggling to get by on their income, accounts for 27 percent of referrals - suggesting certain pay and benefit levels are not protecting people from falling into crisis.

Foodbanks are responding to the impact of Universal Credit in a variety of ways but many are reporting extra pressure on food donation stocks, and several have highlighted concerns about volunteers' time and emotional welfare. Foodbank managers across the UK identify three main obstacles to meeting future need: longer term issues requiring higher than average number of foodbank referrals; overwhelming numbers of people needing help; and food donations not meeting need.
To help prevent people facing hunger at Christmas, The Trussell Trust is asking policy-makers to urgently take action on:

1. Six-week wait: As a matter of urgency, the 6 week wait for the first payment must be cut to make sure people aren't left without money and in need of a foodbank. To start with, the two waiting periods, a week at the start of a claim and a week after a month's assessment period, should be reduced.

2. Advance loan repayment: there must be better availability of advance loans which are affordable to repay and do not throw people back into crisis. A three month grace period before starting repayments should be made available, as well as information about paying back smaller proportions of an advance loan so people can agree an appropriate repayment plan.

3. Poor administration: 1/5 of people are waiting for longer than 6 weeks***; documents are being lost; people are being overpaid or underpaid; and finding themselves in debt or rent arrears. These issues should be assessed and tackled across rollout areas.

4. Transition between legacy benefits and Universal Credit: when someone moves onto Universal Credit, any benefit previously paid automatically stops. All benefit payments should run on until Universal Credit payments start, with a focus on Housing Benefit.

5. Benefit level freeze: although Universal Credit rollout is a key concern, foodbank referral data and University of Oxford research suggest benefit levels more widely are not preventing people from reaching crisis point. Ahead of the Budget, the Government should reassess its current four-year freeze on benefit levels.

Mark Ward, Interim Chief Executive at The Trussell Trust, said:

"We're seeing soaring demand at foodbanks across the UK. Our network is working hard to stop people going hungry but the simple truth is that even with the enormous generosity of our donors and volunteers, we're concerned foodbanks could struggle to meet demand this winter if critical changes to benefit delivery aren't made now. People cannot be left for weeks without any income, and when that income does come, it must keep pace with living costs - foodbanks cannot be relied upon to pick up the pieces. "Our five point plan isn't going to fix everything - but these emergency measures would help mitigate some of the damage we're worried will otherwise take place. Without urgent action from policy-makers and even more generous practical support from the public, we don't know how foodbanks are going to stop families and children going hungry this Christmas."

The Trussell Trust is therefore calling for help from the public to make sure people in crisis get the support needed. To find information on what items of stock are most needed at individual foodbanks, find their website via https://www.trusselltrust.org/get-help/find-a-foodbank/ and click on the links to "Give help"/"Donate food".
ENDS Notes to Editor: Contact:
Please contact The Trussell Trust media team on 020 3137 3699 / press@trusselltrust.org. Out of hours call 07789 642 727.
The Trussell Trust:

The Trussell Trust is an anti-poverty charity that runs a network of 428 foodbanks across the UK.

Trussell Trust foodbanks provide three days' nutritionally balanced food and support to people in crisis in the UK, and many foodbanks offer free additional services, like money advice and budget cookery courses as part of the charity's 'More Than Food' approach, to build resilience and help prevent people needing referral to a foodbank again. Foodbank volunteers are also trained to signpost people to other agencies and services able to help resolve the underlying cause of the crisis.

Everyone who comes to a Trussell Trust foodbank is referred by a professional such as a social worker, health visitor or schools liaison officer. Over 40,000 frontline professionals refer people to Trussell Trust foodbanks, and 50 percent are statutory agencies.

Over 90 percent of food given out by Trussell Trust foodbanks is donated by the public. In April to September 2017, 4,709 tonnes of food were donated.

The Trussell Trust is a charity motivated by Christian principles. For more on The Trussell Trust visit trusselltrust.org

Trussell Trust foodbank statistics:
**New analysis of Trussell Trust foodbanks in areas of full Universal Credit rollout shows that foodbanks in areas of full rollout for six months or more have seen a 30% average increase six months after rollout compared to a year before. This has been calculated by summing individual foodbank data for the six months before and after Universal Credit full service went 'live' in their area, and calculating the percentage increase between the start and end points of the 'best fit' trend line.

Comparative analysis of 260 other foodbanks that are not in full Universal Credit rollout areas over the showed an average increase of 12%. This has been calculated by assigning each foodbank a 'go live' month at random, and, for those foodbanks with more than 6 months since their an assigned "go live" date, summing individual data for the six months before and after that 'go live' month, and calculating the percentage increase between the start and end points of the 'best fit' trend line.

