Food and Shelter

Not surprisingly the approach of Christmas gets many of us contemplating the plight of people less fortunate than ourselves. Food and shelter are two of the most basic of needs and it should be of concern to us all that the continuing economic situation is leading to an increase in people's difficulty in obtaining both.

In a nation brought up under the auspices of a welfare system introduced after the Second World War and designed to banish the 5 evils famously outlined by Beveridge in his 1942 report, I think it takes some getting used to. After all we all know that the welfare bill has grown exponentially and certain newspapers continually tell us that there are apparently many millions of people living quite well on state benefits. 

The coalition government endlessly state that the system has become unaffordable at present levels of entitlement and 'reforms' have begun. As a result the police are already reporting changes in shoplifting patterns. For years the main driver for shop theft has been the need for people to fund illicit drug dependency with high value items typically being stolen in order to sell for cash. Now however there is increasing evidence of essential food items being stolen such as baby milk.

I well remember a similar situation during the miners strike in 1984 when theft of coal became significant in order for many striking families to keep warm. People placed under extreme pressure will feel obliged to commit acquisitive crime in order to provide either for themselves or their families. Not all of course, but each person's situation will be different and as during the miners strike, thankfully communities will often rally round and try and provide food and shelter. It's no accident that food banks have sprung up all over the country in recent time and use of them has seen a dramatic rise.

The recent BBC 1 Panorama programme on the increase of homelessness served to reinforce the anecdotal evidence from food banks that quite ordinary people are increasingly coming under extreme economic stress. Working families on low wages are finding it hard to feed, heat and clothe everyone, parents are often missing meals and feel ashamed at having to turn to charity in the form of food handouts. But this is becoming the grim reality for many people on low incomes caught up in the economic downturn and having to cope with that meagre income reducing, as costs continue to rise inexorably.

As the Panorama programme highlighted in graphic detail, eviction and homelessness can befall any of us as a result of a series of tragic, unfortunate or unforeseen events. Ok poor judgement and unwise decisions can play a part too, but increasingly homelessness is going to affect more 'ordinary' people as businesses go bust, mortgages are foreclosed and illness or tragic accidents strike. It's usually the combination of factors that serve to compound a person's situation such as negative equity, relationship breakdown, ill-health or just very bad luck.

If we are not careful we may see a rise in very old-fashioned and insidious notions of a distinction being drawn between the deserving and undeserving. Of course probation has always been involved with the 'have-nots' in society and traditionally have always tried to do their level best to try and redress matters, make amends or ameliorate in some way. 

Our ability to act has been seriously curtailed of course with the demise of befriending funds and other practical help that used to be dispensed such as clothing and food. But I'm beginning to hear stories of spontaneous officer-initiated charitable distribution schemes of food in some offices. It seems like our social work ethos may just be about to be re-invented by newer colleagues feeling somewhat uneasy about how things have been going in recent times.        

False Choices

We supposedly live in a world where choice is deemed to be 'a good thing'. In fact successive governments have made choice in public services such as housing, health and education absolute top priorities in their political pitch to the electorate. All this in addition to the consumer choices that have increased exponentially during my lifetime and since the end of the Second World War. Personally I've never been that impressed with significant amounts of choice and suspect many other people may feel the same, but that might merely be a reflection of our age and nostalgic memories.

In addition to politicians feeling that choice is what the public want, there has been an increasingly politically correct view about 'choice' and this impinges directly upon our client group. The ethos seems to be that all citizens should be treated as being essentially responsible and should be trusted and encouraged to make decisions for themselves and that those choices will be in their own best interests. In essence the view is that we should move away from an essentially paternalistic approach by the state to one of enabling instead. Now, like many social policies, it sounds great in theory, but the effect in practice is often quite different, leads to unintended consequences, but worst of all some might be deemed as just plain cynical because they involve hidden agendas. 

Following on from the whole 'Community Care' agenda in the 1990's which many would say was simply about saving money, another cynical example I would cite is the current trend to give people with Learning Disabilities control and choice about their care as part of Personalised Care Budgets. Under this system, staying with the status quo is not one of the choices on offer and yet many individuals would choose that option if it were available. They don't want change and cannot comprehend all the factors involved in making alternative care decisions. Many lack true capacity to understand fully, and even with careful and professional mentoring, the whole process is really just about saving money, but dressed up as delivering 'more choice'. 

It will be patently obvious to any probation officer that many of our clients are often in trouble and have great difficulty resolving their chaotic lives precisely because they are not very good at making decisions and quite often make the wrong decisions. I have lost track of the number of times in a PSR I have used the phrase 'Mr X has clearly not acted in his own best interests' in a PSR. It is often astonishing and depressing when we learn of a clients spending decisions when they have so little money by virtue of living on State Benefits. Now I appreciate that this is dangerous territory for someone who is middle class and has always been reasonably well off and it is not my intention to conjure up the stereotypical tabloid image of flat screen TV's, fags and booze. All these might well be deemed important for individuals with little other cheer in their life. I think it's much more fundamental and one reason why programmes like Enhanced Thinking Skills are so important for many of our clients.

But as a society, why do we compound the problems facing so many clients and feel it's sensible or fair to set many of them up to fail by giving choices such as that relating to Housing Benefit? At present it is not possible to elect to have Housing Benefit paid direct to a private landlord, until at least 8 weeks arrears of rent have accrued. I feel this is such a cruel situation to put many clients in when many have difficulty with managing a budget on a restricted income. Having the money paid direct into a personal bank account when they are quite likely to be facing other competing financial demands such as utilities and food is going to add considerably more stress and temptation to an already difficult situation. They may well have money owing to dodgy local money lenders who often threaten violence for repayment and who could blame someone for giving that priority over rent payments? For our clients, it almost seems to be a system designed specifically to encourage debt to build up. Quite understandably it annoys landlords and does nothing to increase the pool of properties available to clients. Indeed it simply serves to encourage many to turn claimants away.

I find it particularly galling from a politically correct point of view to see that Social Landlords have very recently won reversal of the decision to pay their tenants direct under the proposed new Universal Benefit coming into effect in 2013. I notice they didn't complain that tenants might not be trusted to hand the money over, rather they were concerned that it "would jeopardise the stable income they receive from housing benefit". Now just how disingenuous is that?