During April we
- responded to 60 enquiries
- made 43 decisions
- 11 community care grants
- 32 crisis grants
- upheld 7 (64%) of community care grants and 2 (6%) of crisis grants
- signposted an additional 38 applicants to other sources of assistance. 89% of these were calling us instead of their local council in error. The remaining 11% of applicants noted that they had accessibility issues relating to contacting the council as there was no freephone number
- received 18 enquiries from local council liaison contacts seeking advice on the guidance
Coming soon: Online training
We are excited to announce the upcoming launch of two new online training modules designed specifically for SWF decision makers:
- Analysis and Judgment
- Investigation Skills
These modules will be available later this month.
To support the rollout, information sessions will be held for SWF Managers and Training Leads. These sessions will introduce the new modules and offer an overview of their content and intended outcomes.
Stay tuned for more details!
Information gathering
The updated SWF guidance emphasises the importance of gathering evidence and demonstrating thorough consideration during decision-making.
We changed several decisions this month because local authorities had not fully taken relevant information into account - whether through differing interpretations, the way evidence was weighted, or by overlooking certain factors.
Case study: Low income
C, a representative, applied for a community care grant for several household items for A. A had to dispose of items following a deep clean of their home. A had struggled to maintain their tenancy due to severe mental health and substance use issues.
The council made an award in principle for a washing machine, bedroom and living room carpets and a mattress, pending the deep clean of the property. However, the council withdrew the award after discovering A had received earnings. At first tier review, the council assessed that A was not on a low income, despite receiving a qualifying benefit.
We reviewed the council's file and corresponded with C. We assessed that the eligibility criteria was met, as A was receiving a qualifying benefit and is therefore deemed to be on a low income, as set out in the guidance. We changed the council’s decision and asked them to award carpet for A’s living room and bedroom (the other items had already been sourced by C).
Recommendations
- Award A bedroom and living room carpet.
Feedback for the Council
- The information regarding low income was incorrectly interpreted.
- The decision letters were unclear, making it difficult for the applicant to understand the decision.
- The recording of their decision.
- The guidance was not followed regarding withdrawing the award
We asked the organisation to provide us with confirmation that the award was made within one week.
You can find more examples in the searchable case directory on our website.