*Trussell Trust statistics are collected using an online data collection system into which foodbanks enter the data from each foodbank voucher. The system records numbers given three day emergency food supplies. The Trussell Trust is measuring volume - the number of people to whom it has given three days' food supply (containing enough food for 10 meals). The Trussell Trust has consistently measured figures in this way and reports them at the middle and end of each financial year. Trussell Trust figures clearly state that we are counting the number of people to whom three days' food has been given, but these are not necessarily unique people. Our data system can calculate the average visit frequency within a time period and shows people visited on average around two times in the 12 months to September 2017, leading us to estimate that approximately 293,451 people are likely to have been unique users in April - September of this year.

Trussell Trust data collection seeks to comply with ONS guidance. The Trussell Trust receives technical advice from a former senior government statistician, and has consulted with a range of statisticians ahead of publication.

'Benefit delays' refer to people not receiving benefits to which they are entitled on time, this category can also include problems with processing new claims, or any other time-lags in people receiving their welfare payments.

'Benefit changes' refers to the problems resulting from a change in people's welfare payments, for example, people having their benefits stopped whilst they are reassessed. This can also include a sanction.

'Low income' refers to anyone who is struggling to get by on a low income. This could be people in work, or people on benefits, for whom a small crisis e.g. boiler breaking down or having to buy school uniform etc, can be enough to mean that they cannot afford food.

*** The Trussell Trust's data collection system now allows for referral agencies to provide further information on why someone has been referred. 17% of vouchers between April and September 2017 included this secondary level of information on the reason for foodbank referral:

Referral reason - primary reason and secondary data Related to Universal Credit Related to Job Seekers Allowance Related to Employment Support Allowance Additional benefit types

Benefit change: reduction of benefit value

17%

10%

31%

12% child tax credits

10% Personal Independence Payments

Trussell Trust figures cannot be used to fully explain the scale of the food poverty across the UK, because our figures only relate to Trussell Trust foodbanks and not to the hundreds of other independent food aid providers. Mapping by The Independent Food Aid Network (IFAN) suggests that Trussell Trust foodbank centres account for roughly two-thirds of all emergency food aid provision in the UK: you can read more about this here.

*** Statistics from the Department for Work and Pensions: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/universal-credit-payments-and-labour-market-reports-published

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Call for urgent cut to six-week Universal Credit wait as foodbank demand soars across the UK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Call for urgent cut to six-week Universal Credit wait as foodbank demand soars across the UK.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pathways between childhood/adolescent adversity, adolescent socioeconomic status, and long-term cardiovascular disease risk in young adulthood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The current study investigated mediators between childhood/adolescent adversities (e.g., dating violence, maltreatment, homelessness, and parental dea...

# data[].attributes.headline
Universal Credit: the problem of delay in benefit payments

# data[].attributes.subject
Universal Credit: the problem of delay in benefit payments

# data[].attributes.body
Given the cuts and new conditions to local welfare assistance, this wait drastically increases the risk to the claimant of hardship. They risk rent arrears, food shortages and debt. Of particular concern is the increased risk claimants will fall back on payday loans, which can leave them in dangerous debt cycles.

# data[].attributes.body
Citizens Advice supports the principles of UC. However, we are concerned they are being undermined. We have already called for changes made to the treatment of earnings under UC to be reversed, to ensure people on a low wage get the most from their income.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why does having a disability or health issue make you more likely to face hunger?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why does having a disability or health issue make you more likely to face hunger?

# data[].attributes.body
Almost a quarter of respondents noted a sharp increase in the number of people referred whilst experiencing mental health problems in the last 12 months.

Ill-health can happen to anyone. Foodbanks often serve people with long employment histories – and the self-employed, or those in manual work, appear particularly vulnerable when illness or injury strikes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Laura McIvor from Exeter Foodbank shares her view from the frontline following our research into disability, health & hunger

"I was sanctioned because I missed an appointment at the Job Centre. I was severely depressed, and sometimes when I am like that I can't leave the flat. My electric has almost run out so I can't heat water and I am having a light on as little as possible. I know the cause of my depression and anxiety but I can't get any free counselling or help."

Mick's* account of his struggle to keep his benefits in payment is typical of many of those we hear at Exeter Foodbank. Disclosing personal details to strangers, filling out complex paperwork or navigating call centre phone systems can be daunting for anyone. For those, like Mick, who suffer from chronic mental health conditions, or have limited literacy and digital skills, it can be a Herculean step too far. Many arrive at our foodbank's doors in desperate circumstances, with nowhere else to turn.

