Forum Home → Discussion → Other benefit issues → Thread
The end of crisis loans.
I have 18 years experience in Social Security and nearly 6 in Welfare Rights. Seen in the changes since Supp Ben and Single Payments to what we have now.
Generally as a Welfare Rights Officer I have the benefit of the “referral system” where the majority of our clients very disabled/and or vulnerable. But having spent 10 years doing front facing counter work at 3 different Social Security Offices which mainly dealt with at that time Crisis loan, budgeting loans and CCG’s. Can only say so much because of the official secrets act, but save to say I have made a reasonable statement of my experiences there.
I think you are saying that if someone presents as needing help; they be helped even if they are openly taking advantage of the system. I wouldnt see that as best use of resources-its about making a resonable judgement of a given situation. Off the subject of Social Fund ive had clients fill in a DLA form with me at “drop in” sessions for HRM that i have later seen walking at a sprightly pace along the street clocked me and looked very sheepish. Needless to they didn’t want to bother with an appeal when turned down.
Having said that I will fight the good fight for 99% of my clients, because they have been referred and have geniune need. Those people with geniune need should be supported to get there entitlements even if they are only of the charitable donation type. Any port in a storm so the saying goes.
The people who play the system effectively spoil it for those who are genuine, thats why the government see the need to change things. I was only saying to my colleagues this morning what an excellent benefit Supplementary Benefit was-it really met the needs of the people who needed help.
Darlington:
There’s a whole welfare reform programme being built around your views and your experiences - it will sort out the deserving and non-deserving very well. So that will be pleasing for you.
Meanwhile I’ll try and make sure that my practise and those of the people around me remains based on a non-judgemental, non-discriminatory and impartial foundation. Like it has for the last 25 years.
Neil:,
Good words, well said.
Darlington: so basically it sounds like 1% of your clients are in the “undeserving” category?
a) It’s unwise in the extreme to base a policy affecting any group on the circumstances of 1% of that group.
b) As they say, “Hard cases make bad law”.
b) I have found that when you peel away the layers of the onion around even the most unattractive client, you find issues in their past and personal circumstances which help explain their behaviour and attitudes towards welfare. Rather than being fundamentally bad people who can only respond when punished, you can find they are as rational as the next person and will respond positively if empowered and treated with respect - concepts which are increasingly alien to the benefits system and which are lost on our policy makers.
[ Edited: 5 Apr 2011 at 06:32 pm by neilbateman ]Actually, I know a family who delight in spongeing off the taxpayer and living a life of absolute soddin’ luxury. They’ve been doing it for generations to the point where it’s now become a way of life. They’re called the Windsors. B****y foreigners, they come over here, etc, etc!
Darlington:
Square peg, round hole
Acceptable use policy anyone? HRA articles 9&10;?
dbcwru has explained their views and given a background from where the opinion is formed.
Which I would have thought was more than fair enough.
Next it will be only those who sign up for the Socialist Worker and have a working knowledge of Das Kapital and all that guff can work in this field.
I’m sure management structures are in place to ensure the job is performed correctly.
hi all
just a gentle reminder that the main purpose of our acceptable use policy is to make the discussion forum ‘a friendly, supportive and considerate environment where advisers can share experience and expertise’ ...
cheers ros
I have to say I was waiting for the punch line in DBCWRU’s post. I checked the date first because I thought it was akin to the Guardian leader of 1st April on the royal wedding. Anyway, I’ve dusted down my 3 vols of Das Kapital - I find it doesn’t really get going to half way through Vol 2
Darlington:
Square peg, round hole
I beg to differ.
We may not like the changes to government policy ( and I don’t ) , but we still have the best Welfare State in the world.
And i am 100% non judgemental until medical evidence proves otherwise or my “virtually unable to walk ” client jogs past me in the street. Doesnt matter what your background ( and i’m a council house girl) fraud is unacceptable.
My role as a Welfare Rights Officer is to assist clients who have be treated unfairly by the benefits system and to help those who are in need claim the benefits that they are entitled to, not to assist clients to commit fraud (even if they do come from a disadvantaged background).
Nuff said.
I’m not sure why there was a need to bring up the acceptable use policy.
Rule 1 of Right(snet) club. You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, inaccurate or cannot be substantiated.
Rule 2 of Right(snet) Club. You will not post any material that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, or otherwise objectionable.
Rule 3 of Right(snet Club. If you disagree with someone’s posting or comment, don’t attack that person ... agree to disagree, respectfully.
1) Experience was explained (24yrs worth.) A persons experience cannot be denied. 2 people may suffer a terrible misfortune; one says in their opinion it was OK the other suffers PTSD. Who’s opinion is wrong?
2) An opinion might be objectionable but that again is a matter of opinion. Who’s opinion is wrong?
3) Square pegs/round holes and suggestions that a person is unable to perform in their role as required would neither be supportive nor respectful of another persons POV.
