The Social Fund and Local Government
234 the Social Fund and local government January 2006 research LGA Foreword The Social Fund is probably the most researched contemporary area of social security policy, particularly in relation to the size of its budget. We make no apology for returning to it yet again for just as it is heavily researched, so it is heavily criticised. A series of administrative changes to it over the years since it was introduced in 1988 have not dispelled the major criticisms of it – its small budget, mysterious decision-making procedures, high refusal rates, and dependence on loans – criticisms which have come from all quarters, including politicians, benefit advisers, academics, the National Audit Office, the Auditor General, the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Social Fund Commissioner, the House of Commons Select Committee, local government, the voluntary sector, trades unions representing those administering the Fund, and, not least from benefit claimants themselves. Despite early political commitments to reform it thoroughly or even abolish it and replace it with a more acceptable way of providing cash help to claimants on the lowest incomes, the New Labour government has persisted with the Fund and these criticisms remain. This report was commissioned to explore one less well-researched area, the impact of the Social Fund on local government. The sometimes apocalyptic fears expressed by local government social workers and benefit advisers in the run-up to 1988 have not, in the event, been realised. Nevertheless, despite the difficulties of collecting systematic data, and the fact that applicants to the Social Fund whose applications are rejected rarely mention local government as an obvious source of financial help (Finch and Kemp 2004) it is clear that the Fund has negative effects on local government, most of all in the human and financial resources which are expended in supporting claimants whose legitimate claims for help have been rejected by the Social Fund, largely because of its capped budget and poor decision-making.
[Show full text]