The end of crisis loans.

Its the same old thing. The government has kicked the ball in a set direction. The question is do you kick it back or do you try to use your imagination to redirect it, say in a more customer, eccologically friendly direction?

The main problem is that the budget wont be ring fenced, so unless you have strong local leadership, you might potentially have very little in place…... as the local bigwigs….might spend this on potholes.

That is the whole problem with localism, your local folks (until they find themselves in a crisis!) might not be as sympathetic as one might hope.

“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”.

What idiot said that?

Steering this back to the original debate. Martin asked if my LA was keen to take this on given we will be losing Hb admin. I’m not really in a position to answer the question directly but perhaps a wider view is appropriate. I believe government is intending that this will be the preserve of upper tier authorities many of whom have never had HB responsibility (counties) and so I don’t necessarily see a link with HB depts or old HB functions.

I do see a link with other areas of “discretionary” funds, Section 17 (childrens Act), Discretionary Financial Assistance, Homelessness Prevention and would hope that LA’s in taking this on recognise the need to understand all of their “crisis” provision and join it up somehow.

The difficulty for some LA’s is that not all of the stuff I have in my list is upper tier authority stuff. If there are benefits to customers and the decision making process from having a joined up coordinated aproach to meeting “crisis” need, clearly those benefits can’t be achieved by all LA’s.

This relies heavily on the new data sharing powers that the welfare reform bill brings. I’d be interested to hear the advice community’s views as to whether those new provisions apply to the welfare services they offer particularly if they are directly employed by an LA. If that is the case then i assume you would welcome the freedom that particular clause appears to bring ?

There’s an important point in there and it’s linked to the overwhelmingly not just England-centric but London-centric attitude of this government about all its welfare policy.
If you are in a London Borough or a Metropolitan borough or a unitary authority, all aspects of local government services are dealt with under one roof: social services and housing and highways and education and benefits and dustbins and parks and police and fire and libraries and planning and whatever.
If you live in what used to be called a county borough, like most of our middle sized towns outside the big conurbations, then you have two-tier local government, with housing and benefits being dealt with at borough level and education and social services at county level. There is then a disjuncture between the two at the points where welfare happens. We are having a good example of this in our bureau at the moment with a guy who (with his disabled son) has been pushed out of the family home by social services (but no injunction) and told they’ll call the police if he goes anywhere near, but the housing authority won’t accept him as homeless because he has is joint tenant of a house he can occupy and there is no injunction to keep him out.
Unless this nettle - two tier local government - can be grasped then devolution of welfare is going to be a mess. The whole country is not like London: you could say that London needs different solutions from almost all of the rest of the country.

Paul has reminded me of the 90 year old bloke who came to see me so I thought i’d add a postscript.  During the second world war he was in a reserved occupation so he couldn’t join up.  However, he joined the home guard.  His wife was a plotter.  You know, one of those women you see in old black and white second world war films in a smoky crowded room pushing little ships round a huge map board of the sea.  It seems that when he needed his country, his country was found wanting but when his country needed him, he was not.

“...what the government gave me for my leg - 198 dollars 36 cents and the funny thing is that… when you think about it, which I have been lately, is they weren’t paying me to walk away, they were paying me so they could walk away.”

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/3:10_to_Yuma_(2007_film)

Excellent quote.  Says it all really.

Interesting times.

Here’s a link to the PAC report Andy

Public Accounts Committee - Eleventh Report: The Community Care Grant

I woner if we go to local support, you will start to see local connection rules and then of course….. disputes over local connections.

The last date for a response is 15th APRIL 2011.

Hopefully a few good folk have replied.

Local support (there is nothing wrong with that)  should better complement, more efficent national provision, not be a substitute for it.

To my way of thinking, the problem isnt one of second hand versus new, or cash versus vouchers, but the worry of the social fund disappearing altogther.

This money will not be ringfenced. What is to stop Local Authorities boosting there social services departments staff wise because it meets “local need”, or deciding to enhance Discretionary Housing Payments for the same reason, or simply funding a library on the same grounds.

We all know that the Social Fund isnt perfect, its a postcode lottery, some people know how to play the system and milk it, whilst others dont even know it exists and are in dire need. However, many aspects of life run like this - should we abolish lunch breaks because some people stretch it too long, whilst others work through?

For all its flaws, it provides a desperately needed safety net when delays in benefits payments occur (nearly every new claim made!) and provides for items when needed. To pass the buck to councils, with no assurance that it gets spent where needed is dishonest. If government wants to abolish it, lets have an honest debate. Abolition through the back door fools no-one.

I never thought i would advocate to keep the social fund - but to be without it is going to cause poverty to millions.

Heres the link to the letter to the minister featured in the Rightsnet story…... http://homeless.org.uk/news/social-fund-changes-will-lead-drastic-reduction-support-most-vulnerable-warn-charities

The CAB are not optimistic about this. Really comes in for heavey criticism. http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/policy/policy_publications/er_benefitsandtaxcredits/cr_benefitsandtaxcredits/local_support_to_replace_community_care_grants_and_crisis_loans.htm

e-politix is reporting that a coalition of 15 organisations has written to minister for pensions Steve Webb MP, expressing deep concern about cuts to the Social Fund. Plans to abolish the fund, which includes Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans, would remove “an extremely important safety net to many of the most vulnerable people in our society”, say the signatories.

Signatories of the letter have criticised this decision, saying that the vision of how local authorities and the devolved administrations will respond to the change is “extremely sketchy, and gives no reassurance that an adequate service will be provided”.

The letter calls on the government to provide further evidence and “a clear business case” to explain and justify the withdrawal of such an essential part of the welfare system.

Government plans will remove ‘safety net’ for vulnerable