Darlington
You said: -
“A lot (not all) of people on benefits feel they have the right to have an excellent standard of living often despite never having worked in their lives apart from to produce a lot of children”
“Ive been to many a house where the children look Dickensian, the house is disgustingly filthy , but they have a massive TV , Sky , Laptop and Mobile phones and the adults smoke and drink alcohol.”
“They are chosing their own standard of living and looking from the outside in these people never had an ounce of dignity in the first place”
“I think you are saying that if someone presents as needing help; they be helped even if they are openly taking advantage of the system. I wouldnt see that as best use of resources-its about making a resonable judgement of a given situation ”
Sorry if you took offence ay my square peg/round hole comment but the comments you were making led me to believe that perhaps you were not always comfortable with your position.
I have always believed that advice should be non judgemental, impartial, confidential and with the interests of the individual paramount to everything else. And, yes, like you I also condone fraud (Not sure why this was introduced to the debate)
I also firmly believe that If a person decides to buy a large TV because that’s the one and only “treat” he is able to give the kids then so be it. Who are we to judge?
I really don’t want to fall out over this but Welfare Rights isn’t everyone’s cup of tea and like Tony, I too am interested in other organisations policies and practices. None of us know so much that we can’t learn off each other.
As are as “Nuff said” goes, I hope the debate on what we, as a community, see as good practice goes on and on and on………………….
I’m not sure why there was a need to bring up the acceptable use policy.
Rule 1 of Right(snet) club. You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, inaccurate or cannot be substantiated.
Rule 2 of Right(snet) Club. You will not post any material that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, or otherwise objectionable.
Rule 3 of Right(snet Club. If you disagree with someone’s posting or comment, don’t attack that person ... agree to disagree, respectfully.
1) Experience was explained (24yrs worth.) A persons experience cannot be denied. 2 people may suffer a terrible misfortune; one says in their opinion it was OK the other suffers PTSD. Who’s opinion is wrong?
2) An opinion might be objectionable but that again is a matter of opinion. Who’s opinion is wrong?
3) Square pegs/round holes and suggestions that a person is unable to perform in their role as required would neither be supportive nor respectful of another persons POV.
Thanks for that- Yes -square peg/round hole, not nice. I was once told my DWP benefits supervisor that I was too “pro client” because I always fully explained claim processes and how to appeal and I would rather say I have a good balanced judgement. I am not a political person.
I’ve never subscribed to ‘my country - right or wrong’ so I can’t go along with ‘the claimant - right or wrong’ either. There do seem to be some people who do believe that.
But, nor do I feel it my place to judge their choices of expenditure or priority, unless they’re harming others.
Enforce peoples rights, without turning them into campaigning weapons for political or social beliefs. Campaign for those beliefs, by all means, but keep that separate from individuals.
As for debate here; open, frank and honest without the necessity to conform to any viewpoints would be my choice.
I missed this until now, and I have to say that, even though people may be disagreeing, it has all been above board and properly argued imo.
A bloke came to see me a couple of years ago. He was 90 years old. He told me how his father left when he was young just after the First World War leaving his mother to raise him and his brother alone. Times were hard and when the depression struck in the 1930’s, were even harder.
He told me the story of how his mother applied to the local authority for assistance. His memory is still seared with the day that a local authority officer visited his home in connection with the application. He could even still remember his name after all these years. He told me how the officer looked around the house making an inventory before informing his mother that she was not eligible for assistance while she still had items of furniture she could sell. He told me how, that as a fairly well built boy of 14, he threw the man bodily out of the house.
Do not give discretionary powers to local authorities.
Indeed, i remember reading National Assistance records from 1940’s when I got a job as a CO in Penzance DHSS office that recounted exactly the same approach.
Having said that, I do think that some kind of shift in thinking is needed,because I do agree that the crisis loan system doesn’t necessarily meet peoples’ crisis needs properly for a raft of reasons. And it can be open to abuse.
I’d completely agree with Martin that SFI’s are vital to retain as independent inspectors (or even auditors) of how any such system is employed. I certainly don’t see why second hand furniture is shaming, having grown up in circumstances where the bigger problem was other peoples’ attitudes towards you for living like that. And in ecologically sensitive times, anything that stimulates local recycling is surely a good thing.
So maybe we should be shouting for central government funding directed towards local community-based schemes of furniture recycling that would allow employment to be created and wealth to be shared byway of recyling resources, whilst also retaining the capacity to react to immediate financial events through credit unions that are helped to finance the former projects, thus sharing in the rewards?
“Next it will be only those who sign up for the Socialist Worker and have a working knowledge of Das Kapital and all that guff can work in this field”.
No one has the wit or critical tools to call himself a marxist (or to criticize marxism either) unless he has read Hegel or Marx’s earlier Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. And as for the perversion that is Marxist Leninism or the infantilism that calls itself the Socialist Workers Party, the less said the better.