Exeter Foodbank is not alone in this. A new report, published today by The Trussell Trust, provides fresh insight into the challenges faced by people with disabilities and health conditions who are referred to the foodbank network across the UK. Key issues reported by the 141 participating foodbanks include problems arising from changes to benefits, benefit cuts, assessments and long delays, particularly regarding Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appeals. Almost a quarter of respondents noted a sharp increase in the number of people referred whilst experiencing mental health problems in the last 12 months.

Ill-health can happen to anyone. Foodbanks often serve people with long employment histories - and the self-employed, or those in manual work, appear particularly vulnerable when illness or injury strikes. This was certainly our experience at Exeter Foodbank with Luke*. Having been a dairy farmer for over 30 years, Luke developed a serious neurological condition. When his claim for ESA was rejected, he lacked the skills to appeal and, with no previous experience of the welfare system, did not know how to get help. He was left isolated, with virtually no income and became depressed, having lost his entire way of life.

Neither Mick nor Luke found themselves in crisis purely as a result of their health conditions. Like many people we see, each experienced a challenging set of social circumstances and struggled to access financial help even when available. The complexity of these individual needs cannot always be expressed via standardised forms, nor met by digitalised systems alone. Sometimes, foodbanks can begin to meet some of them. Our motto at Exeter Foodbank is to 'restore dignity and revive hope', and our volunteers work hard to provide friendly face-to-face contact and a listening ear. Foodbanks are also taking innovative steps to provide further welfare support. Luke benefitted from one such measure when Exeter Foodbank referred him to a specialist welfare worker with another charity. After months of advocacy, Luke's disability payments were instated and he received a large back-payment of monies owed.

Luke was one of the 'lucky' ones. The personalised support he received involved specialist, time-consuming work, which over-stretched charities often lack the capacity to provide. Foodbanks and their partners will continue to deliver the best support possible - but more needs to be done. The old adage 'prevention is better than cure' rings true. We need to work towards a future where foodbanks aren't needed because people at risk of falling into crisis, like Mick and Luke, have been caught long before they have no money for food.
*Names have been changed to protect anonymity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why does having a disability or health issue make you more likely to face hunger? - The Trussell Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Laura McIvor from Exeter Foodbank shares her view from the frontline following our research into disability, health & hunger "I was sanctioned because I missed an appointment at the Job Centre. I was severely depressed, and sometimes when I am like that I can't leave the flat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
DPAC calls national day of action to demand universal credit is scrapped

Disabled activists are organising a national day of action to push for the government's new universal credit benefit system to be scrapped.

Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) believes that the "punishing" universal credit (UC) regime, which is slowly replacing six working-age benefits, is "rotten to the core".

DPAC says UC is too flawed to be simply "paused and fixed" - the "wimpish" policy that the Labour opposition has adopted - and that it is "an economic and political disaster bringing further distress and impoverishment to those forced to endure it".

Part of the aim of the day of action on 1 March is to focus on Labour's failure to adopt a "stop and scrap" policy, with the possibility that some protests could be aimed at the party.

The day of action will include a protest in Westminster, with activists meeting outside the visitors' entrance of the House of Commons.

A DPAC spokesperson said: "No civilized government should impose this on its citizens and no opposition party should want to simply pause and fix it."

Among the impacts of UC on disabled people that have alarmed DPAC are the introduction of mandatory health and work conversations for all disabled claimants; the difficulty of an online-only system that makes it "difficult or impossible" for some disabled people to claim; and the possibility that disabled people with part-time jobs that suit their support needs will be forced into unsuitable full-time jobs.

A key concern is over the scrapping of severe (£62.45 per week) and enhanced disability premiums (£15.90 per week), which are currently added to some means-tested disability benefits to help with the costs of disability.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) argued this week that it had "simplified and rationalised the various, complex disability premiums" that exist in the current system, but without explaining how it had done so and who would lose out.

DPAC also points to widespread problems faced by all UC claimants, such as the introduction of "harsh" sanctions for those who have jobs, as well as those who are out-of-work, if they fail to meet the terms of a "claimant commitment" (an agreement to look for work or increase earnings).

It also highlights the long delays faced by claimants before they receive their first UC payment; reported increases in rent arrears among UC claimants, caused by housing payments no longer being paid direct to landlords; and letting agents reportedly refusing to rent properties to UC claimants.

Campaigners have warned that the rollout has been leaving hundreds of thousands in debt, and forcing people - many of them disabled - to borrow from loan sharks, pawnbrokers and payday loan companies, while many have been left facing eviction because of the rollout.

