Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:08:09.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rent Benefits and Tenants' Attitudes. The Batley Rent Rebate and Allowance Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Peter F. Taylor-Gooby
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses a study of the factors affecting rent rebate and allowance take-up carried out by Batley Community Development Project. The scope and limitations of an action-research approach in monitoring the impact of publicity, and the importance of attitudinal explanations of the take-up of means-tested benefits are discussed.

The research shows that take-up is relatively low, especially in the case of private tenants, and little affected by experimental publicity. Take-up cannot be explained as a simple function of publicity initiatives. Complex attitudinal factors only disclosed in depth-interview affect the impact, relevance and credibility of campaigns. Such factors, and particularly stigma, are likely to limit the potential of publicity for raising the take-up of rent benefits.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 1976 , pp. 33 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hansard, , Standing Committee E Reports, col. 1012, 27 01 1972.Google Scholar

2 Hansard, , Standing Committee E Reports, col. 751, 20 01 1972.Google Scholar

3 First Report of the Advisory Committee on Rent rebates and Rent Allowances, London: HMSO, 1974, pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

4 Home Office press release, 2 12 1971.Google Scholar

5 Banks, J., ‘The Role of Central Government’, in Lapping, A. (ed.), Community Action, Fabian Tract 400, 1969, p. 5.Google Scholar

6 Bradshaw, J., ‘Research Design for Batley C.D.P. Welfare Rights Project, York University, 1972, unpublished.Google Scholar

7 Rein, M., ‘Community Action in America’Google Scholar, in Lapping, A., op. cit., p. 13Google Scholar. Cf. Lees, R., ‘Action-research in Community Development’, Journal of Social Policy, 1973, vol. 2, no. 3, for a similar argument in an English setting.Google Scholar

8 Marris, P., ‘Experimenting in Social Reform’, Jones, D. and Mayo, M. (eds), Community Work One, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974, p. 252.Google Scholar

9 Cf. Goffman's distinction between ‘discredit’ and ‘discreditability’, in Goffman, E., Stigma, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968, p. 14.Google Scholar

10 Financial and Other Circumstances of Retirement Pensioners, London: HMSO, 1966, Table III, 21.Google Scholar

11 Meacher, M., Child Poverty Action Group, Rate Rebates, 1972, Section 4.Google Scholar

12 Kay, S., Problems of Accepting Means-tested Benefits', in Bull, D. (ed.). Family Poverty, London: Duckworth, 1971, pp. 29–32.Google Scholar

13 Christopher, A. et al. , London: Institute for Economic Affairs, Policy for Poverty, 1970, p. 80.Google Scholar

14 Pinker, R., Social Theory and Social Policy, London: Heinemann, 1971, p. 84.Google Scholar

15 Cf. Goffman's discussion of the effect of ‘failure at maintaining norms’ on the ‘psychological integrity of the individual’, op. cit., ch. 4, esp. pp. 152–5.Google Scholar

16 Op. cit., pp. 157–60Google Scholar. Cf. the discussion of gifting in Titmuss, R., The Gift Relationship, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970, ch. 5.Google Scholar

17 Malinowski writes: ‘the man who would persistently disobey the rulings of this law (of mutuality) in his economic dealings would soon find himself outside the social and economic order’ of savage society. Crime and Custom in Savage Society, New York: Paul Trench and Trubner, 1962, pp. 39–45Google Scholar. Cf. the authoritative discussion of agonistic exchange in Mauss, M., The Gift, New York: Cohen and West, 1966.Google Scholar

18 Levi-Strauss, C., The Elementary Structures of Kinship, London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1969, p. 52.Google Scholar

19 CDP is ‘a neighbourhood-based experiment aimed at finding new ways of meeting the needs of people living in areas of high social deprivation’, Home Secretary's announcement of CDP project, quoted in CDP Information and Intelligence Unit, Interproject Report, 1973, p. 1.Google Scholar

20 Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organisations, Parsons, T. (ed.), New York: Collier-Macmillan, 1964, pp. 101–2Google Scholar

21 Necessary because the allowance scheme for private tenants was not introduced until Jan. 1973.

22 The textile industry employed 30 per cent of the heads of households interviewed. Transport – the next biggest employer – accounted for only 6 per cent.

23 Department of Employment Gazette, 02 1975, p. 158.Google Scholar

24 The screening survey showed average council rents in the area to be £3.

25 Page, D. et al. , Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Birmingham Rent Rebate and Allowance Study, Birmingham, 1974, Table 4.Google Scholar

26 The idea of an advice centre may have had exceptional salience in the minds of respondents because of the success of the Advice Centre for Tenants, sponsored by the CDP, but independent from the Welfare Rights Project. This had had sufficient impact to become the central issue in a dispute between the CDP and its management committee that originated in October 1973. Cf. Edginton, J., ‘The Batley Battle’, New Society, 5 09 1974.Google Scholar

27 Runciman, W. G., Relative Deprivation and Social Justice, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968, ch. 2, esp. pp. 12–20.Google Scholar

28 Blaxter, M., ‘Health on the Welfare’, Journal of Social Policy, 1974, vol. 3, p. 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar