A key aim of Universal Credit is to simplify the social security system. While several aspects of its introduction have received critical attention, this overarching aim continues to receive acceptance and support. Drawing on two empirical studies involving means-tested benefit claimants, we aim to deconstruct the idea of ‘simplicity’ as a feature of social security design and argue that it is contingent on perspective. We suggest that claims of simplicity can often be justified from an administrative perspective but are not experienced as such from the perspective of claimants, who instead can face greater responsibility for managing complexity.

Local state and third sector actors routinely provide support to help people navigate their right to social security and mediate their chequered relationship to it. COVID‐19 has not only underlined the significance of these actors in the claims‐making process, but also just how vulnerable those working within ‘local ecosystems of support’ are to external shocks and their own internal pressures. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork with organisations providing support to benefit claimants and those financially struggling during COVID‐19, this paper examines the increasingly situated nature of the claims‐making process across four local areas in the United Kingdom. We do so to consider what bearing ‘local ecosystems of support’ have on income adequacy, access and universality across social security systems. Our analysis demonstrates how local state and third sector actors risk amplifying inequalities that at best disadvantage, and at worst altogether exclude, particular social groups from adequate (financial) assistance. Rather than conceiving of social security as a unitary collection of social transfers, we argue that its operation needs to be understood as much more fragmented and contingent. Practitioners exhibit considerable professional autonomy and moral agency in their discretionary practice, arbitrating between competing organisational priorities, local disinvestment, and changing community needs. Our findings offer broader lessons for understanding the contemporary governance of social security across welfare states seeking to responsibilise low‐income households through the modernisation of public services, localism, and welfare reforms.

Changes in the labour market, high rates of working age poverty, major welfare reforms and more recently the Covid-19 pandemic have drawn renewed attention to income security. Existing research has identified the important role of relational support in helping people cope with low income, but less is known about the role of support for those coping with the potentially destabilising effects of income change which can affect people over relatively short periods of time. This article focuses on how relational coping strategies are utilised by those experiencing such income change. The data are drawn from a qualitative longitudinal study of the experience of income change and insecurity in 15 low-income households in the UK which included repeated in-depth interviews and weekly financial diaries completed in periods of up to five months. The article explores the relational strategies adopted by participants to ‘get by’ as well as examining how strategies are adopted by those on different levels of low income and with differing networks. The article argues that these strategies illuminate the importance of income change in the experience of low-income households, develop the concept of income insecurity, and provide lessons for policy in providing flexible and responsive support when income changes.

After a decade of austerity spending cuts and welfare reform, the COVID-19 pandemic has posed further challenges to the finances, health and wellbeing of workingage, low-income people. While advice services have been widely seen (and funded) as an income maximisation intervention, their health and well-being impact is less clear.