Universal credit (UC) isthe UK’s single, ‘digital bydesign’ working-age benefit, intended tosimplify benefits and incentivise work and higher earnings for low-income individuals and couples both inand out of work. InMarch 2020, inresponse tothe Covid-19 pandemic, the UK Government announced anincrease of£20 per week inthe UCadult standard allowance for both individuals and couples (andthe basic allowance ofWorking Tax Credit). Intended asatemporary measure tomitigate the worst effects ofjob loss, sickness and reduced household income asaresult ofthe lockdown and pandemic, the £20 uplift was due toend inMarch2021. Following intense debate and lobbying infavour ofretaining the £20 increase longer term, inthe Spring Budget 2021, the Government extended the uplift bysix months, until early October 2021, around the same time that the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (furlough) wasdue toend. Research conducted byacademics and policy think tanks examiningthe distributional effects ofthe £20 uplift, and ofits withdrawal, ondifferent groups ofclaimants, provides strong support infavour of making the increase permanent (IFS, 2020; Bell etal., 2020; JRF 2021). Returning the allowance topre-pandemic levels, they argue, would represent abenefit reduction ofgreater magnitude than that imposed during the previous decade ofausterity and social security cuts. These studies model the financial impact of retaining orreversing the increase. Here we examine how the effects ofthe uplift were actually experienced inreal time bythe intended beneficiaries. Drawingonathree year, two wave, ESRC-funded qualitative, longitudinal research study entitled Couples balancing work, money and care under the shifting landscape ofUniversal Credit (ESRC ES/ R004811/1), this policy briefing presents new empirical findings for how the £20 uplift was experienced and responded tobyUCclaimants themselves. This focus on the experience of claimants highlights how the means-tested design of Universal Credit affects claimants in different ways according to their circumstances, and especially whether or not they have any earnings. The research charted the lived experience of UC claimants with andwithout dependent children during two waves of interviews, twoyears apart, between 2018 and 2020. 90 people were interviewed in wave one and 63 in wave two. All were currently claiming, or had previously claimed, UC (and/or other means-tested benefits or taxcredits) as a couple. Some also had experience ofclaiming UCas alone parent orsingle claimant. Interviews focussed onlonger-term experiences ofUC beyond the application process and initial wait for payment. Wave two interviews were conducted in September and October2020 and explored what had happened in the intervening twoyears, including how well the participants andtheir families were managing inthe context ofthe Covid-19 pandemic and the suite ofemergency income support measures put inplace bythe Government. Of the 63 participants (in 39 households) interviewed at wave two, 56(in34households) were still claiming UCand soentitled tothe uplift. They were asked what they knew about the £20 weekly uplift, whether they thought they had received it, what difference the uplift had made, and how the money had been spent. While some participants had received the uplift infull, others reported that they were not aware that they had received anincrease inthe UCpayment, or saidthat they had been paid much less than the publicised amount. Indeed, some said that their UCpayment had actually decreased since the uplift was introduced Inhis statement toParliament on8th December 2020, Will QuinceMP, Under Secretary ofState for Work and Pensions, confirmed that all new and existing UCclaimants were eligible for the extra £20 per week (Hansard, 2020: 9P), sohow can this conundrum beexplained? Drawing onour wider study, this policy research briefing explores claimants’ differential experiences ofthe £20 uplift with reference tothe hidden complexity and inherent income insecurity that lie atthe heart ofUC. Conclusions and policy implications Increasing the standard allowance inUC by£20 per week for all new and existing claimants might have been expected toreceive anunambiguously positive response from the people entitled totheincrease and intended tobenefit from it. However, our findings showed that, whether participants knew about the uplift, whether they felt it actually increased the amount of UC they were paid or their income overall, andwhether they benefitted in the manner often envisaged– with anextra £86.67 per month going directly into their bank accounts– varied significantly depending ontheir circumstances. While those reliant on UC as their main or only source of income spoke about the critical difference having an extra £20 per week to spend had made, those in work were more likely to report that there had been nonoticeable increase in their payment, or that they had been paid much less than the publicised amount. Both the diversity inreported experiences ofthe £20 uplift, and the variability infinancial