Social Fund (UK)

Last updated

The Social Fund in the UK was a form of welfare benefit provision payable for exceptional or intermittent needs, in addition to regular payments such as Jobseeker's Allowance or Income Support.

Contents

The United Kingdom coalition government has abolished the discretionary social fund with effect from April 2013, by means of legislation contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. [1] Community care grants and crisis loans will be abolished from April 2013 and instead funding is being made available to local authorities in England and to the devolved administrations to provide such assistance in their areas as they see fit. [2]

Introduction

There were two categories of Social Fund:

  1. a ‘discretionary’ social fund intended to respond flexibly to meet exceptional and intermittent needs; and
  2. a ‘regulated’ fund intended to cover maternity, funeral, winter fuel and heating expenses.

The social fund schemes were implemented in 1987 to 1988, as part of an overall review of benefits (the Fowler reviews) initiated by Norman Fowler, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (1981–1987) replacing the former system of Single Payments of Supplementary Benefit.

There were three payments:

  1. ‘Budgeting Loans’ to meet intermittent needs (more automatic and less discretionary since 1998);
  2. ‘Crisis loans’ for emergency situations; and
  3. ‘Community care grants’ to help vulnerable people live independently rather than enter care institutions (part of a wider strategy to promote care in the community and link ‘cash’ and ‘care’ provision).

The merits of each application were considered taking into account: the nature of the need; the existence of available resources; the possibility there is a more suitable provider; and the budgetary allocation.

The complaints procedure relevant to the discretionary social fund differs from regular appeal arrangements. Reviews carried out by frontline staff could be further reviewed by the Social Fund Inspectors (SFIs) of the Independent Review Service (IRS) which is part of the Department for Work and Pensions, and managed by a Social Fund Commissioner [3] appointed by the Minister. The SFIs' review applies both a merits and judicial review test. The details of the discretionary social fund are set out in ‘directions’, an unusual form of secondary legislation. [4]

History

In the 1980s, the government's policy shifted between a discretionary approach to one based upon more concrete legal entitlement. The means-tested Supplementary Benefits scheme was revised in 1980 to include the provision of 'Single Payments' and 'Additional Requirements' which were disbursed according to detailed criteria contained in complex Regulations made under the primary legislation. These payments replaced previous discretionary payments. However, by the time of the Fowler reviews in 1983 government policy had once again embraced discretion as its main method of delivering means-tested benefit to cover exceptional and intermittent needs that were not accounted for by the mainstream welfare benefits.

A Green Paper published in June 1985 [5] proposed a new Social Fund to be administered by the Department for Health and Social Services (DHSS) on a discretionary basis to give more flexible help to those in need. The new policy was also prompted by the fact that in recent years there had been spiralling expenditure incurred by claims for single payments. The original policy in the Green Paper was to provide a budget-limited Fund to help in four areas of need: community care needs; budgeting expenses; maternity and funeral expenses; and expenses arising from financial crises. A White Paper followed in December 1985. [6] The White Paper proposed a set Social Fund grant to meet maternity needs (replacing the pre-existing £25 maternity grant along with single payments provision for maternity needs). Similarly, there would be a set Social Fund grant to meet funeral needs (replacing the £30 death grant, and these payments would be contingent on three new 'income-related' benefits, i.e. Income Support, Family Credit or Housing Benefit. Social Fund grants for maternity and funeral needs would be based on clear, objective, criteria and payments would not be constrained by the budget; they would be paid automatically on satisfying the qualifying conditions. In addition, it proposed Social Fund loans to meet 'intermittent expenses'. These would be determined on a discretionary basis of what was reasonable in all the circumstances and the likelihood of recovery of the loan. It also proposed a loans scheme to cover financial crises, for example, where money/benefits had been lost or stolen, or where there was an urgent need for funds following flood or fire. As regards this form of loan the White Paper confirmed these would not be restricted to those receiving Income Support.

