APPENDIX 24
Memorandum submitted by the Homeless Network
(SF 39)
SUMMARY
This paper contains Homeless Network's evidence
to the Social Security Select Committee's inquiry into the Social
Fund.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 introduce Homeless
Network.
Paragraphs 3 to 6 introduce our submission,
note the importance of Social Fund payments to homeless people
undergoing resettlement, and identify three main areas of difficulty
with the Fund.
Paragraphs 7 to 15 discuss the problems
created by restrictive eligibility criteria for Community Care
Grants and Budgeting Loans. Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 suggest three
ways in which eligibility might be widened.
Paragraphs 16 to 22 discuss the problem
of inconsistency. Paragraph 18 suggests that Community Care Grants
might be awarded to pay for categories of expense, rather than
individual items.
Paragraphs 23 to 28 discuss administrative
complexity. Paragraph 27 suggests that a change in practice as
to the timing of certain Community Care Grant awards.
Paragraphs 29 and 30 conclude our submission.
INTRODUCTION
1. Homeless Network is the co-ordinating
and support organisation for the key voluntary sector agencies
working with single homeless people in London. The services provided
by our member agencies include outreach, emergency and second
stage accommodation, day centres, resettlement services, permanent
and supported housing, floating support, family mediation, and
employment and training initiatives.
2. We are pleased to have this opportunity
to submit evidence to the Social Security Select Committee on
the subject of the Social Fund. In this submission, we set out
our views on the current role and working of the Fund, and make
some suggestions for its future, which are printed in bold type.
Our evidence is based on the day to day experience of our member
agencies in working with thousands of homeless and newly resettled
clients every year.
BACKGROUND
3. This submission does not discuss the
Regulated Social Fund, and we deal only briefly with Crisis Loans.
Rather, we concentrate on Community Care Grants (CCGs) and Budgeting
Loans (BLs). It is these payments which are of particular concern
to our member agencies and their clients, because of their importance
to the successful resettlement of many formerly homeless people.
For those who are eligible, CCGs and BLs are the main means of
funding the purchase of furniture and essential household items
when moving into independent accommodation.
4. On one level, the significance of this
is obvious; an unfurnished flat may offer little more amenity
than the street—and a good deal less than a hostel room—if
the resident is unable to sleep comfortably, to prepare food,
to store possessions and clothes properly, and so on. This, we
believe, is itself justification for regarding the Social Fund
as being of the highest importance in ensuring successful resettlement.
However, the ability properly to equip and furnish a home also
has, for many people who are being resettled, a profound psychological
importance.
5. The move into permanent and independent
accommodation, perhaps after many years or for the first time
ever, can represent a significant change in a homeless person's
way of life. The prospect of a different pattern of living, the
responsibility which a tenancy entails, and the legacy of past
disappointed expectations, may combine to make this a time of
some stress. In these circumstances, the more that can be done
to smooth the transition, the better the chances of the new tenancy
being successful. In the words of one of our member agencies,
which provides a Tenancy Sustainment Team for former rough sleepers,
funded by the Rough Sleepers Unit, "the provision of essential
furniture items has a real effect on the investment into the success
of a former rough sleeper's tenancy. Not only does it give practical
help, but it adds to the sense of ownership". In our
experience, there are times when timely, and reasonably generous,
help from the Social Fund can make the difference between the
success and failure of a new tenancy and thus of the whole resettlement
process.
6. In April 1998 the Department of Social
Security (DSS) introduced Social Fund Direction 4(a)(v), which
provides that a CCG may be paid to help a person set up home in
the community as part of a planned programme of resettlement after
a period during which they had been without a settled way of life.
We welcomed, and continue to appreciate, this direction both for
its practical effect in easing CCG claims by formerly homeless
people, and because it recognises the importance of the Social
Fund in the resettlement process. However, our member agencies
report that there are still problems with the Fund. These problems,
which we will describe in the remainder of this submission, may
be summarised as eligibility criteria; inconsistency; and administrative
complexity.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
7. Community Care Grants and Budgeting Loans
are only available to applicants who are at the time of application
(or, in the case of CCGs, will soon be) receiving Income Support
(IS) or Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (I-JSA). Because both
of these benefits have stringent means tests, the intention and
effect is to limit eligibility for CCGs and BLs to some of the
very poorest applicants. Many single homeless people do receive
one or other of these benefits, and are thus able to apply for
one or other of these payments. However, for some of our clients,
this limitation causes difficulties. Claimants who have a sufficient
contributions record to receive Incapacity Benefit (IB) or Contribution-Based
Jobseeker's Allowance (C-JSA) are unable to apply for CCGs and
BLs, even though their circumstances may be no better off than
if they were on means-tested benefits. Similarly, if a person
is working, no matter how low their earnings and how limited their
capacity for savings, they cannot apply for a CCG or BL if their
wage level and work pattern takes them off either IS or I-JSA.