Following these and other concerns, chancellor Philip Hammond announced in November's budget a package of improvements to UC that will cost £1.5 billion over the next five years (£300 million in 2018-19), including removing the seven-day waiting period for new claimants so that entitlement starts on the day of the claim.

A DWP spokeswoman said: "Universal credit lies at the heart of our reforms to transform the welfare system, so it supports those who can work and cares for those who can't.

"And it's working. Under universal credit people are finding a job faster and staying in it longer than under the old system, while having the right help in place for people who need it.

"We have listened to feedback and are bringing in a £1.5 billion package of improvements announced in the budget to make it easier for people moving onto universal credit.

"Continuing to roll out universal credit in a safe and controlled way will mean many more people will benefit from moving into employment."

She said it had "always been part of the design of universal credit that we would simplify and reduce the number of different rates for sickness and disability" and that those currently claiming the severe and enhanced premiums would not see their benefits reduced in cash terms when moving onto universal credit, unless their circumstances changed.

But such claimants can see their benefits reduced if there is any change in their circumstances.

DWP argues that this "requirement to make a new claim to benefit where there has been a change of circumstance is not new".

Despite requests from Disability News Service to clarify exactly how disabled people previously in receipt of the premiums will be affected by UC, DWP has so far been unable to do so.

But it claims that anyone who is in the ESA support group and only qualifies for the enhanced disability premium will be better off under UC by more than £90 per month.

The DWP spokeswoman said the health and work conversations would "help ensure that people are supported during the initial stages of claiming benefits" and that any actions agreed would be voluntary, while "safeguards will be put in place to ensure there are appropriate exemptions from attending".

She said DWP understood that some people would need extra support in making a UC claim, including claims being able to be taken over the phone, or appointments made for visits to people's homes.

Work coaches will provide "ongoing support for people who need it and that can be face-to-face, via text message, over the phone or through people's online journals", while there are computers and free wi-fi in all Jobcentre Plus offices for the public and claimants to use, and jobcentre staff can input claimant details for those who need support.

She said the claimant commitment sets out what is expected of claimants "in return for the support they will receive", with claimants "encouraged to tell their work coach what they can manage and what is realistic and achievable for them".

And she said that sanctions were "only ever used in a small minority of cases" and it was "right that we encourage claimants to do everything they can to prepare for, or find work in return for benefits", while claimants can ask for a reconsideration of the sanction decision and then have a right to appeal to a tribunal.

She said that most claimants were "comfortable managing their money but advances are available for anyone who needs extra help, and arrangements can be made to pay rent direct to landlords if needed", while anyone applying for UC can apply for a 100 per cent advance, while there was "budgeting support" for those who need it.
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

More posts from author

Friends pay tribute to tenacity, wit and wisdom of Sir Bert Massie Trio of disabled campaigners back Changing Places petition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DPAC calls national day of action to demand universal credit is scrapped | DisabledGo News and Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disabled activists are organising a national day of action to push for the government's new universal credit benefit system to be scrapped. Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) believes that the "punishing" universal credit (UC) regime, which is slowly replacing six working-age benefits, is "rotten to the core".

# data[].attributes.headline
THE AUSTERITY GENERATION: PROMISE OF GREATER REWARDS FROM WORK BROKEN UNDER UNIVERSAL CREDIT AS FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN HARDEST HIT BY CUTS

# data[].attributes.subject
THE AUSTERITY GENERATION: PROMISE OF GREATER REWARDS FROM WORK BROKEN UNDER UNIVERSAL CREDIT AS FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN HARDEST HIT BY CUTS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The promise of greater rewards from work made to working families has been broken as a result of cuts to Universal Credit and tax credits, with losses reaching thousands of pounds in many cases, new analysis by Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) shows.

'The Austerity Generation' reveals that the cuts to Universal Credit (UC) will put 1 million more children into poverty - which means the long term impact of austerity policies will be felt for many years to come by the UK economy and society more generally. The report also finds that families already at greater risk of poverty - including lone parents, families with very young children, larger families and those with a disability - will be especially hard-hit by a decade of cuts to the incomes of families with children.
The analysis reveals that if the Chancellor wants to restore Universal Credit's promise of greater rewards from work and to be poverty-fighting, not poverty-producing, then he should use this month's Budget to:

Restore work allowances (the income level at which UC starts to be withdrawn): this would benefit all working families by an average of £150 a year - so those on UC would benefit by much more than this figure. (Table 5.5)

Triple-lock child benefit and child element of UC: this would be the single most effective intervention to reduce child poverty (it would reduce numbers by 600,000). (Table 5.1)

KEY FINDINGS:
1. Reduced rewards from work -

Working families stand to lose £930 a year on average (Figure 3.11) from cuts in the tax credit system and £420 a year (Figure 3.12) from cuts to Universal Credit - these are losses across the population, so the losses for tax credit and UC recipients would be much higher.