The introduction of the Social Fund

The resulting legislation, the Social Security Act 1986, [7] reflected the policy development described above, subject to a number of changes made during the passage of the 1986 Bill. A phased introduction of the regulated Social Fund in April 1987 and the discretionary Social Fund in April 1988 followed. The latter scheme was particularly controversial at the time. The Council on Tribunals, for example, had issued a highly critical special report in 1986 which challenged the government's intention to dispense with an independent appeal mechanism. [8] Consequently, during the passage of the Bill, the social fund review (originally envisaged as merely a management administrative review) was enhanced by the creation of 'social fund inspectors' (SFIs) who would be given jurisdiction to further review a 'social fund officer's' (SFO's) review of an SFO's original determination. In order to further entrench the independence of the SFIs, a new officer - the Social Fund Commissioner - to be appointed by the Secretary of State, was included in the legislation. [9] There were also criticisms of the plans to provide the details of the discretionary social fund scheme in the form of 'directions' (an unusual form of delegated legislation) and 'guidance'. A draft Social Fund Manual appeared in 1987 and drew further criticism. The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) took the view that the Social Fund Manual put too much emphasis on the consideration that decision-makers would have to make to the budgetary aspects which it argued went beyond the parameters of the legislation. [10]

The discretionary social fund scheme came into force on April 11, 1988. A notable feature was that the rules concerning eligibility, repeat applications, exclusions, qualification, maximum and minimum rules and capital rules, were set out in Social Fund Directions issued by the Secretary of State, whereas the legal provisions controlling the exercise of 'discretion' was retained in primary legislation: see now section 140 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.

The regulated Social Fund

Maternity expenses

A Sure Start Maternity Grant is intended to help pay for the immediate needs of a new baby if you are getting a specified benefit or tax credit. See generally, the DWP guidance at: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/specialist-guides/technical-guidance/sb16-a-guide-to-the-social/sure-start-maternity-grants/

A Sure Start Maternity Grant is paid from the Social Fund as a lump sum, and is not repayable. The grant is £500 in respect of each baby for whom an award is made.

Funeral expenses

Cold weather payments

Winter fuel payments

The discretionary Social Fund

Community care grants

Community care grants (CCGs) were primarily intended to help vulnerable people live as independent a life as possible in the community. They were awarded to households receiving means-tested benefits such as Jobseeker's Allowance. The prime objectives [11] were to:

  1. help people to establish themselves in the community following a stay in institutional or residential care;
  2. help people remain in the community rather than enter institutional or residential care;
  3. help with the care of a prisoner or young offender on release on temporary licence;
  4. ease exceptional pressures on families e.g. the breakdown of a relationship (especially if involving domestic violence) or onset of a disability, or a calamity such as fire or flooding;
  5. help people setting up home as a part of a resettlement programme following e.g. time in a homeless hostel or temporary accommodation; or
  6. assist with certain travelling expenses e.g. for funerals of a family member or hospital visiting.

In making a determination on a claim for a CCG the decision-maker (DM) must follow the relevant legislation (including the Social Fund Directions), and must also take account of the national and local guidance, i.e. the Social Fund Guide (SFG) and the appropriate Area Decision Maker's (ADM) guidance. [12] This approach also applies to BLs and CLs.

Budgeting loans

Budgeting loans (BLs) are intended to help those on means-tested benefits to spread the cost of intermittent expenses over a longer period. It is an interest free loan. The Social Fund Directions make clear that the purpose of the loan is to help meet intermittent expenses which the applicant has difficulty in budgeting for. [13]

The structure of the BL scheme was adjusted several times since 1988. Buck identifies four periods of policy development. [14] The key development was the move in 1999 to a so-called 'fact-based' approach. The effect of these changes in essence was to severely limit the discretion involved by DMs in making BL determinations. The changes also involved less focus on the scrutiny of the applicant's need for particular items.

Crisis loans (CLs)

Crisis loans (CLs) are intended to help those who have an urgent financial crisis; for example, in consequence of an emergency or disaster such as a fire or flood. CLs are interest free loans, but unlike BLs, there is no requirement for an applicant to be in receipt of one of the qualifying benefits. The Social Fund Directions [15] make it clear that the overall purpose of CLs is to help meet expenses in an emergency or disaster where there is no other means to prevent a serious health and safety risk to the applicant or their family.

CLs are used not only to cover specific items needed in a financial crisis, but also to cover living expenses, for example, where there has been an interruption to the usual flow of benefit income. Such payments are known as 'alignment' CLs. One significant policy development was to allow applicants to make telephone applications as an alternative to written applications in 2002. [16]

The Social Fund review

One of the reasons for the controversy surrounding the introduction of the discretionary Social Fund had been the initial plan to forego any appeal mechanism in favour of an internal management review of decision-making. During the later stages of the parliamentary passage of the legislation, the Government conceded to the increasing pressure for some kind of external, independent review, albeit one which differed from the tribunal appeal model that had been a hallmark of the British social security system since the 1930s. The Social Security Act 1986 created 'social fund inspectors' (SFIs) to undertake external reviews of the frontline 'decision-makers'(DMs) who made the initial determination on social fund applications.

