Forum Home → Discussion → Other benefit issues → Thread
Social Fund localisation
I’d like to start a new thread on this topic that actually concentrates on sharing ideas about how LAs could use the devolved funding. I’ve just looked at an earlier thread and nearly all of it was devoted to criticising the govt and staing why the new scheme will not work (though to be fair that was a few months ago when the changes were still being consulted on). My perspective is: it’s going to happen and we should try to make the best of it whether we agree with the changes or not. In Kent we haven’t yet made any decisions about what we’re going to do but we’ve started looking at the options. It seems to me that whatever scheme we settle on we need to:
1. Make sure there is a good referral system to it from a variety of places, including self-referral.
2. When a referral comes in there should be a variety of help available in addition to what the applicant presents with - eg if they need to get a new cooker - as well as dealing with the cooker, are they getting all the benefits they are entitled to, do they need debt advice, do they need help with social care, employment advice, help with domestic violence etc - I’m not suggesting the scheme provides all this itself, but knows how to access it.
I’m just in the middle of putting together all the options in a paper so when I’ve finished I’ll share with you some more ideas. In the meantime I’d be grateful for any information about the progress your LA is making with this.
Cheers, Chris
I’m going to be entirely negative about this, because that’s what’s needed.
One of the reasons why this proposal looks like it will go ahead is because of the almost complete lack of opposition by local authorities. There’s still all to play for in terms of lobbying against this proposal. Surely that is where effort should now be going rather than making it even easier for government to dump the SF on LAs by drawing up plans?
LAs are being offered the fag end of the benefit system and for the life of me I can’t understand why they would want anything to do with it: 75+% of applicants are refused even now, there’s no ring-fencing, and inevitably LAs will pick up the consequences of benefits system failure and the increased destitution caused by the obsession with extending sanctions and restricting eligibility. And what if the IT system for UC does not deliver (which many DWP staff privately think could happen)? The transferred SF funding could simply end up being an expensive headache for LAs which damages their standing with people on low incomes. This makes it even more tempting for LAs to simply outsource the problem and funding to a charity with all that this implies.
I’d be amazed if there will be resources to invest in things like benefit checks, not to mention the inevitable follow up casework which these should generate.
Also, DWP have stated that they don’t necessarily see social care services as the best place to locate the replacement SF. With HB services desperate for work to replace their declining responsibilities post 2013, I’m not sure what role a non-HB LA like Kent will have.
Hi Neil,
I’m not going to get into a big argument about this but I will just say:
1. If we don’t do any planning for a localised system, when the money is devolved we will have no local offer of support and the money is then more likely to get swallowed up in other services and those that need support are going to be the ones that suffer.
2. We are NOT planning for it to be controlled by Social Services as we are quite aware that the people who use the Social Fund are a much wider group than those who use Adult Social Care.
3. As you rightly say we do not administer HB, housing services etc which is precisely why we are working closely with our district council colleagues to design a scheme.
Also you can’t make the assumption that people/organisations planning for the local scheme have not also voiced their concerns about it!
Chris
it’s not about having any argument, but this is a pubic forum for debating welfare policy.
The point is that it is premature to be making plans. The proposals are still in the Bill and so the focus should be on building a coalition of opposition to the planned transfer. Key organisations such as Citizen Advice and CPAG have set out their opposition, it needs LAs to be making a major push against this and to lobby bodies like the LGA to do the same instead of being seduced by the offer of some cash and the promise of “localism” (I’m not suggesting this applies to your LA). When they want to, LAs can be very effective on opposing negative benefit changes and acting as advocates for their communities.
Milder proposals to involve LAs in the SF back in 1988 were seen off by concerted efforts by LAs, trade unions and vol orgs and as a result we had a system of grants and a review system for over 20 years. I know from personal experience that LAs were instrumental in quashing early DWP ideas to transfer DLA to LAs back in 1998, ensuring the DWP dropped plans to abolish their out of hours service and getting Supporting People as a replacement for the restrictions on HB eligible charges (DWP were originally just going to cut without any replacement funding). So it can be done.
If there are to be plans, I hope they include the need for enhanced security and safety for staff and training and support on managing the inevitable resentment which will be expressed by some claimants.
I don’t agree with Neil that it’s too early to plan. If nothing else that process will generate hard data for the argument against localisation of the schemes (which I remember lots of advisers pledging to refuse to work with or use when they were introduced).
More usefully, I suggest, those plans might include embedding an advice and information element into the process so that those for whom there is no funding might get some assistance anyway. Used positively there might be ways of involving purchasing co-ops, credit unions etc to get better value out of the funds rather than taking the easy option of using monopolistic dodgy cheap dealers.
If you don’t plan now, you will inevitably end up with the simplest scheme introduced quickly, because of time pressures, with all the problems and unfairness that generates.
