ENG-1995 — Page 213

12 SOCIAL WELFARE

172

HONG KONG is not a welfare state but the community cares deeply about its state of welfare. Its residents expect the government to help the disadvantaged maintain an acceptable standard of living. The government plans to increase recurrent spending on social welfare by 26 per cent, in real terms, between 1993 and 1997. Spending in 1995-96 rose by 25.6 per cent to $12,918 million.

Current social security arrangements were comprehensively reviewed during 1995 by an inter-departmental working group chaired by the Director of Social Welfare. The primary task was to assess the adequacy of payment rates of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) for different categories of clients, in the light of the data on the spending patterns of different types of household including those on == CSSA collected in the 1994/95 Household Expenditure Survey.

The review also covered the administration of the CSSA Scheme with a view to improving services to clients. It is expected that the review will be completed in early 1996.

The responsibility for carrying out government policies on social welfare rests with the Director of Social Welfare. It is based on the objectives set out in three White Papers, the most recent being Equal Opportunities and Full Participation: A Better Tomorrow for All (1995).

The government is advised on social welfare policy by the Social Welfare Advi- sory Committee, covering the whole area of social welfare, and the Rehabilitation Advisory Committee (the former Rehabilitation Development Co-ordinating Com- mittee), on matters of rehabilitation. Committee members are appointed by the Governor, chaired by non-officials. The Social Welfare Department maintains a close working partnership with non-governmental organisations, most of which are affiliated with the Hong Kong Council of Social Service and subvented by the government.

Many services were expanded in 1995, with the addition of 894 day nursery places, 220 day créche places, 45 occasional child care places, 14 extended-hour child care service places, 13 small group homes, 18 home help teams, 21 urban hostels for single persons, 19 family activity and resource centres, 99 family caseworkers, 17 family aides, one clinical psychologist and three family life education workers. For young people, 22 additional school social workers were provided and six combined children and youth centres were established through the reprovisioning of existing centres. For the elderly, a further 22 places in homes for the aged, 397 care-and-attention home places, 10 social centres, five day-care centres and three multi-service centres were set up.