Abolition of the discretionary Social Fund

The Welfare Reform Act 2012 included changes to the discretionary Social Fund to occur after April 2013. In particular:

  1. Community care grants, crisis loans and budgeting loans will be abolished.
  2. Community care grants, and crisis loans (for items and general living expenses) will be replaced by a new localised service, from April 2013. In England this service will be delivered by local authorities (See Local welfare assistance scheme). Funding is being made available to local authorities in England and to the devolved administrations to provide such assistance in their areas as they see fit [17] The funding is not 'ring-fenced' for any purpose, but the government has set out in a 'settlement letter' [18] to local authorities what it expects the funding to be used for, the underlying principles, and expected outcomes.

The arrangements for Scotland and Wales will be determined by the respective devolved Governments.

  1. Crisis loan alignment payments (and interim payments of benefit) will be replaced with a single system of short term advances.
  2. Budgeting loans will continue for people on income related benefits until they transfer to Universal Credit; and will then be abolished once Universal Credit is fully rolled out.
  3. Budgeting advances will be available to eligible recipients of Universal Credit - these will be a payment on account of benefit. This will eventually be replicated in Pension Credit.
  4. The role of the Social Fund Commissioner will be abolished at some point after April 2013. [19]

Pressure groups and welfare rights organisations have voiced major concerns about the localisation of elements of the Social Fund. As well as concerns about the lack of ring-fencing, there are doubts about whether the funding to be transferred to local authorities will be sufficient to meet the needs of people in their areas.'. [20]

Disambiguation

The Social Fund (UK) should not be confused with social funds in developing countries (sometimes also called Social Investment Fund, Social Fund for Development, Social Action Fund, National Solidarity Fund or Social Development Agency), or with the European Social Fund.

Related Research Articles

An appropriation bill, also known as supply bill or spending bill, is a proposed law that authorizes the expenditure of government funds. It is a bill that sets money aside for specific spending. In some democracies, approval of the legislature is necessary for the government to spend money.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Welfare state in the United Kingdom</span> Welfare Programs in the United Kingdom

The welfare state of the United Kingdom began to evolve in the 1900s and early 1910s, and comprises expenditures by the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland intended to improve health, education, employment and social security. The British system has been classified as a liberal welfare state system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Welfare</span> Means-oriented social benefit

Welfare, or commonly social welfare, is a type of government support intended to ensure that members of a society can meet basic human needs such as food and shelter. Social security may either be synonymous with welfare, or refer specifically to social insurance programs which provide support only to those who have previously contributed, as opposed to social assistance programs which provide support on the basis of need alone. The International Labour Organization defines social security as covering support for those in old age, support for the maintenance of children, medical treatment, parental and sick leave, unemployment and disability benefits, and support for sufferers of occupational injury.

The Fair Deal was a set of proposals put forward by U.S. President Harry S. Truman to Congress in 1945 and in his January 1949 State of the Union Address. More generally, the term characterizes the entire domestic agenda of the Truman administration, from 1945 to 1953. It offered new proposals to continue New Deal liberalism, but with a conservative coalition controlling Congress, only a few of its major initiatives became law and then only if they had considerable Republican Party support. As Richard Neustadt concludes, the most important proposals were aid to education, national health insurance, the Fair Employment Practices Commission, and repeal of the Taft–Hartley Act. They were all debated at length, then voted down. Nevertheless, enough smaller and less controversial items passed that liberals could claim some success.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Labour government, 1964–1970</span> Government of the United Kingdom

Harold Wilson was appointed Prime Minister of the United Kingdom by Queen Elizabeth II on 16 October 1964 and formed the first Wilson ministry, a Labour government, which held office with a thin majority between 1964 and 1966. In an attempt to gain a workable majority in the House of Commons, Wilson called a new election for 31 March 1966, after which he formed the second Wilson ministry, a government which held office for four years until 1970.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States federal budget</span> Budget of the U.S. federal government

