The Social Workers Union publishes new research showing hundreds of social workers forced to cover basic essentials for vulnerable people

Via the SWU:

Social Workers Union (SWU) research, which was contributed to by social workers across the UK, has uncovered hundreds of social workers saying they have felt compelled to step in and personally fund basic items for people they support – from food to energy prepayment meter top-ups.

The Crisis and Resilience Fund, which is due to begin on 1 April, is intended to support local authorities in England to provide faster emergency support for households in hardship. However, SWU is warning that the Fund may not go far enough to prevent social workers continuing to plug gaps themselves, particularly where crises arise suddenly or systems remain slow and bureaucratic.

More than 380 social workers affected by the issue took part in the research last summer, with three in four (75%) saying they were unable to claim back the costs they incurred on behalf of service users.

The overwhelming majority had to buy food (87%), while others were compelled to pay for public transport (36%), clothing (26%), cleaning supplies (24%), and top up energy prepayment meters (19%) to keep people warm.

Despite 86% of social workers trying to secure support via foodbanks, council-run household support funds and local charities, seven in ten times (70%) they were faced with an emergency that left no time to navigate complex or slow bureaucratic systems.

John McGowan, SWU General Secretary, has warned the findings expose a “broken support system”:

It cannot be right that social workers are left to plug the gaps in a broken support system with their own money. While the new Crisis and Resilience Fund is a welcome step, it will not solve the problem on its own if support remains slow, complex or hard to access in an emergency.

The data paints a stark picture of a safety net riddled with delays and gaps. The true test of the new Fund moving forward will be to see if it means that local and national governments act urgently to ensure help is there when it is needed.”

Though over half of social workers affected (58%) described such payments as rare, more than a quarter (27%) said they were dipping into their own pockets every month, with nearly one in ten (9%) doing so even more regularly. Most contributions were under £25, but one in twenty social workers spent more than £100.

Over a third (36%) said helping clients put their own finances at risk, highlighting how the cost-of-living crisis is now affecting not just vulnerable families, but the very workers tasked with protecting them.

Asked why they had resorted to providing direct financial support to service users, one social worker told researchers:

There are often several real forms to fill out to request financial support which are declined anyhow by managers. To save time – something we don’t often have – I’ve paid for items myself.

Another claimed that their local authority “has restricted food bank vouchers to 3 per year” while another stated that their “Service user was unable to access internet or navigate lengthy online forms.” One went so far as to say that there just was no longer any support left to apply for.