Freezes and cuts to Universal Credit work allowances will leave lone parents worse off by, on average, £710 a year, couples £250 a year. (Section 3e)

Work allowance cuts have the greatest impact in cash terms on households in the second and third deciles, 'JAMs', the 'just about managing' group. The percentage impact is highest for the first (the poorest) decile. (Figure 3.21)

In order to make up the losses caused by the cut in work allowances, a full-time working couple on the 'national living wage' would have to work 17 extra working days a year. A lone parent already working full time for the 'national living wage' would have to work 41 extra days a year to recoup their loss - equivalent to a fourteen month year. (Box 3.3)

2. Fixing Universal Credit
The organising principle of Universal Credit was to strengthen the rewards from work but this analysis shows that, while work incentives may have improved for some families, big falls in family income caused by cuts and changes to Universal Credit have left many worse off overall, overwhelming any gains from increases in the 'national living wage', personal tax allowances and help for childcare. (Section 1b)

For example, a couple family with two young children would see its work incentives improve - from an effective tax rate of 88 per cent to 75 per cent (including childcare costs needed to start work) - if the second earner started work at 16 hours a week (both on minimum wage). But, crucially, the family would remain £486 a year worse off as a result to cuts to Universal Credit. Changes to Universal Credit may have reduced the family's effective tax rate for any extra hours but they have also cut overall family incomes significantly. (Figure 4.6)

The report identifies - and costs up - a number of potential fixes for Universal Credit. See note to editors (7) below.

3. Cuts hit families with children hardest, especially lone parents
Under both the tax credit and Universal Credit systems families with children have taken the biggest hit from cuts over the decade. Children in lone parent families already face almost twice the risk of poverty of those in couple families (47 per cent and 24 per cent, respectively) but are hit particularly hard by changes made since 2015.

For example, for a lone parent with two children, aged two and five, considering moving into work at either 12 or 24 hours a week, the cuts to Universal Credit have cut effective hourly earnings and raised effective tax rates: (Table 4.1)

4. Families already at greater risk of poverty will lose most
All these figures are averages across the population, meaning losses for affected households can be much higher.
Families with the lowest incomes

Tax Credits: Households in the poorest two deciles are projected to be more than 8 per cent worse off by 2020-1. The 'just about managing' are also hit: households in the third decile are set to be nearly 6 per cent worse off and those in the fourth decile more than 4 per cent worse off. (Figure 3.3)

Cuts to Universal Credit have been more steeply regressive, with the poorest 10 per cent to lose 10 per cent of their income (£450 a year) on average compared with what was promised by Universal Credit. (Figure 3.4)

Larger families

Tax Credits: Families with three children will be almost 9 per cent (£2,860) worse off, and those with two children about 6 per cent (£2,120) worse off. (Figure 3.5)

Universal credit: The average family with three children will be 10 per cent (£2,540 a year) worse off, and the average family with four children or more children 19 per cent (£5,000 a year) worse off due to Universal Credit cuts. (Figure 3.6)

Families where someone is disabled

Tax credits: Families containing someone with a disability will be £720 a year worse off, families with someone with a severe disability will be £870 a year worse off. (Figure 3.9)

Universal credit: Families containing someone with a disability will be £300 a year worse off; families containing someone with a severe disability will be £530 a year worse off due to Universal Credit cuts. (Figure 3.10)

5. Real terms cuts to benefit adequacy

Tax credits: The poorest decile loses £510 a year in cash terms, but is proportionally the hardest hit by uprating decisions. The second and third deciles lose £1,150 and £1,110 respectively. (Figure 3.17)

Universal Credit: Uprating decisions will cost the average single parent family £710 a year, with the average couple with children losing £430 a year. (Section 3e)

The freeze in Universal Credit and child benefit uprating would add 300,000 children to poverty levels. (Table 3.9)

6. Two-child limit
The two-child limit is expected to affect 640,000 families each year, containing 2 million children, by 2020/21. Two-thirds of these will be working families. Child Poverty Action Group has been granted permission for a judicial review of the policy, but a hearing is not expected until after the New Year.