Out of interest, has there been any consultation in England as to what the new system will look like? It seems that the Scottish Government is keen to make all awards into grants - they say because loans increase poverty, but also admit that because they cost too much in administration.
Hi,
I understand the LGA has asked the Govt to look at producing some guidance but nothing has been released yet. I think the LGA themselves are going to be holding some workshops on this so ideas can be shared - don’t know any details yet.
Chris
Meant to add, with regard to loans - although we would be allowed to offer loans, I don’t think that would be feasible or desirable because we would not have the option of deducting from benefits and would have to develop ways of collecting which would not be cost effective.
A couple or pearls….
Written submission from the Social Fund Commissioner
27. As mentioned previously, the community care grant, which will be replaced by new local support, is cash limited and demand has always outstripped the available funds.
Ministers have referred to the growth in use of crisis loans since the introduction of remote telephone applications in 2006. In the absence of clear information about the specific format of replacement support, related demand levels for new provision are uncertain and untested.
28. In light of this local authorities will need to undertake contingency planning, in the event that demand exceeds their capacity to respond. Local authorities may opt to build on existing relationships they have with local third sector organisations, or create a new network of local providers. However, this raises the question of what role local authorities may need to adopt in order to develop capacity in those organisations and to support them in developing new skills as they take on new or extra responsibilities.
I recognise the valuable contribution third sector organisations make in many locations, but I am aware that their presence and service provision in local communities is not a uniform one.
Keywords “uncetrain” “untested” “not a uniform one”
OH DEAR…..
I’ve never been in favour of loans - it institutionaises indebtedness culturally as well as causing hardship. So not makiing loans is both practical and enlightened.
However, if loans are not to be made, that will mean even less money available overall.Yet another example of the toxicity of the transfer.
Sorry, I still think there’s been hardly any fightback about this and our energies at the moment should be concentrated on campaigning for the the social fund not to be abolished.
(Edited to correct spelling)
[ Edited: 8 Dec 2011 at 03:20 pm by neilbateman ]I imagine not to many authorities will be going down the loan route.
They have no way of administering localisation, no IT, no way of deducting from benefit, and the budget is not going to pay for many additional staff.
So its starting to look like a safety net based on:
1) Grants
2) Goods in Kind
3) Expanded role for Credit Unions.
If anybody has any knowledge of waht their Authority is doing I would like to hear.
Our local LA’s intended model is exactly as above.
Looking on the bright side.
At least the Authority is providing a safety net.
There will be no requirement to do this. The money is not ringfenced.
Pardon me for reinventing the wheel, but don’t your local Citizens’ Advice Bureaux do precisely this? Surely if multiple issues are present, you should be funding your local Bureaux to do what they do best!
I’d like to start a new thread on this topic that actually concentrates on sharing ideas about how LAs could use the devolved funding. I’ve just looked at an earlier thread and nearly all of it was devoted to criticising the govt and staing why the new scheme will not work (though to be fair that was a few months ago when the changes were still being consulted on). My perspective is: it’s going to happen and we should try to make the best of it whether we agree with the changes or not. In Kent we haven’t yet made any decisions about what we’re going to do but we’ve started looking at the options. It seems to me that whatever scheme we settle on we need to:
1. Make sure there is a good referral system to it from a variety of places, including self-referral.
2. When a referral comes in there should be a variety of help available in addition to what the applicant presents with - eg if they need to get a new cooker - as well as dealing with the cooker, are they getting all the benefits they are entitled to, do they need debt advice, do they need help with social care, employment advice, help with domestic violence etc - I’m not suggesting the scheme provides all this itself, but knows how to access it.I’m just in the middle of putting together all the options in a paper so when I’ve finished I’ll share with you some more ideas. In the meantime I’d be grateful for any information about the progress your LA is making with this.
Cheers, Chris
Some work was done early 2012 in Wales with regards to the devolution of the fund but things have gone very quiet since:
With regards to funding CAB, its not always the answer. That’s what has been learnt in Cardiff.
Pardon me for reinventing the wheel, but don’t your local Citizens’ Advice Bureaux do precisely this? Surely if multiple issues are present, you should be funding your local Bureaux to do what they do best!
Nothing aginst this in principle but has your CAB got a mechanism for allocating grants?
I reckon you will need a mechanism for ensuring the grants go to those that need it most, your clients must have a proven local connection, and you will manage a limited budget which you must ensure will be open all year. You will be requred to turn down requests for a number of customers in crisis, (for example when they have maxed out their grants) you will have to offer debt counselling or advice etc.
I reckon for every £1.00 you receive you will need to guarentee at least 0.90p or above gets through to clients. The rest you get to spend on IT and staffing costs.