× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Other benefit issues  →  Thread

The end of crisis loans.

 1 2 3 >  Last ›

Rehousing Advice.
forum member

Homeless Unit - Southampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 637

Joined: 16 June 2010

Rightsnet ran this story a few days back, the govt has decided that the good old standby (often when other benefits dont come through) the crisis loan is to be given to LAs (localism) to administer. All well and good.  http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/social-fund-localisation-call-for-evidence.pdf

When I first read that it sort of made sense, but a close inspection of the document reveals that a) any money is not ring fenced and b) the paper extolls the provision of food parcells, recycled furniture and so on.


So this is where it is all leading….........

neilbateman
forum member

Welfare Rights Author, Trainer & Consultant

Send message

Total Posts: 443

Joined: 16 June 2010

Even without the secondhand furniture and with ring fencing, this is an extremely bad proposal. 

However, many LA staff who deal with clients in financial difficulty will be tempted to see it as an easier solution than arguing it out with DWP.  Some LA managers will see it as a chance to extend services when HB is being removed.  To do so would be to miss the bigger picture and further erode the benefits system.

It will create a fragmented and poorly accountable system where judgmentalism can be rife.  It will also draw in more people into LA services when these are already having difficulty managing demand.  It’s also likely to be underfunded and so require LAs to make all the horrible decisions that DWP do.

Have we learned nothing about why the poor law was taken away from local authorities and replaced with a national benefits system?

See more comments: http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/02/21/116315/welfare-rights-experts-slam-poverty-payment-plans.htm

[ Edited: 23 Feb 2011 at 02:36 pm by neilbateman ]
elaineforrest
forum member

Benefits specialist - Dumfries & Galloway Citizens Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 64

Joined: 16 June 2010

Sounds like a return to the days of National Assistance.
I can see the return of food vouchers and clothing vouchers.

Rehousing Advice.
forum member

Homeless Unit - Southampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 637

Joined: 16 June 2010

johnwilson - 23 February 2011 03:05 PM

Sounds like a return to the days of National Assistance.
I can see the return of food vouchers and clothing vouchers.

It looks like the long term idea, will be for charities to tender for this type of work from a LA. This would be the cheapest form of provision.

So in essence if you get excluded fron UC or have a crisis you will get a charity handout, food, second hand clothes/furniture….  rather than a so called right (ok its discretionary) to monetary assistance, via a crisis loan.

adviceplus
forum member

Rhondda Cynon Taff CBC (Welfare Rights Project)

Send message

Total Posts: 29

Joined: 17 June 2010

I wonder if anybody could do or has done , an impact case study of what it would mean when the social fund goes and what the true costs would be for a defined area

e.g. how much more bed blocking caused because people can no longer have replacement items when coming out of care or, if the LA administers, how much more time or admin cost providing this would take up

  How many potential accidents/fires/ food contamination   from the increased or prolonged use of faulty appliances ?

Also the sheer logistics could be examined because how many appliances are provided by the Social Fund and how finite is the provision of second hand or reconditioned goods or charitable provision for that matter

I seem to remember that CPAG did a report some years ago which showed that only 13% of the applications for Social Fund were made or supported by care agencies and also that all charitable provision was totally dwarved by the Social Fund
I can’t find the report back but,  if that is the case than the increased work load or the potential to reduce the accessibility for people not known to services is very severe

Does any one think there would be merit to ask for say a postcode search of a couple of large estates or for one of the areas where extreme child poverty is very high and see how much the social fund actually represents and what items were given?


  If anybody has done something like this or knows of report highlighting I would like to hear

Ruth_T
forum member

Volunteer adviser - Corby Borough Welfare Rights & CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 313

Joined: 21 June 2010

I know of research by Trevor Buck (formerly of University of Leicester and currently at De Montfort University) and Roger Smith (University of Leicester) into the Social Fund.

See:
Buck & Smith : ‘Poor Relief or Poor Deal? The Social Fund, Safety Nets and Social Security’
‘Critical Literature Review of the Social Fund’, available on the National Audit Office website (or Google author’s names for a link)

[ Edited: 24 Feb 2011 at 08:58 pm by Ruth_T ]
John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice - Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1064

Joined: 16 June 2010

Personally I don’t see why the idea of second hand furniture is so offensive?

It makes sense when perfectly usable items can be reused rather than destroyed at the tip.

Stockport has the Furniture Station http://www.furniturestation.org.uk/what.html

Other areas have similar organisations.

Surely a co-ordinated local approach would be better than the current system of the Social Fund?

The SF doesn’t work for the majority due to the eligibility criteria, local budgets or whatever.

There is an opportunity to make things better.