Tax credits: Families with 3 children will lose out, on average, £460 a year (2 per cent of their income) and families with four or more children £1,210 (almost 5 per cent) a year. (Figure 3.13)

Universal Credit: On average, a family with three children loses out on £530 a year and a family with four or more children £1,180 a year. These are average losses across the whole population so losses amongst Universal Credit recipients will be much higher and can reach up to £2,780 for each third or subsequent child. (Figure 3.14)

Once fully rolled out, the two-child limit in Universal Credit would put 200,000 children in poverty. (Table 3.9)

7. Child poverty rising

Tax credits: the cuts to tax credits would put 700,000 children in poverty and 500,000 in severe poverty by the end of the decade, assuming the absence of Universal Credit. (Table 3.6)

Universal Credit: the cuts to Universal Credit would put 1,000,000 children in poverty and 900,000 in severe poverty by the end of the decade, assuming the absence of tax credits. (Table 3.9)

Alison Garnham, Chief Executive, Child Poverty Action Group, said:

"This report is the closest anyone has come to producing a cumulative impact assessment of a decade of social security cuts on families with children. It's an incredibly detailed piece of work but its basic story is straightforward and shaming: since 2010, rather than investing in our children, government policy has been creating an Austerity Generation whose childhoods and life chances will be scarred by a decade of political decisions to stop protecting their living standards. This is the choice that's being made in our names.

"The promise of increased rewards from work made to families with children under the new Universal Credit benefit has been broken. The Universal Credit we see today is not the Universal Credit that was sold to everyone a few years ago. Even after taking into account increases in the minimum wage, rising tax allowances and extra childcare help, working families will be the biggest losers from cuts made to the benefit system. Cuts to Universal Credit have substantially reduced the rewards from work for many families. Cuts and freezes to the work allowances will leave lone parents worse off by £710 a year on average, and couples £250 a year on average, across the population.

"If the government's flagship anti-poverty measure ends up rolling out poverty then it's hard not to see that as a colossal failure of public policy.

"This month's Budget is an opportunity for the Chancellor to mount a full-scale rescue mission for Universal Credit. Child Poverty Action Group was the first to sound the alarm about the 6 week wait for Universal Credit, so progress on that would be very welcome, but this report makes it clear that the problems are more fundamental - the whole point of Universal Credit is being undermined. The Chancellor should restore work allowances, put a stop to the benefit freeze that's squeezing families and pledge to give children's benefits the same protection from rising prices as is given to the basic state pension."

ENDS

Notes to editor

(1) Media contact: Jane Ahrends on 020 7812 5216, 07816 909302 or jahrends@cpag.org.uk or Imran Hussain on 079834 02283
(2) Embargoed copies of the report (99 pages) are available on request.
(3) The analysis considered the impact of 34 separate cuts and changes to the existing tax credits and benefits system and 10 to the new Universal Credit system since 2010. The impact of an additional 24 cuts and changes to the existing system was not able to be modelled for technical reasons. Each of these cuts is listed in pages 5-12.
(4) The roll-out of Universal Credit for all new applicants is expected to be completed in the autumn 2018. Tax credit claims are not expected to be fully transferred to Universal Credit until 2022 at the earliest.
(5) The latest IFS poverty projections show child poverty rising from 27 per cent (2011-12) to 37 per cent (2021-22) https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/10028
(6) A major study by the LSE (Kerris Cooper and Kitty Stewart, 2017) found poorer children have worse cognitive, social-behavioural and health outcomes because they are poor, and not just because poverty is correlated with other household and parental characteristics http://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2017/07-July-2017/Income-...
(7) The analysis identified a number of policy options to make Universal Credit poverty-reducing again:

* With first child premium still removed.
Source: analysis of 2014/15 family resources survey using the IPPR tax-benefit model

(8) CPAG is the leading charity campaigning for the abolition of child poverty in the UK and for a better deal for low-income families and children.
(9) CPAG is the host organisation for the Campaign to End Child Poverty coalition, which has members from across civil society including children's charities, faith groups, unions and other civic sector organisation, united in their campaigning for public and political commitment to ensure the goal of ending child poverty by 2020 is met.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The promise of greater rewards from work made to working families has been broken as a result of cuts to Universal Credit and tax credits, with losses reaching thousands of pounds in many cases, new analysis by Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) shows.

# data[].attributes.headline
High Court challenge over Government’s ‘two-child limit’ for benefits

# data[].attributes.subject
High Court challenge over Government’s ‘two-child limit’ for benefits

# data[].attributes.body
Richard Drabble QC said the policy, created by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, is “incompatible” with the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

He told the court: “The rule fails to have regard for the individual rights of children and is predicated on the proposition that those unable to support themselves solely through work should make particular choices about intimate behaviour.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Families hit by the Government's "two-child limit" for welfare payments have started a High Court action against the policy.

