The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Lump-sum grant review to make minor repairs and make up for the difficulties of the current situation of recipients and social welfare staff

2021-07-06T22:35:12.587Z


The social service sector has been arguing over the government's Lump Sum Grant method. The management mostly supports it, and the front-line social workers oppose it. The review task force established by the Labour and Welfare Bureau issued a report on Monday (5th) to maintain the Lump Sum Grant system


01 view

Written by: Commentary Editing Room

2021-07-06 06:30

Last update date: 2021-07-06 06:30

The social service sector has been arguing over the government's Lump Sum Grant method. The management mostly supports it, and the front-line social workers oppose it.

The review task force set up by the Bureau of Labor and Welfare issued a report on Monday (5th), maintaining the lump sum funding system, only proposing that the government allocates a certain amount of funding to social welfare agencies to cope with the central administration, and also stipulates that the agency shall disclose the salary of senior management personnel on behalf of diplomatic affairs. The salary structure and establishment of permanent positions.

The report’s recommendations are only for minor repairs and supplements. The lump-sum funding system will not be fundamentally changed every day. The conflicts between the staff of the organization cannot be relieved, and it is difficult for the recipients to receive continuous and high-quality services.

The Lump Sum Grant is the funding method used by the Social Welfare Department to fund subvented social welfare organizations since 2001.

The funding basis is calculated based on the number of employees of the organization and the median of the civil service salary scale in April 2000, plus provident fund contributions and other expenses.

Since then, the amount of social worker salary subsidy has been capped at the median, and organizations can allocate their funds to salaries, projects and other operating expenses.

The original intent of the funding system change was to allow funding agencies to use resources flexibly and adjust their services according to changes in society.

In 2001, the government introduced the Lump Sum Grant Subsidy System. Many organizations faced the pressure of salary cuts and downsizing. They had to explore different resources and methods to maintain their services. So operating a social enterprise became one of the ways out.

(Information Picture/Photo by Zhang Haowei)

The report does not help employees feel at ease

The system has been implemented for two decades. Front-line social workers have repeatedly criticized the system for causing organizations to restrict hiring staff because they are worried about exceeding budgets, resulting in a continuous increase in front-line workloads. At the same time, they pointed out that the ranks within and between organizations are similar but the salary difference can be significant, and the management treatment is comparable. Director rank but at the same time capped the salary increase for employees, so that the salary does not reflect seniority.

In addition, many organizations have reserved funds for emergency situations in prestige, but the fact is that the reserves exceed 25% of the allowable level and do not give back to their employees.

Employees continue to change jobs and leave the industry, which has been troubled by the industry, and the management does not clamber with the frontline regarding resource allocation, which also undermines the unity and sense of belonging within the organization.

The task force put forward 30 recommendations to optimize the lump sum funding system, but it is basically intact. It is only for external attacks on organizations that have small coffers and management salaries are opaque. It is recommended that organizations disclose the salaries of the top three management staff and announce the lump sum funding. Reserves, as well as the salary structure and/or starting salary point of each permanent position, must disclose the annual financial report.

Transparency of information is of course better than closure, but the labor-management power relationship of social welfare organizations is not equal to that of other sectors. It is doubtful whether the publication of the organization's finances, rank salaries, and job information can reduce the situation of the upper and the thinner, and the organization's good use of finances.

Furthermore, the task force concluded that the median salary calculation funding is sufficient for the organization to pay the salary. It is only from the analysis of 17 out of 146 service agreement units selected by the consulting company, which may not be representative enough.

The Social Association, the General Society, the Social Association and members of the Social Welfare Legislative Council jointly urged a thorough reform of the "Lump Sum Grant" subsidy system.

(The author provides pictures)

The recipient has no benefit

The shortcomings of the Lump Sum Grant not only affect the jobs of social workers, but also affect service provision.

In addition to the lack of time for social workers, many organizations are not funded enough for their daily operations, so they are vying to bid for other funds or new government services.

Writing a plan certainly consumes considerable time and manpower. In the process, large organizations often have the upper hand, and small and medium-sized organizations have little room for development.

In addition, some of these plans have a life span of only two to three years. Services have the opportunity to change operators. Users may find it difficult to establish a long-term relationship with the organization. It is also difficult for employees to work deeply in the same position, which ultimately affects the effectiveness of the service.

The Secretary for Labour and Welfare Director Law Chi-kwong described in his blog a month ago that service bidding has nothing to do with the lump sum funding. He even pointed out that the industry’s linking the two made him "surprised". However, participating in service bidding has long been a part of the funding agencies’ lump sum funding mechanism. How can survival strategies be said to be irrelevant?

The Labour and Welfare Bureau stated that the SWD will discuss implementation details with stakeholders, and it is expected to be implemented gradually in the next financial year, which means that no further major changes will be made to the proposal.

It has been repeatedly reiterated that social services cannot completely apply market mechanisms and blindly pursue flexibility and competition in funding institutions and services.

The government has long been guilty of illness, and the government can no longer remain the same and stubbornly stubborn.

The bureau will report to the Legislative Council next Monday (12th) that members must fight for the government to allocate more funds according to actual needs to end the ills of the current welfare system.

[Lump Sum Grant] Rather than criticizing social welfare institutions for being fatter and thinner, it is better to strive for fatness and fatness

[Budget] One school with two social workers can’t solve the suffering of social workers, the lump-sum funding system must be reformed

[01 Viewpoint] Lump-sum grants are flexible and limited. How can poor financial management and services keep up?

Lump Sum Grant Labour and Welfare Bureau Luo Zhiguang 01 Viewpoint

Source: hk1

All news articles on 2021-07-06

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.