When people think of the welfare state, their mind normally turns to central government. Centrally provided social security support – including pensions, disability support and out-of-work benefits – makes up the bulk of both social welfare expenditure and academic research on the welfare state.
In recent years, therefore, analyses have tended to focus on centralising reforms: the government’s flagship ‘Universal Credit’ policy – the subject of a recent policy briefing elsewhere on Transforming Society – is a totemic example of a large-scale social security programme, delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions.
However, this centrally designed and administered social security support is increasingly working in tandem with smaller-scale, local-level provision. From help with Council Tax and rent to subsidy payments for food or utilities, the centralisation of social security support has taken place in parallel with Local Authorities’ assuming greater responsibility – albeit on a much smaller scale in cash terms – for providing support to households in their areas.
Our recent research focuses on one key area of discretionary support designed and administered at this local level: the ‘Household Support Fund’ (HSF). Although few members of the public would recognise it by name, the scheme provides £1 billion of support via Local Authorities each year. Across most areas, it is responsible for supporting free school meal provision outside of term time, dispensing welfare benefits and debt advice (through contracts with organisations such as Citizens Advice) and providing everything from white goods, electric blankets, food parcels or air fryers to low-income households.
At the time of writing, the future of the HSF is in doubt. The current tranche of funding is due to run out on 31 March, a matter of weeks after the scheduled 6 March budget. The government has reiterated that “no further decisions have been taken on the Household Support Fund”. Reflecting widespread concern about the future of HSF, a wide coalition of stakeholders is now calling on the government not only to end the uncertainty but also to extend the life of the HSF. These stakeholders include the Local Government Association, London Councils, political leaders across Greater Manchester, The Co-operative Party, Citizens Advice and Barnardo’s – to name but a few.
Our research demonstrates that the HSF has become a lifeline for low-income families, especially those who fall through the cracks of the cost-of-living support provided by the mainstream benefits system. However, our data – based on interviews with 12 Local Authorities – underscores two further important issues.
In the face of welfare benefits failing to keep pace with people’s cost of living, networks of local third-sector organisations – such as advice sector organisations, foodbanks, local charities and so on – are playing an increasingly important role in helping people make ends meet. Previous research has underscored how these organisations are important ‘mediators’ – helping people make applications or sustain entitlement for centrally administered support.
However, our data identified how closely Local Authorities were working with these organisations – often contracting them to provide additional services or even, in some cases, to offer direct support (such as food vouchers) themselves on behalf of the Local Authority. In an environment where third-sector organisations are working in an increasingly pressured environment – both in terms of their finances and demands on their services – the HSF is an important cash injection into these local ecosystems of support. Eliminating it will not only remove the direct support it provides to households but will also have significant ripple effects across the third sector as a whole.
Across its few years of history, the HSF has been subject to ‘last-minute’ renewals before. Despite briefings received by Local Authorities that the fund’s closure was imminent, it has been renewed three times (generally for six-month periods) and is now in its fourth wave. This hokey-cokey over future renewal is not just frustrating for households who rely on its support, but it has far-reaching administrative consequences for the Local Authorities tasked with provision.
Even if the government were to renew the fund tomorrow, it is too late to avoid some of these consequences. Staff employed at the expense of HSF face uncertain futures or will look for work elsewhere; contracts with third-sector organisations (themselves employing staff to administer HSF funds) need to be renewed or wound down; and plans will have to be made for distributing often millions of pounds’ worth of support within each locality. All of this comes at a time when Local Authorities are setting their budgets for the next year in the face of huge financial pressures. Procrastinating on the future of the fund causes its own problems.
Going forward, we argue that the role of local welfare provision needs to be put on a more sustainable footing. The evidence in our research suggests that predictable, properly funded, exceptional expenses provision provided at the local level could be a valuable component of the UK welfare state – but only alongside a sufficient mainstream social entitlement that helps to support households to meet their basic needs. These funds are not and cannot be a panacea for a deficient social security system, but the reality of the important role they play – both in people’s lives and in supporting the local welfare ecosystem – needs to be recognised by policy makers.
Kit Colliver is a Research Associate in the York Law School. Jed Meers is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of York. John Hudson is a Professor of Social Policy and Academic Director of the University of York’s policy engagement unit The York Policy Engine. Neil Lunt is Professor of Social Policy and Associate Dean (Internationalisation) at the School for Business and Society at the University of York.
Sticking plaster support: the Household Support Fund and localised assistance in the UK welfare state by Jed Meers, Kit Colliver, John Hudson, and Neil Lunt is available open access on Bristol University Press Digital.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount on our books – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Bristol University Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: Pavel Neznanov on Unsplash