Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act Regulations and Guidance consultation

General Concerns

On reading the consultation, our overwhelming impression is that the creation of regulations and guidance, along with the ongoing running of the Fund, is focussed on administrative convenience rather than the needs of applicants. The focus seems to be on minimising difficulties for local authorities e.g. how grants are paid; the lack of a statutory requirement for local authorities to provide statistical returns and potentially providing set parameters for assessing low income. In our view, this is a worrying precedent which does not place applicants and those awarded grants at the centre of the Fund.   We raised concerns about this in previous briefings as the Act made its way through Parliament. The Fund might be regarded as a foundation stone of a Scottish Social Security system; as such it must be built on the principle of supporting and empowering people to live well, with dignity and respect.  A culture of entitlement - and not paternalism – is needed. It is vital that we start to use this kind of language and approach from the outset, starting with the Fund. In a meeting with officials recently, the option of looking at how the guidance was worded to encourage a more compassionate culture was discussed and the sector has offered its support in this regard.

Limiting access to grants

Our first concern relates to the suggestion that there should be further limitations on the number of times that a Crisis Grant (CG) or Community Care Grant (CCG) can be awarded. We support submissions from Inclusion Scotland and other third sector bodies which argue that attempts to do this could potentially discriminate against women and people with disabilities. Setting an arbitrary limit on the number of awards risks this becoming the norm; i.e. regardless of need, individuals and families could be turned away because they have had the maximum number of awards.  The Fund should be based on the principle of need, not on budget protection which seems to be a key driver behind its operation at the moment. Furthermore, limiting access to grants belies the situation facing many families – continued cost of living pressures; current and future benefit and tax credit cuts and women wanting to work but not being able to access it.  Indeed the Fund statistics for 2013/14 show that it is increasingly being used by families to help them fulfil the most basic of needs - food, heat etc. The under-spend within the Fund is concerning given this context. Limiting access to the fund is a blunt instrument, and also one which judges families in a pejorative way.  This consultation seems to take as a given, an assumption that some people who are unsettled are getting more out of the Fund than they might deserve – on what evidence is this based? Instead, we should be working collectively to understand why there are repeat applications to the Fund; why existing safety nets are failing these individuals and families; what issues within our economy and wider society are pushing families into such dire need.  When 11% of Crisis Grant claimants do not appear to be claiming any key benefits, it brings families to our attention who may previously have been unknown to statutory services, and who may be in need of further assistance. Even with the underspend in the Fund this year, we still think it is likely that the Scottish Government may need to increase the amount invested in the Fund in future, if the planned £12 billion of cuts included the Welfare Reform and Work Bill go ahead.

Assessing low income

The third sector would argue strongly against the setting of an arbitrary income limit for similar reasons to those outlined above.   In doing so, we are likely to exclude e.g. families who may be in work but struggling with daily costs for a range of reasons.  In helping them to access the Fund, it may be we can identify further support needed to help them cope better – e.g. signposting to income maximisation.

Application form

Whatever format is chosen for the application, simplicity and accessibility are paramount. Again, the Fund is the benchmark for how we implement future benefits for disabled people and carers. We want to raise a specific concern with Part 2 of the form, which states that applicants must be on qualifying benefits in order to be eligible for a grant. This is not what existing guidance says, nor should the permanent Fund change to exclude those facing financial challenges but who are not in receipt of benefits, for whatever reason. Excluding those who may not be on qualifying benefits may prevent some from accessing necessary preventative support.

Prevention

The preventative nature of the Fund must be recognised within the guidance and regulations – more discretion and wiser awards may prevent families from having to reapply for support if the right equipment, furniture etc., is provided first time, rather than supplying “standard” equipment because it is cheaper. In addition, as in-work poverty reaches into more households, the Fund will be a final safety net for more families in future.  It may be that one award is enough to ensure a family doesn't reach complete breakdown or crisis e.g. unpaid carers accessing a CCG can help them to maintain their caring role/cope with a range of issues which might otherwise require more expensive statutory intervention.

