Impact of the Discretionary Social Fund

Impact of the Discretionary brotherly stockThe Discretionary kindly broth Discretion but miniscule ValourThe introduction of the complaisant Fund in 1988 was politically driven. earlier to its introduction, thither were available a series of grants (Single Payments) which were available as of right. The imperative which drove the measure was the need to constrain the ever-burgeoning tender security measures budget. Of course, certain of the stated aims were superficially laudable1To concentrate attention and help on those applicants facing greatest difficulties in managing on their incomeTo enable a more(prenominal)(prenominal) varied response to inescapable individual need than could be achieved chthonian the previous rulesTo break new ground in the case of residential district c areHowever, it might be argued that in pursuing the aims of containing the affectionate certification budget with bulge adversely affecting the efficiency of the main Income Support scheme, the troika objectives describe above bemuse become neglected or dismantle prejudiced. So much so that the Select Committee on Social Security2 has questioned whether the Fund has succeeded in its stated objective of helping the poorest and more or less conquerable in society and has urged the Government radically to reassess (urgent give-up the ghost and an injection of funds) the piddleing of the fund, in particular so that it whitethorn work to enhance the strategy to reduce child poverty, rather than work against it.Particular maintenance has been expressed by charities working in the field of child poverty3. The Discretionary Social Fund operates within fiscal policies and weightings and is force field to cash limits for each administrative area. This gives rise to check that applications to the Fund are subject to both a postcode and a calendar draught. The components of the Social Fund areCommunity Care Grants (CCGs)Budgeting Loans andCrisis Loans.By subscriber li ne with the previous outline, the availability of grants as opposed to loans has become severely restricted. The FWA4 acknowledges that bit CCGs are intended to help people remain or re-establish themselves within the communitydecisions are discretionary and are subject to cash limits, what counts as exceptional pressure can vary and the Social Fund Inspectors regularly see cases that boast been refused when qualifying conditions have been met and a payment should have been granted.More pernicious still is the shift in emphasis to loans. This whitethorn be presented politically as an admirable social objective, discouraging continue reliance on hand outs and encouraging a sense of monetary self-discipline and responsibility. In reality, the insistence upon repayment militates against the escape from poverty of those of the most limited means.The principle which underlies Budgeting Loans is again admirable interest free lending to those who are in difficulty budgeting after a p eriod on benefits and usually used for the purchase of essential household items such as beds and cookers. Admittedly they provide invaluable bet on to those who are unable to glide slope other forms of credit and are directly repayable from benefit frankincense ensuring repayment discipline. However, they are also subject to the postcode lottery described above and the repayment rates are high and inflexible (78 weeks at between 5%-25% of benefit). Strict rules discourage repeat applications or surpass up. The end result is a failure adequately to invite the needs of many poor families giving rise to particular concern for the welfare of the children within such households. This is as a result of what should have been predicted to be an unacceptable imkpact upon weekly income benefit rates are by definition calculated to meet the subsistence expenses of the family unit in question. Deductions from such a minimal level of income can non fail to lead to hardship.However, a more unequivocal evaluation of the Social Fund is supplied by the Department for operate on and Pensions5 which describes it as an extremely important and highly valued source of financial support for recipients. It had a positive impact on recipients life situation, and made a considerable difference to the housing condition in which people lived. However, in common with the FWA, the authors of this report acknowledge that there was limited knowledge of rules and eligibility criteria among recipients and there may also be scope to providing more training to supply on some of the barriers that recipients face when applying and to offer financial advice to recipients when providing information on the Social Fund. in that location are also glaring deficiencies in the procedure by which Social Fund decisions may be reviewed. dissatisfied claimants may seek internal reviews of initial decisions and further review by the Social Fund Inspectors of the Independent Review assistant of the Soc ial Fund. such(prenominal) decisions are themselves susceptible to judicial review. However, as Pick and Sunkin6 questionCreated out of compromise, is the IRS review system to be regarded as an administrative device for deflecting criticism of an unsound system by means of symbolic due process..?It is not possible in a submission of this length to do more than scratch the surface of the impact of the discretionary social fund. However, as has been demonstrated, the system is fundamentally flawed in principle and defective in operation. There is an appalling parallel with the operation of the much-maligned Child Support Agency. The latter was natural of a political desire to reduce the burden imposed on the social security budget by feckless parents but has in many instances signally failed to deliver benefit to the intended recipients. The loan-dominated mechanism of the Social Fund similarly fails to meet the avowed social policy objectives of the government.BibliographyBuck, T. Smith, R., A Critical Literature Review of the Social Fund, (Summary Report) for The National Audit social function (7 April 2004)Department for Work and Pensions, The Discretionary Social Fund and Money Management, look Report No 241 (2005)Family Welfare Association, Like it or Lump It, A Role for the Social Fund in Ending Child Poverty, April 2002Pick, K. Sunkin, M., The ever-changing Impact of Judicial Review The Independent Review Service of the Social Fund, (2001) PL 736Select Committee on Social Security, Third Report, The Social Fund A Lifeline for the Poor Or the Fund that Likes to Say No? (2001) HC 232Footnotes1 Select Committee on Social Security, Third Report, The Social Fund A Lifeline for the Poor Or the Fund that Likes to Say No? (2001) HC 232, para.12 Op. Cit., paras.117-1183 Family Welfare Association, Like it or Lump It, A Role for the Social Fund in Ending Child Poverty, April 20024 Op. Cit., Chapter 25 Department for Work and Pensions, The Discretionary Socia l Fund and Money Management, Research Report No 241 (2005), p.56 Pick, K. Sunkin, M., The Changing Impact of Judicial Review The Independent Review Service of the Social Fund, (2001) PL 736 at p.740