The United States budget comprises the spending and revenues of the U.S. federal government. The budget is the financial representation of the priorities of the government, reflecting historical debates and competing economic philosophies. The government primarily spends on healthcare, retirement, and defense programs. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office provides extensive analysis of the budget and its economic effects. CBO estimated in February 2024 that Federal debt held by the public is projected to rise from 99 percent of GDP in 2024 to 116 percent in 2034 and would continue to grow if current laws generally remained unchanged. Over that period, the growth of interest costs and mandatory spending outpaces the growth of revenues and the economy, driving up debt. Those factors persist beyond 2034, pushing federal debt higher still, to 172 percent of GDP in 2054.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">It's Time (Australian campaign)</span> Australian political campaign

It's Time was a successful political campaign run by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) under Gough Whitlam during the 1972 federal election in Australia. Campaigning on the perceived need for change after 23 years of conservative government, Labor put forward a raft of major policy proposals, accompanied by a television advertising campaign of prominent celebrities singing a jingle entitled It's Time. It was ultimately successful, as Labor picked up eight seats and won a majority. This was the first time Labor had been in government since it lost the 1949 federal election to the Liberal Party.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Third Labour Government of New Zealand</span> Government of New Zealand, 1972–1975

The Third Labour Government of New Zealand was the government of New Zealand from 1972 to 1975. During its time in office, it carried out a wide range of reforms in areas such as overseas trade, farming, public works, energy generation, local government, health, the arts, sport and recreation, regional development, environmental protection, education, housing, and social welfare. Māori also benefited from revisions to the laws relating to land, together with a significant increase in a Māori and Island Affairs building programme. In addition, the government encouraged biculturalism and a sense of New Zealand identity. However, the government damaged relations between Pākehā and Pasifika New Zealanders by instituting the Dawn Raids on alleged overstayers from the Pacific Islands; the raids have been described as "the most blatantly racist attack on Pacific peoples by the New Zealand government in New Zealand’s history". The government lasted for one term before being defeated a year after the death of its popular leader, Norman Kirk.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mandatory spending</span> Government spending on certain programs that are required by law

The United States federal budget is divided into three categories: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and interest on debt. Also known as entitlement spending, in US fiscal policy, mandatory spending is government spending on certain programs that are required by law. Congress established mandatory programs under authorization laws. Congress legislates spending for mandatory programs outside of the annual appropriations bill process. Congress can only reduce the funding for programs by changing the authorization law itself. This normally requires a 60-vote majority in the Senate to pass. Discretionary spending on the other hand will not occur unless Congress acts each year to provide the funding through an appropriations bill.

Social security, in Australia, refers to a system of social welfare payments provided by Australian Government to eligible Australian citizens, permanent residents, and limited international visitors. These payments are almost always administered by Centrelink, a program of Services Australia. In Australia, most payments are means tested.

Social security in India includes a variety of statutory insurances and social grant schemes bundled into a formerly complex and fragmented system run by the Indian government at the federal and the state level. The Directive Principles of State Policy, enshrined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution reflects that India is a welfare state. Food security to all Indians are guaranteed under the National Food Security Act, 2013 where the government provides highly subsidised food grains or a food security allowance to economically vulnerable people. The system has since been universalised with the passing of The Code on Social Security, 2020. These cover most of the Indian population with social protection in various situations in their lives.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social security in France</span> Overview of social security in France

Social security is divided by the French government into five branches: illness; old age/retirement; family; work accident; and occupational disease. From an institutional point of view, French social security is made up of diverse organismes. The system is divided into three main Regimes: the General Regime, the Farm Regime, and the Self-employed Regime. In addition there are numerous special regimes dating from prior to the creation of the state system in the mid-to-late 1940s.

Welfare in France includes all systems whose purpose is to protect people against the financial consequences of social risks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Welfare in Finland</span> Overview of welfare in Finland

Social security or welfare in Finland is very comprehensive compared to what almost all other countries provide. In the late 1980s, Finland had one of the world's most advanced welfare systems, which guaranteed decent living conditions to all Finns. Created almost entirely during the first three decades after World War II, the social security system was an outgrowth of the traditional Nordic belief that the state is not inherently hostile to the well-being of its citizens and can intervene benevolently on their behalf. According to some social historians, the basis of this belief was a relatively benign history that had allowed the gradual emergence of a free and independent peasantry in the Nordic countries and had curtailed the dominance of the nobility and the subsequent formation of a powerful right wing. Finland's history was harsher than the histories of the other Nordic countries but didn't prevent the country from following their path of social development.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Expenditures in the United States federal budget</span> Overview of expenditures in the United States federal budget

The United States federal budget consists of mandatory expenditures, discretionary spending for defense, Cabinet departments and agencies, and interest payments on debt. This is currently over half of U.S. government spending, the remainder coming from state and local governments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Welfare Reform Act 2012</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Welfare Reform Act 2012 is an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom which makes changes to the rules concerning a number of benefits offered within the British social security system. It was enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom on 8 March 2012.

The Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) scheme is a welfare programme in Hong Kong that provides supplementary payments to Hong Kong residents whose income is not sufficient to meet basic needs.

In Switzerland a distinction is made between Social assistance in the broader sense and social assistance in the narrower sense.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social Security Scotland</span> Agency of the Scottish Government

Social Security Scotland is an executive agency of the Scottish Government with responsibility for social security provision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</span> British government minister

The Minister for Work and Pensions, or Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the House of Lords, is a junior position in the Department for Work and Pensions in the British government. It is currently held by The Viscount Younger of Leckie, who took the office on 1 January 2023.

References

  1. ↑ Welfare Reform Act 2012, ss.70-73.
  2. ↑ House of Commons Library (2012) Localisation of the Social Fund, Standard Note: SN06413, Steven Kennedy, Social policy section. Available at: Parliament website (accessed 7 November 2012).
  3. ↑ The Office of Social Fund Commissioner is also abolished in April 2013. See Welfare Reform Act 2012, s.70.
  4. ↑ See Buck,T et al (2009) The Social Fund: Law and Practice, third edition (London: Sweet & Maxwell), which contains comprehensive annotations to all the social fund directions.
  5. ↑ Green Paper: Vol.1, Reform of Social Security, HMSO, 1985. Cmnd.9517; Vol.2, Programme for Change, HMSO, 1985. Cmnd.9518; Vol.3, Background Papers, HMSO, 1985. Cmnd.9519.
  6. ↑ Reform of Social Security — Programme for Action, HMSO, 1985. Cmnd.9691.
  7. ↑ ss. 32-35.
  8. ↑ Council on Tribunals, Special Report, Social Security - Abolition of independent appeals under the proposed Social Fund, HMSO, 1986, Cmnd.9722.
  9. ↑ Social Security Act 1986, s.35.
  10. ↑ SSAC, Report on the Draft Social Fund Manual (1987).
  11. ↑ See Social Fund Direction 4
  12. ↑ The Social Fund Guide contains all the relevant Social Fund Directions and Guidance. See: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/social-fund-guide.pdf (accessed 30 November 2012).
  13. ↑ Social Fund Direction 2.
  14. ↑ See Buck,T et al. (2009) The Social Fund: Law and Practice, third edition (London: Sweet & Maxwell), pp. 126-134.
  15. ↑ Direction 3
  16. ↑ See Buck T (2009) The Social Fund: Law & Practice (London: Sweet & Maxwell), pp. 88-89.
  17. ↑ House of Commons Library (2012) Localisation of the Social Fund, Standard Note: SN06413, Steven Kennedy, Social policy section. Available at: Parliament website (accessed 7 November 2012).
  18. ↑ See < "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-10-15. Retrieved 2012-11-27.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)> (accessed 27 November 2012).
  19. ↑ IRS website: <http://www.irs-review.org.uk/sfreform/sfreform.htm> (accessed 27 November 2012).
  20. ↑ House of Commons Library (2012) Localisation of the Social Fund, Standard Note: SN06413, Steven Kennedy, Social policy section. Available at: Parliament website (accessed 7 November 2012).

Bibliography

Buck,T et al. (2009) The Social Fund: Law and Practice, third edition (London: Sweet & Maxwell).

Grover, C (2011) The social fund 20 years on: historical and policy aspects of loaning social security (Farnham: Ashgate).

Grover, C (2012) Abolishing the discretionary Social Fund: continuity and change in relieving ‘special expenses’. Journal of Social Security Law, 19 (1). pp. 12–28.

House of Commons Library (2012) Localisation of the Social Fund, Standard Note: SN06413, Steven Kennedy, Social policy section. Available at: Parliament website (accessed 7 November 2012).

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.