Families facing exceptional pressure

During the passage of the Act, we shared the concern expressed by number of third sector organisations e.g. Child Poverty Action Group Scotland and Carers Scotland about exclusion of families under pressure from the face of the legislation. We are not clear how the Scottish Government is able to include a regulation on families under pressure when there is nothing on the face of the Act that acknowledges this group. There is some concern that the regulations may not do enough to deal with this concern, given the limitations within the existing Section 30 order and it is not clear that relevant clauses within the Scotland Bill will help.  We welcome, however, Scottish Government commitments to work with the third sector to ensure we get the regulations right. There will be a number of different pressures which combine to push a family to need crisis support or a Community Care Grant – it will be helpful to have practical examples within the regulations and guidance which help local authority staff better understand the challenges faced by many families in this current climate. There are key groups more likely to face financial difficulties, including lone parents, people with disabilities, unpaid carers etc. The number of families which could be classed as being under “exceptional pressure” is likely to increase with the proposed changes to Universal Credit work allowances and tax credits. How we prepare for that is wider than the operation of the Welfare Fund, but it has an important part to play as the safety net of last resort. We must work collectively to prepare for the planned cuts to understand how the Fund will be affected but also to identify other mitigating measures.

Award fulfilment

We support Inclusion Scotland’s response to this question.  We believe that cash should always be the default option, with the applicant’s needs and preferences taken into account. It is purely for administrative convenience that many local authorities do not offer a cash option – in our view, this is unacceptable.  We must also be aware that in some areas, alternatives to cash may well single out successful applicants in a way which is incredibly stigmatising. We welcome the approaches by some local authorities which give clients cash and in some cases make it as easy as possible for applicants to access support; some also offer cash as the default option. The central procurement of goods remains a concern. As we pointed out in previous consultation responses, this may actually cost more in the long run if the quality of goods is not good and applicants have to return to the Fund again. Choice is key and the regulations and guidance must reflect the will of the Parliament on this – cash should be the default.  We must ensure the dignity principle included within the Act is a central part of the regulations and guidance.

Excluded items

We have some concerns that excluding private property adaptations from the Fund may well leave some families struggling to maintain a home or a settled life.  Being a home owner does not preclude financial difficulty. Where there is no access to other funds to help achieve a suitable adaptation for someone with a disability, the Welfare Fund may be able to help. The list of excluded items must not be extended.

Vulnerabilities

There appears to be a continued issue with local authorities failing to record detail on the specific needs of applicants, including “vulnerabilities”. More effective recording of the challenges faced by applicants and the reasons for their application would enable us to understand if other sources of support for such groups have failed, and why they have had to resort to applying to the Welfare Fund. We must recognise that the data held by the Fund potentially provides us with a deeper understanding of the specific barriers and difficulties being experienced by individuals and families across Scotland.  That information will be invaluable as we prepare to take on responsibilities for new benefits as it covers a significant number of individuals and households. We believe that local authorities must be required to complete all necessary data on applications to help us build up a clearer picture of why people are facing crisis or having to apply for help to remain in their community. Such a requirement should feature in the regulations.

Wider issues

Transparency– There remains a lack of transparency (and therefore accountability) about the criteria used by local authorities to determine the urgency or priority attached to an application to the Fund. It is not clear how the regulations will help with this. Reducing reporting requirements: The proposal to reduce the frequency of reporting on the performance of the Fund is concerning the third sector on a number of fronts:

• The majority of local authorities have underspent their allocation; the wider underspend is significant and unacceptable given the current challenges facing many individuals and families.
• There is still significant under reporting of client need and vulnerability. This data is important if we are to understand some of the factors driving people to use the Fund.

Other third sector concerns raised are often long standing issues with which the Scottish Government is familiar.  At a joint session with government officials and sector representatives earlier this month, the main concerns raised were:

• The holistic approach which is meant to drive the Fund’s operation is missing still – repeat applications suggest wider challenges faced by families. What does the data tell us about families repeatedly facing crisis or needing help with basic living costs?
• Culture and attitude of staff - there seems to be a focus on “protecting budgets” and unit costs when we are dealing with people’s lives.
• The need to re-emphasise the often preventative nature of the Fund.
• People are loathe to apply because it is run by local authorities – there can be a deep lack of trust.
• There is a real lack of consistency in decision making even within the same local authority area. People are not assessed consistently and those with similar needs may find themselves at the receiving end of different decisions.
• Applicants are caught between different departments in a local authority when looking for help with adaptations or basic equipment.  Where one budget won’t provide, people are pushed towards the SWF (sometimes by council staff). This raises questions about how local authorities operate more widely. There are wider policy and funding issues here which the Fund is serving to highlight.
• Impact of signposting applicants on stretched local third sector services; in some cases there has been no planning or involvement of these organisations in shaping the Fund locally or in developing clear referral pathways to ensure people are offered holistic support.
• Staff sticking rigidly to scripts and not using discretion.
• Gatekeeping – intentionally or not, people being weeded out before they get to application stage. Some families could benefit from support, but are discouraged from applying.

A number of actions were flagged up to the Scottish Government to help tackle some of these ongoing challenges, including:

• Further awareness raising/training for staff to develop judgement/assessment of need, discretion. Helping decision makers to better understand the wider needs and experiences of potential applicants e.g. lone parents; people with disabilities; better understanding the pressures faced by those on low incomes.
• Changes to language in guidance – to encourage better attitudes, use of discretion etc. Using a more positive tone and language which focuses more on applicants’ needs, not budgets.  Encourage staff to ask applicants how they want awards fulfilled.
• Getting the third sector involved in monitoring meetings at local authority level – organisations will be covered by the same data protection conditions as the local authority.
• Creating more local networks to bring together expertise on welfare reform.
• Ensuring applicants are supported to access other help e.g. income maximisation.
• Work more closely with third sector experts such the Scottish Refugee Council, Women’s Centres and others to ensure we get the regulations right.

Conclusion

This Fund is a foundation stone for a Scottish social security system. As we prepare for new powers to be devolved via the Scotland Bill, we need more than rhetoric. The Scottish Government has consistently expressed a desire to create a more compassionate benefits system which is: “…fair, transparent and sympathetic to the challenges faced by people …, respecting personal dignity, equality and human rights." It is welcome that Ministers are changing the language in public announcements and speeches, focussing on social security and not "welfare". Our concern about the Welfare Fund – mirrored in the views and submissions of members and partners – is that this changing dialogue is not filtering down into policy. The third sector remains committed to working with the Scottish Government to ensure the Fund is operating effectively and works with (not against) individuals and families in need.

Contact:

Lynn Williams Policy Officer Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Mansfield Traquair Centre, 15 Mansfield Place, Edinburgh EH3 6BB Email: lynn.williams@scvo.scot Tel: 0141 559 5036/07771 666429 Web: www.scvo.scot

About us

The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) is the national body representing the third sector.There are over 45,000 voluntary organisations in Scotland involving around 138,000 paid staff and approximately 1.3 million volunteers. The sector manages an income of £4.9 billion. SCVO works in partnership with the third sector in Scotland to advance our shared values and interests. We have over 1,600 members who range from individuals and grassroots groups, to Scotland-wide organisations and intermediary bodies. As the only inclusive representative umbrella organisation for the sector SCVO:

• has the largest Scotland-wide membership from the sector – our 1,600 members include charities, community groups, social enterprises and voluntary organisations of all shapes and sizes
• our governance and membership structures are democratic and accountable - with an elected board and policy committee from the sector, we are managed by the sector, for the sector
• brings together organisations and networks connecting across the whole of Scotland

SCVO works to support people to take voluntary action to help themselves and others, and to bring about social change. Further details about SCVO can be found at www.scvo.scot