The rule, introduced in April last year, restricts child tax credits and universal credit to the first two children in a family.

Lawyers acting on behalf of three UK families told London's High Court on Tuesday that the legislation was "detrimental" to children and urged a senior judge to declare it "irrational and unlawfully discriminatory".

Richard Drabble QC said the policy, created by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, is "incompatible" with the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

He told the court: "The rule fails to have regard for the individual rights of children and is predicated on the proposition that those unable to support themselves solely through work should make particular choices about intimate behaviour."

"It marks a very significant reduction in the level of economic support provided by the state to lower-income children," he added.

"It affects children first not last, is discriminatory and is not temporary."

The barrister said the policy also affects more women than men and only tackles the "perceived problem" of lower-income families having more children because of benefits.

The court heard two of the anonymous claimants are single mothers, who each became pregnant "inadvertently" with their third child and are opposed to abortion, and their children.

One has physical and mental disabilities and Mr Drabble said that, in order to avoid any effects of the policy, she would have to earn at least £79,900-a-year - which he described as "fanciful".

He added: "Therefore the two-child rule does not provide any economic incentive to self-improvement, it just makes her family poorer."

A couple affected by the policy are also bringing the legal action, which is supported by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Mr Drabble said the policy "financially incentivises abortion and relationship breakdown" and that the choices facing poorer families were not the same as those for wealthier people.

"While a rich family chooses between surplus income and an extra child, a poor family chooses (to the extent they can actually choose) between meeting basic subsistence needs and an extra child," he added.

"It is irrational to describe that as 'the same choice'."

Lawyers for the DWP are contesting the case, arguing it was "not a policy aim" to influence parents' decisions about having children.

After the hearing a DWP spokesman said: "This reform ensures people on benefits have to make the same choices as those supporting themselves solely through work.

"But we have always been clear it will be delivered in the most effective, compassionate way, with the right exceptions and safeguards are in place."

The spokesman added that the policy includes exemptions for people who are unable to make choices about the number of children in their family and that child benefit will continue to be paid regardless of family size.

The hearing, before Mr Justice Ouseley, continues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High Court challenge over Government's 'two-child limit' for benefits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Families hit by the Government's "two-child limit" for welfare payments have started a High Court action against the policy. The rule, introduced in April last year, restricts child tax credits and universal credit to the first two children in a family.

# data[].attributes.headline
“It’s a hellish system”: the reality of life on Universal Credit

# data[].attributes.subject
“It’s a hellish system”: the reality of life on Universal Credit

# data[].attributes.body
I was in the deepest, darkest place. No gas, no electric on. I was down to about six stone, I think. I was on the verge of ending it all

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More people in the UK used foodbanks to feed themselves over the Christmas period than ever before. Last December, demand for Trussell Trust supplies increases by almost 50 per cent, and the numbers through their doors last Christmas were expected to be 13 per cent higher than the previous year. But who are the people forced to depend on foodbanks?

Maria Amos (56), Wirral, Merseyside: " I had a seasonal job working at Chester Zoo towards the end of 2015, and after I finished that I was told I was going onto Universal Credit. I was told there would be a wait and there was no way of getting help in the meantime.

I was in the deepest, darkest place. No gas, no electric on. I was down to about six stone, I think. I was on the verge of ending it all

"I was on my own and I had no money at all. There was five weeks when I had absolutely nothing coming in. So I had no choice but to go to the Wirral Foodbank. They were lovely, smashing people but I was in such a bad way that after a while I couldn't really even get out to the food bank. There was a local church group that helped then - they very were kind and came to see me and delivered the food.

"I was in the deepest, darkest place. No gas, no electric on. I was down to about six stone, I think. I was on the verge of ending it all. A neighbour knocked on my door to check on me, and I burst into tears, in such a terrible state. So they got an ambulance for me and I was in hospital for a while, in psychiatric care.

"After I began to recover I finally got the Universal Credit - it's around £52 a week now. But I had built up council tax arrears and arrears with my landlord which I'm still trying to pay. So in terms of my health and mental health, it's been difficult - I'm still constantly anxious about money. I'm getting Personal Independence Payment (PIP) benefit now, which helps.

"The thing is, I had always worked, I've had some good jobs, and that's supposed to be what the government wants you to do. But going through all this with the welfare system, I can't work now. I'm just trying to keep my head above water, and I'm hoping to find a new place to live when I have the debts paid off. It's 2018 and people in Britain are going cap in hand for food. Awful."