8. We believe that this crude limitation
of access to the Fund is undesirable for two reasons. First and
most obviously, it causes hardship. For the reasons suggested
at paragraph 5 above, it can hinder the resettlement process;
as one day centre welfare rights adviser has pointed out, "many
individuals who fall into our client group receive IB and this
has a disastrous effect on our ability to get them housed in a
long-term settled environment; this being due to the fact that
they are unable to get access to monies from the Social Fund to
turn an empty flat into a home that a person wants to live in".
9. The same adviser makes the point that
lack of access to the Fund can make it difficult for people to
maintain themselves in the community: vulnerable people are unable
to maintain their homes and essential equipment in a habitable
condition and thus risk becoming homeless. There is, we believe,
a fundamental contradiction between enabling people to remain
in the community rather than enter care—a purpose for which,
under Social Fund Direction 4(a)(ii) a grant may be paid—and
limiting this assistance to those who happen to be in receipt
of two particular benefits. It should also be noted that there
is no choice for a claimant as to whether to receive Incapacity
Benefit or Income Support, and that entitlement to Incapacity
Benefit is not time-limited; provided the contribution conditions
have been met, entitlement continues as long as the incapacity
lasts. Thus many people, with no other resources than benefits,
may nonetheless find themselves arbitrarily excluded from access
to an important part of the social security system for no other
reason than that at some point in the past they worked enough
to accumulate a contributions record.
10. Second, this restriction of eligibility
acts as a disincentive to work. Many homeless people would like
both a home and a job. The move towards independent living in
the community, and the move towards greater employability, may
go hand in hand. It is often difficult to predict when either
a tenancy or a job offer may arise. A person who is offered a
job before a tenancy is therefore in a difficult position. If
they refuse the job, they may lose a valuable opportunity (and
perhaps lay themselves open to a JSA sanction); but if they accept
the job and leave benefit even one day before they receive their
tenancy, they may find themselves without the wherewithal to furnish
and equip their new home.
11. We believe that this is inconsistent
with the current emphasis on work as the best form of welfare.
Elsewhere in the social security system, the prospect of even
short-term work is being made more attractive through benefit
run-ons and more generous linking rules. Something of this was
extended to the Social Fund when the 26 week period of receipt
of benefit required for eligibility for a Budgeting Loan was adapted
to permit any number of short breaks. Yet the rule remains that
no person who is not on IS or I-JSA can receive a CCG or BL, regardless
of their overall financial circumstances.
12. We therefore believe that the crude
and restrictive link between CCGs and BLs, and IS/I-JSA, should
be broken, and replaced with some more sophisticated model of
targeting. At the very least, eligibility should be extended
to those who receive Housing Benefit (HB) and/or Council Tax Benefit
(CTB) at the same rate as if they were on IS/I-JSA; this would
extend eligibility to those who were on very low wages, or more
realistically on IB, C-JSA, or the basic Retirement Pension, but,
because HB/CTB have an almost identical means test to IS/I-JSA,
would ensure that Social Fund eligibility continued to be restricted
to the poorest claimants. This would also allow people who had
very recently started work, but were continuing to receive full
HB/CTB during the four-week Extended Payment period, to receive
help from the Fund if appropriate.
13. More generously, those who were in work
but had had a pattern of moving in and out of benefit might be
made eligible for CCGs/BLs. This might build on the rule, referred
to above, whereby when the 26 weeks of receipt of benefit required
for eligibility for a Budgeting Loan is calculated, breaks of
up to 28 days are ignored. This rule recognises that when people
are moving in and out of work, they may remain within the benefits
"envelope"; for instance, their capacity for saving
is very limited. It would seem to be consistent with this principle
to allow people who were working, but within the benefit "envelope",
to receive CCGs and BLs as if they were actually on benefit.
14. Finally, the Social Fund might operate
a means test of its own, independent of IS/I-JSA but based on
similar principles.
15. Any of these changes would make the
Social Fund more responsive to the needs of people on very low
incomes. Of the three, an independent means test would be the
fairest, but would also be the most administratively complex,
and might hinder the capacity of the system to meet urgent needs.