impacts, testify tothe hidden complexity which lies atthe heart ofthe UCpayment. InUC, the sum ofmoney towhich claimants are entitled, in terms of the standard allowance and the various elements of UC, and the payment they actually receive each month, can often betwo very different amounts. Moreover, what claimants receive inany one month isno guarantee ofwhat they will get inthe next. For UCclaimants who are employed orself-employed (around 40percent ofcurrent live claims), net earnings reduce entitlement by63 pence for each pound ofnet income above any work allowance towhich they may beentitled. Asimilar proportion ofall UCclaimants (around 40percent) have deductions from their award for advance loans, benefit and tax credit overpayments and thirdparty debts, which can also significantly reduce the amount ofUCthatisactually paid. Wehesitate tocall these effects ‘unintended’ or‘design flaws’ because, inthe main, they reflect how UCis intended towork. However, these findings docall into question some ofthe key assumptions underlying the benefit’s design– including the way inwhich monthly assessment and calculation ofthe single monthly payment are intended toincrease the transparency ofthe relationship between benefit entitlement and the financial rewards from working. Inthis research, automatic adjustment ofthe UCpayment inreal time could serve toobscure, conceal orreduce the visibility and financial impact ofthe £20 uplift, particularly among working claimants. And while for somepeople the £20 uplift was alifeline, itdid not eliminate the financial hardship experienced bythe poorest couples and families with children who relied onUC astheir main oronly source ofincome. Overall, people regretted the temporary nature ofthe uplift and strongly felt thatitshould continue long term because, without it, many believed thatthey would struggle financially even more: Idid hear that [it was temporary] …I think once they give it,they’vegot tocarry on…Because Ijust feel like people arejustgoingtostruggle again. Female partner insingle-earner couple with children Asothers have noted, the uplift might also have benefitted from better targeting. Paying the same flat rate ofincrease toall types ofclaimant, regardless oftheir circumstances, means proportionately less financial support for families and those with additional needs. A sum of £20 isworth significantly more toasingle claimant with nochildren orhousing costs, compared with afamily with children living inaprivately rented house, and nouplift was applied tothe child ordisability elements ofUC. Nor does the flat rate take into account the generally higher living expenses families with children face arising from the pandemic. Finally, only one UCpayment ismade tocouples. Not only isthis worth proportionately less than the same payment istosingle people, but there isno guarantee that both partners willhave access toor benefit from the £20 uplift. Tobe clear, none ofthese points isintended tosuggest that an increase inthe standard allowance wasnot welcome, orthat claimants did not benefit. The case for retaining and extending the £20 per week uplift remains compelling. Given the severity ofcuts tosocial security and historically low levels ofbenefits prior tothe pandemic, any increase inrates isto bewelcomed. Many more people would have struggled harder tocope without the uplift. The uplift is withdrawn from payments of UC from mid-October 2021 onwards. The implications of the removal of the uplift will become more apparent over the coming months. Nevertheless, itis important for those lobbying for change, and for policymakers, tobe clear about the variable effects onincome levels for individuals and families indifferent sets ofcircumstances. Inthe context ofUC’s design, the £20 uplift may also provide some claimants with less financial support and income security than isgenerally assumed bypoliticians, analysts andcommentators. Alongside a case for increasing the adequacy ofbenefit rates, what these findings add toexisting research isaclearer understanding of how people with low and insecure incomes– both inand out of work– experience and perceive the function and value of social security payments. Increased responsiveness tochanges inpersonal circumstances and toincome and earnings inreal time make UCamuch more unpredictable and unreliable benefit than its predecessors. What mattered most toour research participants totheir income security and living standards, and totheir financial well-being, was not somuchtheir UCentitlement, understanding the link with earnings orhow theaward had been calculated, but the amount and reliability ofthe payment. Apayment that can, and often does, change each month atshort notice also has implications for claimants’ legal rights and access tojustice. Not knowing how much you are entitled toor will receive each month makes ithard toknow whether the payment decision iscorrect. With potentially aquarter ofthe UKworking-age population likely tobe claiming UCwhen fully implemented, these arefindings that politicians and policymakers would dowell toheed.