Download (3223Kb) - White Rose Research Online

EXECUTJVE SUMMARY
Introduction Local authorities have a range ofdiscretioniary powers which can he used
in the administration of Housing Benefit This study evaluates authorities
use of discretioiiarv powers in making exceptional hardship payments to
claimants whose Housing Benefit does not cover the i~ostof their rent
(under regulations iii force since January 1996) The main objective of
the research ss’as to investigate how the s~steniof exceptional hardship
payments is operated by local authorities and, in particular, why
expenditure has van~dso significantly between authorities arid, overall,
has been lower than expected
The research methods comprised visits to 18 local rmiithonties during which
face—to—face interviews were coiiduicted with Housing Benefit managers
and assessment stafF and a telephone survey of Housing Benefit managers
in all authorities in Great Britain Successftrl interviews svere conducted
in 305 local authorities, a response rate of 75 per cent
Expenditure on exceptional Each local authority has an allocation of funds from central governnieiit
hardship payments for spending on exceptional hardship payments An authority is also
allowed to spend above this amount up to a ceilrng, the ~perrnitted total
In the first Full year of the exceptiomlal hardship payment scheme (1996/
97) local authorities spent 27 pen cent of the government allocation of
~(18 25 niillrori The results floin the survey suggest that expenditure
increased to around 4S per cent olt}ie government allocation iii 1997/
98 The government funding for exceptional hardship payments was,
therefore still under—spent to a considerable degree, arid overall
e~penid:tiiress as s~elIbelow the aggregate pernurred total’ ofL42 nullion
for all authorities
Nearly a third of the authorities in the suirvey (30 per cent) spent less than
ten per cent of their government allocation iii 1997198 A small number
of authorities (18) reported spendins~nothing All the authorities reporting
expenditure in excess of their government allocation including the two
highest spenders s~’hohad spent o’~ertwice the allocation sveie still within
their permitted totals
Two out olthree Housing Benefit managers thought that their allocation
was about right’, the most common reason being that it wa~e~pected
that demand for exceptional hardship pas~iiientswould increase in future