The question of extending eligibility to some workers within the
benefit "envelope" might be explored further. However,
we can see no reason in principle why HB/CTB, if received at the
full rate, should not now be added to the current qualifying benefits.
(We recognise that it is ultimately intended to reform and perhaps
replace HB; but we understand that this is unlikely to happen
for some time, and any link with Social Fund might be reconsidered
when we know what form any reformed accommodation benefit might
take.) In the meantime, designating HB/CTB as qualifying benefits
for CCGs and BLs would be entirely consistent with the current
policy intention of focussing these payments on the poorest applicants,
should be reasonably straightforward to administer, and would
meet many of our concerns about exclusion of people on IB, C-JSA
and Retirement Pension.
INCONSISTENCY
16. Since Community Care Grants and Budgeting
Loans are discretionary payments, it is in their nature that the
size of awards will vary to some extent. However, this is in our
experience an aspect of the Fund that is widely resented by applicants,
and which appears difficult to defend logically. (This is particularly
the case with CCGs, since BLs have moved to a much more regulated
system; unless otherwise stated, therefore, it is to CCGs that
the following comments apply.) Budgetary considerations mean that
the success of CCG applications will vary between offices and
districts, and at different times of the budgetary year; but there
can also be noticeable inconsistencies in the treatment of apparently
similar applications submitted to the same office at the same
time. These inconsistencies often appear to have little, if anything,
to do with the level of need which is being presented, and have
given the Fund the reputation of being something of a lottery.
17. Inconsistencies are exacerbated by the
system of priorities, whereby each Social Fund District, in managing
its budgets, decides whether high. medium, or low priority applications
can be met. In practice, these priorities often seem to apply
to individual items for which payment is requested, rather than
to the application as a whole. For example, if a CCG is requested
to furnish and equip a flat, the applicant will be asked to give
details of the items s/he wishes to purchase, and each item will
then be awarded or refused. In this instance, a cooker would almost
always be paid for, but funds for a fridge would be very rarely
awarded unless the applicant could show some additional need (for
example, to store medication).
18. We believe that breaking down awards
in this way is unnecessary, time-consuming, and often unjust.
(It is also of limited effect, since an applicant who receives
a CCG will almost always spend it according to his/her own priorities
rather than those laid down by the Fund.) One of the most welcome
of the recent reforms to Budgeting Loans was that instead of making
awards for individual items, awards can now be made to pay for
any of a small number of categories of expense (for example, furniture
and household equipment; clothing and footwear; travelling expenses).
The applicant is simply required to indicate the categories into
which his/her needs fall. We believe that it would be worth exploring
whether a similar system of categories might be applied to Community
Care Grants. Such a system might, in our view, be quicker,
cheaper, and easier to operate, might better reflect the realities
of the circumstances which make CCGs necessary, and might be more
widely accepted by applicants and their advisers.
19. It has sometimes suggested that, for
some or all homeless people undergoing a recognised programme
of resettlement, a new form of regulated grant might replace CCGs
as a means of furnishing and equipping a new home. This "resettlement
grant" might be based on a fixed amount, agreed to be sufficient
to furnish a property of a given size to a modest but adequate
standard, and might be paid to those who might otherwise qualify
for a Community Care Grant under Direction 4(a)(v). The attractions
of this proposal are clear; it would be reasonably straightforward
to operate, could be paid quickly when need arose, and, being
of a fixed amount, would enable the applicant and the agencies
working with them to plan more confidently for the future.
20. Some of our member agencies would support
such a proposal. However, in discussion others have pointed out
that it has possible disadvantages. Any such grant would probably
require some element of gatekeeping by resettlement agencies,
even if only to certify an applicant's eligibility; and some agencies
feel that this would adversely affect their relationship with
their clients, and their ability to act as advocates on their
behalf. Furthermore, the identification of a modest but adequate
level for a "resettlement grant" might in practice mean
that awards of Community Care Grants to other applicants would
also be limited to this amount, even though a higher grant is
often desirable because it enables applicants to furnish their
homes to a higher standard and thus increases the chance of their
remaining in them.
21. On balance, therefore, we are not at
present wholly convinced of the case for a separate resettlement
grant, although we would be happy to explore the idea further.
Instead, we would rather see the working of the Fund, as it currently
stands, improved, by widening eligibility, and by grouping expenses,
as proposed in paragraphs 12-15 and 18 above.
