APPENDIX 22
Letter to the Chairman of the Committee
from The Children's Society (SF 34)
As a national child care organisation working
in 90 projects in the poorest communities we are very aware of
the practical concerns that arise from the Social Fund. We are
keen to pass on the experience of the families and young people
who use our projects, with regard to the Social Fund, through
this paper, and directly by facilitating a meeting between claimants
and the committee.
We have campaigned in this area since the Social
Fund was first established, and have conducted our own research
(Smith 1990) [34]
and worked jointly with other voluntary organisations (Bennett
1996). [35]
We have been monitoring the impact of the recent changes to the
Social Fund. Our overarching concern is that whilst poverty has
increased over the last 20 years, expenditure on the discretionary
Social Fund has remained stable. This has been reflected on increased
hardship on the very poorest. The increase in loans and reduction
in grants in the discretionary part of the Fund has led to a spiral
of debt which makes it harder to exit poverty.
Research shows that current benefit levels are
not adequate to cover basic expenses over a period of time. Government
has always recognised the need to assist with one off expenses
or budgeting strains over a period of time. The Children's Society's
experience is that the Social Fund in its current form is not
meeting its aim of alleviating extreme hardship.
The Children's Society would ideally seek a
return to a system based on grants rather than loans that plunge
families and young people into a spiral of debt. We would also
propose the following changes:
In the regulated section of the Social Fund,
we propose two grants which could be viewed in the same category
and with the same conditions attached as the Sure Start Maternity
Payment, so they would be cash benefits paid to the mother or
person responsible for the child:
TODDLER PAYMENT
Grant of £150 to cover first bed, shoes
and winter clothing. The estimated cost would be approximately
£30 million per annum, based on the same number of claimants
as for the Sure Start Maternity Payment. We recommend that it
be triggered by the second birthday of the child which is close
to the period when these costs arise. We do not think it would
be workable to make payment conditional on health or developmental
checks given the diversity of provision across the country, the
pressure this may place on parents and children as well as the
difficulty of access experienced by excluded communities who are
among the most likely to need the payment, such as traveller communities.
STARTING SCHOOL
PAYMENT
Grant of £75 to cover costs of school uniform,
satchel, P.E. kit, stationery and books. It would be available
for children starting primary school and secondary school. It
would give every child the same start at school and avoid stigmatisation
among children over uniforms and other school essentials.
The grant could be made dependent on school
attendance, and the estimated cost would also be £30 million
(£15 million each for primary and secondary school).
With regard to the area of need surrounding
children experiencing family change we feel that by increasing
expenditure on Community Care Grants this should increase the
likelihood of securing a grant for families with children fleeing
from a domestic violence situation. Given that only a quarter
of applications for this grant are successful and that expenditure
on this category has not increased whilst demand has (particularly
as a result of community care policies, and housing policies affecting
young people), we would argue for a doubling of expenditure on
Community Care Grants at a cost of £100 million.
For young people aged 16 and 17 years old,
we would argue for 3 things:
— a transitional phase payment, for
3 months, for young people who are not in education, training
or employment and who meet the eligibility criteria for Income
Support or Jobseeker's Allowance. Through our projects we are
aware of a genuine need for provision to help those young people
who have emotional, social and behavioural problems which need
time and support to resolve. We would propose this grant be paid
through a voluntary or statutory body, or a local partnership
project, working with the young person and with whom they have
built up a constructive relationship. The project would establish
a contract with the young person identifying their goals and work
with them in achieving them. The contract would include several
weekly appointments, and the transitional phase payment would
be made to the young person through the project on a weekly basis
to cover basic living expenses. The estimated amount, based on
current Income Support levels would be £500 (made up of 12
payments of £40). This payment would also avoid young people
dropping out of education or employment for which they are not
ready, or claiming sickness benefit for mental health problems.
— more cash in the Community Care Grant
(as argued in the earlier paragraph) to increase the likelihood
of young homeless people benefiting from this grant to furnish
a home (eg bed, bedding, cooker etc) and to fund a new category
within the Community Care Grant for setting up home. This would
cover start up costs of young people moving into independent accommodation,
up to £100, to cover basic items (kettle, iron, bedding etc).
— This would place all young people
on low incomes in the same position as care leavers who currently
benefit from this type of financial assistance.
— greater flexibility in repayment
for Budgeting Loans made to 16 and 17 year olds. Given that
the young people receiving these loans are at the most vulnerable
time in their lives, it would be reasonable for the deductions
from their already reduced Income Support to be set at a lower
rate than for other claimants. This would also have the advantage
of offering the same financial product opportunities to young
people who are not in education, training and employment as those
young people who are benefiting from student loans.
Finally, we would recommend the eligibility
for cold weather payments to include families with children
aged under 5. In the experience of our projects, fuel poverty
among families with young children is still very much a reality,
and just like pensioners, young children are particularly vulnerable
to the cold.
I also enclose a copy of our research "Out
of Pocket"[36]
the findings of which, you will see on Page 1, "were backed
by the House of Commons Social Security Select Committee".
I look forward to hearing from you.
Natalie Cronin
Social Policy Officer
16 January 2001
34 Smith R, (1990) "Under the Breadline: Claimants,
the Social Fund and the Voluntary Sector: A Case Study",
The Children's Society. Back
35
Bennett F, (1996) "Out of Pocket-Failure of the Social Fund",
The Children's Society, Family Service Units, Family Welfare Association. Back
36
Not Printed. Back
|