However, knowing how Great Britain works in practice I dare say it’ll come to nothing in the end.

Rehousing Advice.
forum member

Homeless Unit - Southampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 637

Joined: 16 June 2010

There is nothing wrong with second hand furniture or clothes, the question is should people have the option, of cash so they can buy new. At the present times these schemes function in some ways as a safety net, to the system, often for those who have had previosus loans, or lost identity proofs or non eligibles, they are not the system itself…...

John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice - Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1064

Joined: 16 June 2010

I’m restricting myself to furniture in my answer as the question is bigger. Second hand sheets for bedding for instance are more emotive than say a refurbished cooker.

From an economics point of view I would have thought logically the answer is no, there is no need for a ’ buy new’ option unless it doesn’t make economic sense.

For instance I bought a second hand washer for £75. Its neither old, wasteful or a lower ‘brand.’

A new one would have cost more (although not much more.) The saving allowed me to use my other money for other things. In my case I appreciate I can check myself whether a washer is safe,  working and install myself.

There are organisations which can and do refurbish and install items. This is preferable for re-using resources and reducing waste. Also the need is addressed and met whether the washer is new or second hand.

The principle would be the same surely with a table, chair, wardrobe or fridge? Its preferable to having nothing which is likely to be a real future prospect in the current climate.

With inflationary pressures the amount paid out of the SF would increase. I can’t forsee any government present or future increasing the budget on the SF.

With a poorly performing economy and the amount of people out of work on a long term basis there is more demand on the SF and people are in genuine need.

The question is, I would have thought, how to get more for the same or indeed, less?

Gareth Morgan
forum member

CEO, Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 1995

Joined: 16 June 2010

The most expensive furniture in the world is second-hand, although labelling it antique alters the perception.

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

When the social fund first came out I was working for an organization working with homeless teenagers, some of whom were leaving care.  When we eventually found them independent accommodation we routinely applied for community care grants.  Of course, we never got the full amounts asked for so it often made sense to look for good quality second hand items in order to maximize the amount of items bought.  This would give the teenagers a better start.

So the issue is not about new/second hand but about dignity.  By denying people the buying options of the rest of us (i.e. cash purchasing) you treat them differently.  This inevitably attracts a stigma that people cannot help but feeling now matter how well intentioned society is.  Does history teach us nothing?

Rehousing Advice.
forum member

Homeless Unit - Southampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 637

Joined: 16 June 2010

I really wonder how people will respond to this. At the presnt times these schemes are filling a smallish gap in the system.
Could they really expand to meet needs?
In America they have similar schemes, when the food/furniture gets short they raffle. Its a bit of downer if your ticket dont come up.
Will UC be less responsive, when they know that they can just redirect the destitute to the LA?

John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice - Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1064

Joined: 16 June 2010

Sorry but I cannot see any argument for dignity.

Buying options?

My home is furnished mostly by second hand furniture, does that mean I have no dignity?

Or that prudence with limited finances means I have by choice removed my dignity?

I’ll have a think tonight as I sit in my Louis XIV ebony and walnut armchair…..

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

That is not the point.  The point is you had a choice and the cash in your hand to go out and exercize that choice.

John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice - Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 1064

Joined: 16 June 2010

Ah but in my case did I have a choice?

My income being not unlimited means that I don’t really have a ‘choice.’ Does anyone?

The ‘choice’ would be buy new, spend more and and wait longer until further funds arrive.

Or buy used, spend less and use the money for other things.

The current SF is not unlimited. There are budget restrictions and the need to prioritise.

A co-ordinated approach could fill part of the need, not all.

This would, you would hope, free up other money for other needs.

Another point on new goods vs used would be that a 5th of the money goes straight back to the treasury in VAT on new purchases.

Thats 20% that could be used on other priorities.

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

I understand the point you are making and it is obvious from my post that I’m not against buying second hand.  The problem with your argument is that it is a form of argument reductio ad absurdum.  In your argument no one really has a choice so there is no such thing as choice.  That is a logical fallacy.  If you believe in the notion of choice at all then choice is always relative and some will always have more than others.  But it is real nevertheless and not an illusion and you soon know about it when you have it taken away.

Restricting the choices of some of those most already restricted in society through no fault of their own is not an enlightened way to run that society and is usually the brainchild of those in society who have more choices than most.  It is part of the lie that Britain is virtually bankrupt thanks to the profligacy of New Labour so we all have to make sacrifices.  When the Tories start to make the case for the rich to pay higher taxes, to close tax loopholes and to reign in the abuses of the banking sector, then they might then have earned the right to start lecturing the rest of us about tightening our belts and lowering our expectations.