22. This section of our submission has dealt
almost entirely with Community Care Grants. This is because there
is less scope for inconsistency within Budgeting Loans since they
were reformed, and effectively placed on a much more regulated
footing, in April 1999. However, we do wish to register our concern
that because one of the criteria upon which the size awards is
decided relates to the composition of the applicant's household,
the amount of help available to single people (who comprise most
of our member agencies' clients) has been reduced.
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEXITY
23. The more regulated regime which now
applies to Budgeting Loans has made that part of the Fund quicker,
simpler, and more predictable. However, the Community Care Grant
process often, in our experience, remains complex and cumbersome.
In the first place, it is not easy for an unassisted applicant
to get an appropriate award. In the almost universal experience
of our member agencies, a successful and appropriate CCG application
for a homeless person undergoing resettlement requires detailed
and expert support from an adviser or resettlement agency; an
unsupported, or poorly supported applicant, rarely succeeds.
24. To some extent this is understandable,
especially where the application is made under Direction 4(a)(v),
since in that case the requirement for a planned programme of
resettlement means that evidence of such a plan will need to be
produced. However, we do not believe that in principle the Social
Fund, or any part of the social security system, should require
an applicant to have expert advice in order to obtain what they
need. That such advice is in practice needed relates, we believe,
in part to the discretionary nature of CCGs; one needs to know
what information will persuade an Social Fund Decision Maker to
exercise his/her discretion. Any reform to the Fund should therefore
look at ways of making it, as it should be, accessible to all
applicants, whether supported or not.
25. We are concerned at the length of time
that it can take to receive a CCG or BL. For example, experienced
resettlement workers have informed us that while applications
for CCGs under Direction 4(a)(v) usually succeed in the end (in
part because resettlement workers often do not advise clients
to apply under this direction unless they are reasonably sure
that the client will be eligible), it may well be necessary to
go to first or second stage review before an appropriate decision
is made. All this takes a great deal of time and may mean, for
example, that a homeless person who is being resettled may not
receive the means to furnish and equip their new home until some
time after they have taken up the tenancy.
26. Delays in assessing initial applications
are, no doubt, due in part to the overall pressure of work on
local Social Fund sections. However, some of our member agencies
report what appears to be a consistent pattern in some offices
of refusing applications initially, and granting them on review.
We do not know whether some offices operate a local policy to
this effect; it is fair to say that when we have raised the suggestion
with the Benefits Agency, it has been denied. It certainly appears
to us that the complexity of the application and assessment process
must contribute to delays, and we would hope that some of the
simplifications which we have suggested above might speed the
process.
27. We have one specific suggestion
which would allow more time to process CCG applications under
Direction 4(a)(v). This is that local Social Fund sections should
be encouraged to consider, where appropriate, making awards under
this Direction before the applicant had accepted the
tenancy of their new home. At present, the almost universal practice
is to make the application once the tenancy has been accepted;
this appears to be based on a fairly general understanding that
the CCG would not be awarded until then. Because of the very short
period (sometimes as little as a weekend) which many local authorities
and Registered Social Landlords allow to elapse between a new
resident accepting a tenancy and the tenancy starting, it is often
simply not possible to furnish a property before the tenant becomes
liable to pay rent on it (and therefore, because of the restricted
circumstances in which Housing Benefit will be paid on two homes,
has to move in). The tenancy therefore begins on a bad footing,
with the tenant either having to "camp out" in the new
home, or not being able to move in and claim Housing Benefit until
they receive their CCG, thereby accumulating rent arrears from
the outset.
28. There is in fact nothing in Direction
4(a)(v) which requires the applicant to have received a tenancy;
the Direction simply refers to setting up home in the community
as part of a planned programme of resettlement. CCGs could, therefore,
currently be paid in advance of a tenancy being received; the
requirements of a person equipping a new flat do not vary greatly
from case to case, and the necessary involvement of a resettlement
agency in applications under this direction should prevent frivolous
or inappropriate applications. The grant, once awarded, might
either be held by the Benefits Agency, or paid (with the applicant's
consent) to the resettlement agency in question, until such time
as it were needed. This measure would greatly ease the difficulties
faced by formerly homeless people moving into permanent accommodation
at short notice, and could be effected simply by adding to the
existing Social Fund guidance.
CONCLUSION
29. Homeless Network believes that there
is much that could be done to enable to Social Fund to respond
more effectively to the needs of its clients, including homeless
people undergoing resettlement. In this paper, we have indicated
some of the areas in which the Fund is deficient, and have suggested
some ways in which it might be improved.
30. We would be very happy to explain our
position and ideas further in additional written or verbal evidence
to the Committee.
January 2001
|
