Squeezing the Social Fund: Aggravation and Advocacy
| Published date | 01 September 1990 |
| Date | 01 September 1990 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/026455059003700307 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
131
Squeezing
the
Social
Fund:
Aggravation
and
Advocacy
The
Social
Fund
has
been
operating
since
1988,
following
the
abolition
of
entitlement
to
Single
Needs
Payments.
NAPO,
supported
by
ACOP,
provided
guidance
to
members
on
dealing
with
the
discretionary,
loan-based
and
cash-
limited
new
scheme.
Gill
Stewart,
John
Stewart,
Moira
Peelo
and
Ann
Prior
of
Lancaster
University
assess
how
the
guidance
and
the
Social
Fund
itself
have
worked
in
practice.
~a
P~~~ y
&dquo;¢
~F
~ .
~
g
pE
i ,
,y
.
he
stated
principles
of
NA.pO’s
guidance’
were
that :
’Responsibility
for
providing
income
ma~
tenance
rests
with
the
DHSS
and
not
with
other
agencies
such
as
the
Probation
Service ...
Clients’
own
definition
of
their
needs
is
para-
mount...
Confidential
information
must
not
be
passed
on
to
the
DHSS
without
specific
instructions
from
the
client ...
Probation
officers
hive
a
responsibility
to
offer
independent
ad-
vice,
assistance
and
advocacy
to
clients
affected
by
the
Social
Fund.’
This
meant :
’Not
sharing
responsibility
for
the
management
of
the
Social
Fund
with
the
DHSS
and
adopting
the
role
of
determined
advocate
acting
on
behalf
of
clients.’
To continue reading
Request your trial