Vendors buy magazines for £1.25 and sell them for £2.50. They are working and need your custom.

Peter* (45), London: "Unfortunately I got laid off at work about six months ago. I was working as a data analyst in London and for whatever reason it didn't work out. After that the bills began to pile up and pile up. Since then I've been struggling to pay the rent, pay the bills, and put food on my table.

I've been relying on a food parcel to get a decent meal every day. Otherwise I wouldn't be eating

"I've claimed unemployment benefit before, but claiming Universal Credit was different. There was a delay of nearly two months before I got my first payment. The paperwork was so confusing. Once it finally kicked in - I get about £315 a month - I've been using it to cover debts and nothing else, really - fuel bills, telephone bills, council tax arrears.

"I've been struggling so much I've been going to the Sufra NW London Foodbank in the Stonebridge Park area. They've been good. I've been relying on their food parcel to get a decent meal every day. Otherwise I wouldn't be eating.

"Those are the circumstances I'm in now. You have to try to deal with. I've been homeless before, living in a shelter in central London. So I know how bad things can get. I'm been applying for jobs, trying to get around and find work, and I'm just hoping to get something to survive, financially."

Tracey Culham (53), Newcastle: "I finished working with Gregg's in April last year, and my problems with Universal Credit started then. I had 18p in my bank account. I was to go onto Universal Credit and the Job Centre told me it would take about six weeks to sort out. But I didn't get my first Universal Credit payment until November. So it was actually about six months without money.

I still struggle to understand what's happening with the Universal Credit and the arrears - this money I don't see. Nobody can explain it to me. It's a hellish system and I think they should scrap it altogether

"It was so difficult. I rent from a housing association in Newcastle, and I began building up rent arrears. I was on my own, had no money coming in, and had no way to get food. I went to the local food bank, which was a degrading thing to go through, even though I know the women there do good work.

"By the end of last year I finally got onto the amount I was actually due under Universal Credit - just over £300 a month. But last year my problem was the debt that's built up. I've got almost £2,000 worth of rent arrears by now. The DWP hasn't backdated the money I should have got last year.

"Ill-health can happen to anyone. #Foodbanks often serve people with long employment histories - and the self-employed, or those in manual work, appear particularly vulnerable when illness or injury strikes." Laura from @ExeterFB shares their experience > https://t.co/VbUG7sHGke

- The Trussell Trust (@TrussellTrust) February 4, 2018

"I recently got a part-time job working for the NHS as a domestic, and I've being doing a lot of overtime, so whatever small amount of housing benefit I get now through Universal Credit goes to the housing association for the arrears, I think.

"To be honest, I still struggle to understand what's happening with the Universal Credit and the arrears - this money I don't see. Nobody can explain it to me. It's a hellish system and I think they should scrap it altogether. I actually hand in a couple of tins to the local food bank now, when I can manage it, because I've been there and I know what it's like."
Foodbanks and Universal Credit The Trussell Trust - the organisation running hundreds of the UK's foodbanks - has called for a pause on the Universal Credit roll-out. The charity has revealed Universal Credit roll-out areas have seen demand for foodbank parcels surge by 30%. "Our network is working hard to stop people going hungry but...we're concerned that foodbanks could struggle to meet demand this winter," said the Trust's interim chief executive Mark Ward. Responding to a deluge of criticism, the government says the long delay between a Universal Credit claim and first payment will be cut from six weeks to five weeks from this month. Housing benefit will continue for an extra two weeks after the start of a claim, and crisis loans can now be repaid over 12 months rather than six. Citizens Advice - the charity that has now helped people with over 100,000 separate issues with Universal Credit - welcomed the changes but said more had to be done. "The next step will be to make changes to work incentives, so that no one is left worse off under Universal Credit than they would be under previous benefits," said chief executive Gillian Guy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"It's a hellish system": the reality of life on Universal Credit | The Big Issue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More people in the UK used foodbanks to feed themselves over the Christmas period than ever before. Last December, demand for Trussell Trust supplies increases by almost 50 per cent, and the numbers through their doors last Christmas were expected to be 13 per cent higher than the previous year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No More Throw-Away People has 36 ratings and 4 reviews. Shira said: Cahn, in combination with Chris Gray in her new work on American Indian non-violent c...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Neighbor Power has 36 ratings and 5 reviews. skye said: Excellent stories of bringing community organizing into city government in Seattle. The first cha...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neighborhood SES is particularly important to the cardiovascular health of low SES individuals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Health disparities defined by neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) are well established; it is less well understood whether neighborhood SES is dif...