Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-17T12:20:22.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Take-up and the Social Fund

Applying the Concept of Take-up to a Discretionary Benefit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Meg Huby  and
Claire Whyley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Non-application to the social fund can lead to a reduction in the resources available to some of the most vulnerable members of society. This article shows how traditional models of take-up are inadequate for examining why payments from the discretionary cash-limited social fund do not always reach the people for whom the benefit was designed. Nevertheless, it is crucial to examine why non-application to the social fund denies many people even a chance of meeting their needs. A new model of take-up is proposed that widens the debate beyond the level of claimant behaviour, allowing non-application to the social fund to be looked at as a variant of non-take-up. It provides a framework for examining the influence of structural and administrative factors on social fund application rates and highlights the extent to which policy makers and legislators play a part in non-application.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

REFERENCES

Altman, R. (1981), Take Up of Supplementary Benefit by Male Pensioners, ESRC Programme on taxation. Incentives and the Distribution of Income, Discussion Paper 25, London School of Economics, London.Google Scholar
Barnado's, (1990), Missing the Target, Barnado's, Essex.Google Scholar
Becker, S. and Silburn, R. (1990), The New Poor Clients, Community Care/Benefits Research Unit, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Bennett, F. (1989), ‘The social fund in context’, in Craig, G. (ed.). Your Flexible Friend, Social Security Research Consortium, London.Google Scholar
Berthoud, R. (1991), ‘The Social Fund – is it working?’ Policy Studies, 12: 1, 4–24.Google Scholar
Blundell, R., V and Walker, I. (1987), Modelling the Take-Up of Means-tested Benefits: the Case of Housing Benefits in the UK, Institute of Fiscal Studies, London.Google Scholar
Buckland, S. and Dawson, P. (1989), ‘Household claiming behaviour’, Social Policy and Administration, 23: 1, 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camden Welfare Rights (1988), Report on the Social Fund, London Borough of Camden.Google Scholar
Cleveland County Council (1989), For Richer? For Poorer?, Cleveland County Council.Google Scholar
Cmnd 9518 (1985), Reform of Social Security: Programme for Change, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Cm 2447 (1993), Annual Report by the Secretary of State for Social Security on the Social Fund 1992–93, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Cohen, R., Coxall, J., Craig, G. and Sadiq-Sangster, A. (1992), Hardship Britain, Child Poverty Action Group, London.Google Scholar
Corden, A. (1983), Taking Up a Means Tested Benefit, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Corden, A. (1987), Disappointed Applicants, Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Corden, A. and Craig, P. (1991), Perceptions of Family Credit, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Cowell, F. A. (1986), Welfare Benefits and the Economics of Take Up, ESRC Programme on Taxation, Incentives and the Distribution of Income, Discussion Paper 89, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Craig, G. (1992), Replacing the Social Fund: A Strategy for Reform, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.Google Scholar
Craig, P. (1991), ‘Costs and benefits: a review of research on the take up of means-related benefits’, Journal of Social Policy, 20: 4, 537–65.Google Scholar
Dalley, G. and Berthoud, R. (1992), Challenging Discretion: The Social Fund Review Procedure, Policy Studies Institute, London.Google Scholar
Davies, C. and Ritchie, J. (1988), Tipping the Balance, DHSS, London.Google Scholar
Deacon, A. and Bradshaw, J. (1983), Reserved for the Poor: The Means Test in British Social Policy, Martin Robertson, Oxford.Google Scholar
Evason, E., Allanby, L. and Woods, R., (1989), The Deserving and Undeserving Poor – The Social Fund in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Child Poverty Action Group, Belfast.Google Scholar
Fry, V. and Stark, G. (1987), ‘The take-up of supplementary benefit: gaps in the safety net’, Fiscal Studies, 8, 1–14.Google Scholar
Graham, G. (1984), Take-up of FIS: Knowledge, Attitudes, Experience – Claimants and Non-claimants, Public Policy Research Unit, Stormont.Google Scholar
Huby, M. (1992), ‘The social fund managing budgets, meeting needs?’ in Corden, A., Robertson, E. and Tolley, K. (eds.), Meeting Needs in an Affluent Society, Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Huby, M. (1995a), ‘Community Care and the Social Fund’, forthcoming in Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 6: 1.Google Scholar
Huby, M. (1995b), ‘Loans and low incomes: lessons from the Social Fund’, Social Policy, Research Unit Working Paper JRF1066, University of York.Google Scholar
Huby, M. and Dix, G. (1992), Evaluating the Social Fund, DSS Research Report No. 9, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Kerr, S. (1982), ‘Deciding about supplementary pensions: a provisional model’. Journal of Social Policy, 11: 4, 505–17.Google Scholar
Lister, R. (1974), Take Up of Means Tested Benefits – Poverty Pamphlet No. 18, Child Poverty Action Group, London.Google Scholar
London Research Centre (1989), The DSS Social Fund, London Borough Grants Committee.Google Scholar
Marsh, A. and McKay, S. (1993), Families, Work and Benefits, Policy Studies Institute, London.Google Scholar
Moffit, R. (1980), ‘Participation in the AFCD programme and the stigma of welfare receipt’, Southern Economic Journal, 47: 3, 753–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffit, R. (1983), ‘An economic model of welfare stigma’, American Economic Review, 73: 5, 1023–35.Google Scholar
National Consumer Council (1976), Means Tested Benefits, National Consumer Council, London.Google Scholar
Rhodes, L. (1989), Rock Bottom, Hartlepool Welfare Rights Group.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. and England, J. (1989), The Hackney Benefit Study, Social and Community Planning Research, London.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. and Matthews, A. (1982), Take-up of Rent Allowances: An In-depth Study, Social and Community Planning Research, London.Google Scholar
Smith, R. (1990). Under the Breadline, The Children's Society, London.Google Scholar
Social Security Advisory Committee (1992), The Social Fund – A New Structure, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Social Security Research Consortium (1991), Cash Limited – Limited Cash, Association of Metropolitan Authorities, London.Google Scholar
Stewart, G. and Stewart, J. (1991), Relieving Poverty, Association of Metropolitan Authorities, London.Google Scholar
Stewart, G., Stewart, J. and Walker, C. (1989), The Social Fund, Association of County Councils, London.Google Scholar
Strauss, R. P. (1977), ‘Information and participation in a public transfer programme’, Journal of Public Economics, 8, 385–96.Google Scholar
Van Oorschot, W. (1991), ‘Non-take up of social security benefits in Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy, 1: 1, 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R., Dix, G. and Huby, M. (1991), ‘How social fund officers make decisions’, in Carter, P., Jeffs, T. and Smith, K. (eds.), Social Work and Social Welfare Yearbook 1990, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Walker, R., Dix, G. and Huby, M. (1992), Working the Social Fund, DSS Research Report No. 8, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Weisbrod, B. A. (1970), On the Stigma Effect and Demand for Welfare Programmes – A Theoretical Note, Institute for Research on Poverty, Discussion paper 82–70, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar