Social Fund (Hansard, 16 February 1989)

§ Mr. Peter Lloyd

The document to which the hon. Member refers is, in fact, an internal management communication which is not normally intended to be in the public domain. Its purpose is to give information to local office managers.

The text of the document is as follows: You will be aware that the take up of Community Care Grants (CCGs) nationally has been lower than anticipated. Both statistical information and a significant level of feedback from regions and local offices indicate a variety of reasons for this but three in particular stand out. They are:

a lack of co-operation from statutory and voluntary agencies;
instances of rigid interpretation of the guidance which itself gives an impression of rigidity by its phraseology; insufficient publicity.

I am now writing to seek your co-operation and help in taking action to encourage take up of CCGs. Clearly the situation varies from office to office and it is for you to decide 334W what action needs to be taken locally. The information and guidance in the following paragraphs is designed to assist you in that task. Despite the widely publicised controversy which has surrounded the Social Fund it is evident that many statutory and voluntary agencies remain unclear as to the potential of the CCG scheme for helping their clients. It is also the case that attitudes towards the Social Fund within Social Services and Social Work Departments are changing or show signs of doing so. With these points in mind your local liaison arrangements should be reviewed to see where existing contacts might be strengthened or expanded or links established with new groups or those who have rejected previous approaches. Liaison must be an ongoing exercise. The scope for launching further initiatives aimed specifically at other organisations should also be explored. These could include the Home Help Service, Health Visitors, Age Concern, Housing Associations involved in resettlement work as well as other agencies which represent people in Community Care Priority Groups. Such initiatives might include talks by LINOs¹, SFOs² or local management. Alternatively, approaches might include letters outlining the Social Fund to the range of local organisations. Visitiing officers should also be aware of the potential help available from the Social Fund. Recent HEO³SF seminars have emphasised the need for flexibility in interpreting guidance rather than rigid adherence to it as a set of rules. Clearly a consistent approach to decision making is required but within the parameters of that consistency, flexibility in the interpretation should be applied to individual cases where this is justified on the particular circumstances. Work is currently under way to clarify the guidance in Part 6 of the SFM⁴ and an amendment is likely to be published early in 1989 which will reflect the required approach. The revision of Part 6 will also provide further guidance on the intention behind Direction 4(a)(ii) that a CCG may be awarded to help prevent people going into institutional care rather than simply an immediate threat of entering care. This is in line with the principal aim of the CCG scheme of helping applicants to enable them to live as independent a life as possible in the community. I would be grateful if you could ensure that SFOs and HEOs are made aware of this clarification to the guidance. You will wish to know that HQ are currently examining the adequacy of present publicity arrangements and considering what additional measures might be taken to advertise the availability of CCGs and so encourage take-up.'

¹ Local Information Officers.
² Social Fund Officers.
³ Higher Executive Officer.
⁴ Social Fund Manual.